"Tristan Miller" <psychonaut RemoveThis @nothingisreal.com> wrote in message
news:1587967.xyMVXCe0gW@ID-187157.News.Individual.NET...
> Greetings.
>
> In article <SzpSf.18858$wH5.1338@trnddc02>, Derick Winkworth wrote:
>> Didn't the C128 version also have better graphics than the IBM PC?
>>
>> I'm curious for confirmation on this... also screenshots.
>
> No, they were the same graphics as the C64 version. The C64 and C128 had
> a
> 320×200 16-colour display, just like the display mode used by the IBM EGA
> Ultima V. However, EGA had no restrictions on which pixels on the screen
> could be which colour, whereas the Commodore machines had a peculiar video
> system whereby the screen was broken up into 8×8 blocks, and each block
> could contain at most two colours. (Exceptions were made for sprites,
> which in Ultima V were used only for projectiles such as arrows and magic
> axes.) Therefore the 16×16 tiles in the Commodore version could contain a
> maximum of eight different colours (two in each quadrant), whereas the
> 16×16 tiles in the EGA version could contain up to sixteen. In practice
> the Commodore tiles rarely contained more than two or three colours (one
> of which was almost invariably the black background).
>
> Regards,
> Tristan
>
Didn't the C64 also have a tendency to make multicoloured sprites look
chunkier? I seem to recall something like:
A "normal" sprite was made up of 24x21 pixels.
A multicoloured sprite was also made up by 24x21, but you had to colorize
the pixels in pairs, horizontally. Which I guess would make the actual
resolution of the sprite more like 12x21 instead of 24x21.
Of course, there's a slight chance I've only dreamed this.
LVD
>> Stay informed about: Commodore discs names 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
