From: barnabas@terapin.com (Colin Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.games
Subject: Re: AGA-games
Date: 23 Jan 93 17:21:11 PST
Organization: BBS

In article <1993Jan21.060121.25716@wam.umd.edu>, davereed@wam.umd.edu (Michael
Robert Bromery) writes:
>   Don't forget Mindscape. They are sure to be on the list for the AGA Amiga
>on their ports. In fact, I found out something really interesting. Well, it
>took a while longer to get my version of Wing Commander apparently because
>they were revising it with(what amigaman told me (Amigaman -- The shop)) AGA
>support. 
>       Well, I have an ECS Agnus and an EHB Denise with workbench 2.04 and my
>friend has a 1.2 older amiga with the old chip set, but he may have EHB
Denise.
> Anyways, I noticed that the Wing Commander I got would actually revise it's
>graphics according to what version of the OS you are using. AGA support might
>actually really have been written for it. All I know is that it most
definitely
>looked better on my machine even on a television set. My TV adaptor is messed
up
>
>right now, but I happen to get a glimpse of it (By holding the adaptor(in a
way
>I don't prefer to do it, plus I can't let it go then)) in color, not just B&W.
>And what can I say?? It sure did improve on the graphics. When I played it on
>my friends 1.2 A500, I got 16-color dithered graphics. Ok, but nothing
compared
>to, my 32 color much less dithered graphics when on my 2.0 operating system.
>      I played mine from my harddrive and I wanted to look through the thing
>to find out how in the world they did it. In fact, they didn't have to make
thre
>e
>versions at all. They basically made the highest color version and then it
>dithered more and more as you went lower in your Kickstart version because
they
>assumed if you measure the graphics library version, it can tell you something
>about the amiga. All unaccelerated amigas that are slower come with less than
>2.0 operating system. Accelerated ones most often have 2.0 AGA has 3.0+.
>      I don't know if the first version did this and I'm not sure whether it
is
>true to include the AGA step up from the 2.0 graphics. AGA working support is
>there(they are even listed on the box). But it'll be a little time before I
can 
>actually test it. Probably a couple of weeks. 
>        Well, about the test. In order to find out what they were doing, I had

>to boot from floppy disks on my 2.0 machine to find out. Sure enough, it pops
>up my graphics library version, tests it, and uses it. I'm happy about it. It
>looks good. This game really gives incentive for 2.0 or aga machines depending
>on what you have below it. This is what I wanted, absolutely OS friendly.
>It counts as the fastest OS friendly simulator out there and beats the
>feel of even the Dynamix polygon games in terms of speed.(Sorry Dynamix) It 
>surely uses different routines, but still is 3Space. Well, I won't compare
>apples to oranges, giving that I like the Dynamix flight sims with the 
>accelerator, this is just speaking in terms of unnaccelerated machines. 
>It's true, if I see a game that not only uses bitmaps, but does 3Space in
>as much detail as Dynamix does polygons, then I can compare critically and
>take it apart to give a better speed synopsis. 
>         So, I take this time to throw a warning at all of you who want to get
>Wing Commander in the future(They will probably get this version) that OS
>version is important for better and better graphics. 1.2 isn't bad, especially
>in flight, but the animation graphics may look a little altered. 
>
>  ---- Hope this helps.
>    P.S. -- It's lookin pretty keen in 2.0+. Like I said, I'll give an up
>to 2.0 ROM review of this game within a couple of days. I'll test the 3.0
>and get back to you when I do. It maybe a couple of weeks though, I have an
>uncle with a 4000 I can try it. If it truly does use AGA graphics modes, I'm
>pretty sure I would be one of the first to have it, for my shipment came
>with the first group after revisions.
>
I've seen Wing commander on a 4000. It still looks like 16 color dithered
graphics to me. you sure it has better graphics under 2.+ that 1.2 or 1.3? That
seems very odd to me.