From: dmb@case.ai.mit.edu (David Baggett)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Falcon030 -- Truth not Fiction
Date: 22 Dec 92 08:49:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: life.1h6kq4INNsuc
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: case.ai.mit.edu

In article <1h5ppkINNp78@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aa399@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Len Stys) writes:
>IS the Falcon030 with a Motorola 68030 16 MHz CPU powerful enough
>to produce games that require scaling, rotation, scrolling, and 3-D imaging?
>I'm talking WITHOUT a blitter and DSP chip.

In some video modes, yes.  In others, no.  It's probably fast enough
to handle any of the 320x200 modes.

>How much slower would a game such as "Sonic" run in TRUE color video
>vs. 256 color video?

This raises an interesting point.  You couldn't write a faithful Sonic
the Hedgehog for the Falcon, because Sonic relies heavily on the Sega's
hardware support for multiple scrolling planes.  Put simply, you can
have two "screens" that are overlapped and can be scrolled at different
rates.

A DSP won't help you do that kind of thing.  The blitter could
help, but probably not enough to make such things doable with a
16Mhz '030.  

This is an example of why Atari needed to put a graphics coprocessor
like the TI34010 on board.  Had they done that, the machine might
actually be competitive in the games market (though more as a game
console than a computer).

Fortunately for any would-be Sonic writers, the game runs in 320x200
(or the overlaced derivative; I'm not sure if they overlace it).

>How many people believe that 4 Megabytes should be the lowest amount
>of memory Atari should include with the Falcon030?

I vote for 4 megs as the minimum.

>Also explain WHY you believe it should be sold with this minimum
>instead of the others.

You should be able to do double-buffered animation in the 640x480 "true
color" mode.  This requires at least 2 megs; 4 megs for heavy-duty
stuff.

>Should the Falcon030 have had a graphics coprocessor in it?

Yes, a 34010 or 34020.  The companion floating point unit might be
handy too.  (Gotta love having a SPLINE opcode in your instruction
set.)

>How much of an advantage would the Falcon030 have with a graphics
>coprocessor in video games?

A *real* graphics coprocessor would make 90's games *possible*.  Things
like Steel Talons, Virtua Racing, and even Sonic the Hedgehog require
hardware support.  The 340x0 series have hardware for drawing lines,
copying screen regions (= sprites), etc.  The situation is similar to
that of virutal memory: you can do it without hardware support, but you
wouldn't want to, and it would be really slow.  I don't care how fast
your DSP chip is; you're still going to have to write code for
Bresenham lines.  With a 34010 you'd just load a few registers and then
do a LINE instruction.

Consider that the late 80's tank game Assault had at least one 34010 in
it to do the rotation and scaling.  (Rumor has it that there are two in
there, but I'm not sure if that's correct.)

>There is a rumor that the Jaguar will be similar to the Falcon030
>with a Motorola 68030 16 MHz CPU, but with a 64-bit graphics coprocessor.
>How many of you believe that this could be possible.  Why or why not?

Possible?  Anything's possible.  I have my doubts about the existance
of this mythical beast, but "a 64-bit graphics corprocessor" is not
hard to imagine.  If they're designing a custom chip when there are
already awesome off-the-shelf parts, though, I think they're being very
foolish.

>If it was possible for Atari to redesign the Falcon030 and incorporate
>this graphics processor and then slip it into the production line
>in the middle of next year, do you think it would be a good idea,
>why or why not?

Yes, they might actually have a prayer if they put a graphics 
coprocessor (not just a silly blitter) in there and marketed a
game console version of it.  (If they could get the game companies
to write titles for it, of course.)

>How many of you feel that a graphics coprocessor is so important to
>the success of the Falcon030 that it would be worth delaying the machine
>another 2 months to include one?

I doubt they could pull that off in 2 months since they've made the
Falcon a closed architecture (sorry), but if they can, they should.

>How many people believe that Atari should concentrate on music with
>the Falcon030?

They better do something; they're rapdily losing their MIDI market
to the Mac and PC.  (For which top-of-the-line music software is
still being written.)

>How many people believe that Atari should concentrate on entertainment
>with the Falcon030?

I do.  But I submit that Atari should drop out of the computer market
entirely and focus on game consoles, for three reasons:

1. It's the only thing they can do right, historically speaking.
2. There's more money in the console games market than in the home
   computer market.
3. The Atari name has been so defiled that it is now a joke in the
   computer industry.  It does, however, still carry weight in the
   home video games market in the minds of the moms and pops out
   there who will be buying Junior a game console.  Game consoles
   don't require a "company you trust" backing them up like computers
   do.

>How many people believe that the Falcon030 will be WAY underpowered
>as a home computer in Fall, 1993?  And why?

It's way underpowered NOW.  Comparison shoppers will look at "16" vs.
"66" and "50" and "33" and laugh.  Programs expand to fill all
available memory and CPU cycles.  Today's "perfectly good" applications
are tomorrow's "pitifully underpowered" or "difficult to use"
applications.

>How many people feel that they will be using a Falcon030 in 1995?

Question: How many people feel that Atari will exist in 1995?

>What is your greatest disappointment with the Falcon030?

It is 2-3 years too late, and it is yet ANOTHER Atari machine that is a
bitch to write games for because it doesn't have the CPU power to drive
its best games modes.

>What do you think is the greatest advantage that the Falcon030
>has?

A collection of rabid fans who will buy whatever comes out of Atari,
regardless of its quality.

>Are you going to buy a Falcon030?
>
>If not, WHY?

"Yesterday's hardware at today's prices."

>Do you have a Falcon030 computer already?

No, but I pretend to use one on TV.  :)

Dave Baggett
--
dmb@ai.mit.edu           MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory                  
ADVENTIONS: interactive fiction (text adventures) for the 90's!
dmb@ai.mit.edu *** Compu$erve: 76440,2671 *** GEnie: ADVENTIONS