Jaguar vs Falcon

All about games on the Falcon, TT & clones

Moderators: Mug UK, moondog/.tSCc., [ProToS], lp, Moderator Team

User avatar
leech
Atari Super Hero
Atari Super Hero
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:26 pm

Jaguar vs Falcon

Postby leech » Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:10 am

I'm curious, and maybe this should go into the 'Hardware' category, but throwing it in here since it's specifically about Games and capabilities between these two systems.

I was watching some videos about Falcon specific games, and Moongames came up. This really reminds me of Hoverstrike on the Jaguar.

While the Jaguar was released about a year after the Falcon, and it seems to me the R&D was probably from different teams, but how far behind is the Falcon from the Jaguar as far as capabilities? It's been many years since I had known all the specs on the Jag, but it seems to me both had a DSP, Jag had dedicated Graphics and Sound chips in them, while the 68k was meant for 'boot up'. And I know there have been efforts to port games from the Atari ST to the Jaguar, but could we see something like the Falcon versions of Ishar ported to the Jag? or maybe see the opposite, Rayman ported to the Falcon?

I feel, with the exception of the beautiful demos out there, the Falcon never really got pushed to it's limits. Granted I suppose the same could probably be said of the Jaguar. Especially the JagCD. I also feel that maybe Atari could have saved more face if they'd just slapped the Jaguar Tom/Jerry into the Falcon040 case and released it in a similar setup to the XEGS (console+computer). Granted they were already cutting too many corners here and there, and even the magazines at the time were picking up on that fact (I remember when the Falcon was released, it was blasted for having a slower processor than Atari's previous king, and a slower bus, etc). If they'd either skipped the Falcon030 release, or released it at the same time as the 040, and hadn't dropped all computer support in favor of releasing a console....

But then again, I think the writing was on the wall with their computer line, but they hadn't released a dedicated game console since the 7800, and that was two years too late to be relevant. I just kind of find it odd, yet fascinating how such a huge initial success was swallowed up by a corporation that complete destroyed the video game market through their greed, only to make one of the greatest innovators in the industry just fade away into something that currently has very little to do with what it used to be.

Don't get me wrong, I think Infogrames made so great games.. they just didn't make some of the best ones ever like Atari did, not to mention some of their fantastic hardware.

User avatar
1st1
Atari Super Hero
Atari Super Hero
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 11:48 am

Re: Jaguar vs Falcon

Postby 1st1 » Sun Nov 13, 2016 6:13 am

There was the idea to integrate the Jaguar chipset into a future Falcon, but this was not realized. But one thing on Jaguar chipset is unclear to me: Does it support higher resolutions than TV set modes (PAL/NTSC). like Videl does (800x600 and many others)? Without higher VGA resolutions such a Falcon with Jaguar chipset would have been incompetitive with the PC. Falcon still was in 1992 when it appeared.

The 64-Bit Atari Jaguar, the last hope for the company, had a great start. It can not be denied that the system was powerful, and the press and public alike, couldn't wait to get their hands on one. The machine was late to market, and the games were taking time to develop, but during 1994, it still seemed possible that the Jaguar would do it for Atari. There was even talk that the now defunct computer division might be resurrected with a system based on Jaguar technology, the share price was active again, and Atari was back in the lime-light, somewhere it had not been for quite a while.
See http://ftp.pigwa.net/stuff/mirror/www.a ... miels.html
Power without the Price. It's not a bug. It's a feature. _/|\_ATARI

1040STFM in PC-Tower (PAK68/2, OvrScn, 4 MB, 1GB SCSI, CD-ROM...) * 2x Falcon 030 32GB/14MB+ScrnBlstrIII * 2x TT030 73GB/20MB+Nova * 520/1040STFM * 520/1040STE * 260/520ST/+ * some Mega ST * 2x Mega STE 500MB/4MB+M.CoCo * Stacy * STBook * SLM605 * SLM804 * SLM605 * SMM804 * SH 204/205 * Megafile 30/44/60 * SF314 * SF354 * 5x Pofo * PC3

User avatar
mfro
Atari Super Hero
Atari Super Hero
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 10:33 am
Location: SW Germany

Re: Jaguar vs Falcon

Postby mfro » Sun Nov 13, 2016 7:01 am

Never had a Jag myself, but when reading through the docs available, it appears to me that the Jag chipset was nailed together in haste and contained a huge number of serious bugs that didn't allow it to really show its capabilities and made it a pain to code.

User avatar
Eero Tamminen
Atari God
Atari God
Posts: 1492
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:11 pm

Re: Jaguar vs Falcon

Postby Eero Tamminen » Sun Nov 13, 2016 10:06 am

leech wrote:I feel, with the exception of the beautiful demos out there, the Falcon never really got pushed to it's limits.


I think Douglas actually did that with BadMood. Better late than never! :-)

User avatar
leech
Atari Super Hero
Atari Super Hero
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:26 pm

Re: Jaguar vs Falcon

Postby leech » Mon Nov 14, 2016 9:33 pm

I still need to try that, my Falcon has been flaky lately... I need to replace the NVRAM again, I think I messed it up somehow.

User avatar
calimero
Atari God
Atari God
Posts: 1996
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:01 am
Location: STara Pazova, Serbia
Contact:

Re: Jaguar vs Falcon

Postby calimero » Tue Nov 15, 2016 9:31 am

Jaguar have much more bandwidth for moving sprites around than Falcon.
3D wise, Jaguar also can push more pixels than Falcon... You have Doom on both now so you can compare ;) On Jaguar Doom is supersmooth and on Falcon despite ultrahigh level of optimization and DSP utilisation it is still 3-4x time slower.
using Atari since 1986.http://wet.atari.orghttp://milan.kovac.cc/atari/software/ ・ Atari Falcon030/CT63/SV ・ Atari STe ・ Atari Mega4/MegaFile30/SM124 ・ Amiga 1200/PPC ・ Amiga 500 ・ C64 ・ ZX Spectrum ・ RPi ・ MagiC! ・ MiNT 1.18 ・ OS X

User avatar
christos
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Posts: 2280
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 8:24 pm
Location: Greece
Contact:

Re: Jaguar vs Falcon

Postby christos » Tue Nov 15, 2016 10:11 am

calimero wrote:Jaguar have much more bandwidth for moving sprites around than Falcon.
3D wise, Jaguar also can push more pixels than Falcon... You have Doom on both now so you can compare ;) On Jaguar Doom is supersmooth and on Falcon despite ultrahigh level of optimization and DSP utilisation it is still 3-4x time slower.


The framerate on jaguar doom is about 15-17fps. It's around 12 for the falcon. I wouldn't call it 3 or 4 times faster.
Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.
My Atari blog

STOT Email address: stot(NoSPAM)atari(DOT)org

EvilFranky
Atari Super Hero
Atari Super Hero
Posts: 842
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 10:49 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Jaguar vs Falcon

Postby EvilFranky » Tue Nov 15, 2016 11:07 am

Jaguar Doom isn't 3-4x faster than BadMood.

And you have to take into account BadMood is running the full Doom WAD with nothing missing, music, plus enhancements and the fact Doug has mentioned that a FULL rewrite (BadMood is based off the old code from 1997??) would extract further performance but would have been too much work.

Jaguar Doom is smoother, but at the expense of quality.

User avatar
dml
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Posts: 3435
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 9:33 am

Re: Jaguar vs Falcon

Postby dml » Tue Nov 15, 2016 2:34 pm

Yeah its hard to compare Doom on the two systems because they aren't really 1:1. Jag game code was rewritten by ID to make it run fast on a console - the Falcon one uses ported PC code with F030 bandages applied and tickrate throttled. The maps are also quite different, and vary dramatically in expense. The jag ones were selected down to work well on it.


For the record - this is the Falcon version running the full game code, but with the AI 'paused' to kill some of the expense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkW_W3u3Q-s

The window is not full size, but it is using full resolution pixels (not chunky columns, like the Jaguar) so the rendering width is a good bit larger than the Jag- while height is smaller. I don't have a video of it using chunky columns at full size but the speed is similar. The raw viewer runs faster still - since it's doing nothing but drawing and isn't capped at 12hz.


The Jaguar really has the edge since it can hardware-blit textured spans and columns in a single shot (or GPU them direct to the framebuffer). The Falcon can't do either of those things. Still they aren't *so* far apart in performance despite this.

User avatar
christos
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Posts: 2280
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 8:24 pm
Location: Greece
Contact:

Re: Jaguar vs Falcon

Postby christos » Tue Nov 15, 2016 6:35 pm

dml wrote:Yeah its hard to compare Doom on the two systems because they aren't really 1:1. Jag game code was rewritten by ID to make it run fast on a console - the Falcon one uses ported PC code with F030 bandages applied and tickrate throttled. The maps are also quite different, and vary dramatically in expense. The jag ones were selected down to work well on it.


Is it possible to run the jag wads on the falcon?
Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.
My Atari blog

STOT Email address: stot(NoSPAM)atari(DOT)org

TXG/MNX
Obsessive compulsive Atari behavior
Obsessive compulsive Atari behavior
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 10:05 am

Re: Jaguar vs Falcon

Postby TXG/MNX » Tue Nov 15, 2016 7:45 pm

nope not directly I think the Jag wad file is not 1:1 compatible with other wads.

User avatar
calimero
Atari God
Atari God
Posts: 1996
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:01 am
Location: STara Pazova, Serbia
Contact:

Re: Jaguar vs Falcon

Postby calimero » Tue Nov 15, 2016 11:00 pm

christos wrote:
calimero wrote:Jaguar have much more bandwidth for moving sprites around than Falcon.
3D wise, Jaguar also can push more pixels than Falcon... You have Doom on both now so you can compare ;) On Jaguar Doom is supersmooth and on Falcon despite ultrahigh level of optimization and DSP utilisation it is still 3-4x time slower.


The framerate on jaguar doom is about 15-17fps. It's around 12 for the falcon. I wouldn't call it 3 or 4 times faster.

really?!?
I never saw it in person, but I got impression (from magazines, youtube, interviews...) that it runs at 30FPS all the time: "best console doom ever"...!

So Doom on Jaguar is not even 320x200 but it use double resolution on X axis?!? :)
using Atari since 1986.http://wet.atari.orghttp://milan.kovac.cc/atari/software/ ・ Atari Falcon030/CT63/SV ・ Atari STe ・ Atari Mega4/MegaFile30/SM124 ・ Amiga 1200/PPC ・ Amiga 500 ・ C64 ・ ZX Spectrum ・ RPi ・ MagiC! ・ MiNT 1.18 ・ OS X

User avatar
leech
Atari Super Hero
Atari Super Hero
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:26 pm

Re: Jaguar vs Falcon

Postby leech » Wed Nov 16, 2016 12:50 am

Doom on Jaguar is also missing the music in game, right? Many reviews had said that it would have been the best version of Doom if it had the music and the last level had been the same. The levels (as I recall them) were almost completely the exact same as the PC version, except for the last one or two were different (and if I recall, one of those levels was actually a bit better than the level in the PC version) I'd have to look that up though, since that's memory from almost 20 years ago...

User avatar
Omikronman
Atari Super Hero
Atari Super Hero
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Jaguar vs Falcon

Postby Omikronman » Sat Nov 19, 2016 3:24 pm

Crown of Creation 3D pushed the Falcon to its limits too! :)

User avatar
soviet9922
Atari maniac
Atari maniac
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:06 pm

Re: Jaguar vs Falcon

Postby soviet9922 » Sat Nov 19, 2016 4:41 pm

The jaguar doom use the DSP to do graphic processing.
This was implemented by Romero himself.
That is the reason because theres no music in the game, also i suppose that when i imagine a jaguar based falcon it should have a 68030 and the jag have just a 68000.

TXG/MNX
Obsessive compulsive Atari behavior
Obsessive compulsive Atari behavior
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 10:05 am

Re: Jaguar vs Falcon

Postby TXG/MNX » Sat Nov 19, 2016 5:27 pm


User avatar
leech
Atari Super Hero
Atari Super Hero
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:26 pm

Re: Jaguar vs Falcon

Postby leech » Sat Nov 19, 2016 6:39 pm

soviet9922 wrote:The jaguar doom use the DSP to do graphic processing.
This was implemented by Romero himself.
That is the reason because theres no music in the game, also i suppose that when i imagine a jaguar based falcon it should have a 68030 and the jag have just a 68000.


Oops, I guess I forgot to mention in my original post that the build out of the Falcon040 was what I was thinking should have had the Tom/Jerry in it.

So yeah, an 040+ would have been in this imaginary / kick ass TOS machine.

User avatar
Hazzardus
Atariator
Atariator
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 10:43 pm
Location: Hove Beach

Re: Jaguar vs Falcon

Postby Hazzardus » Sat Jul 29, 2017 7:48 am

edit: was too off topic. Moved my original post to chat instead:
http://www.atari-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=32022&p=323517#p323517

mikro
Atari God
Atari God
Posts: 1097
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 11:11 am
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Contact:

Re: Jaguar vs Falcon

Postby mikro » Sat Jul 29, 2017 1:09 pm

soviet9922 wrote:The jaguar doom use the DSP to do graphic processing.
This was implemented by Romero himself.

John Romero is a designer. Maybe you're confusing it with the statement that he had to redesign some of the levels to fit Jaguar architecture/limits.

User avatar
leech
Atari Super Hero
Atari Super Hero
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:26 pm

Re: Jaguar vs Falcon

Postby leech » Sat Jul 29, 2017 4:12 pm

Yeah, I thought Carmack was the engine guy.

User avatar
soviet9922
Atari maniac
Atari maniac
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:06 pm

Re: Jaguar vs Falcon

Postby soviet9922 » Thu Aug 10, 2017 5:53 pm

mikro wrote:
soviet9922 wrote:The jaguar doom use the DSP to do graphic processing.
This was implemented by Romero himself.

John Romero is a designer. Maybe you're confusing it with the statement that he had to redesign some of the levels to fit Jaguar architecture/limits.


I believe reading that from some interview i found on the web, but my memory could be wrong.

Here is the DSP thingy history
http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/Atari_Jaguar

The Jaguar version is the only console port that does not feature any music during gameplay. This is because Jaguar's mathematics co-processor DSP chip also handles playing music. As Doom uses the DSP for most of the collision detection and other things, the DSP does not have enough free cycles to process music while running the other game functions. The port does, however, have music for the title and intermission screens. Possibly due to lack of music in the maps, the intermission screens feature renditions of selected tracks from the PC version soundtrack instead of a dedicated intermission track.

User avatar
leech
Atari Super Hero
Atari Super Hero
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:26 pm

Re: Jaguar vs Falcon

Postby leech » Thu Aug 10, 2017 7:32 pm

Omikronman wrote:Crown of Creation 3D pushed the Falcon to its limits too! :)


I played a bit of this on my PowerPad! It is seriously awesome, but wow am I terrible at it. Second mission, got hit a few times and my flight control was damaged so I just kept wandering around and couldn't hit anything after that.


Social Media

     

Return to “Games”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest