 Previous Messages |
Posted By
JamesC
on 2003-07-28
|  Re: Plus4 and C64 differences
Leonardo, please see the SIDCard topic: Here. Although not currently in production, schematics are available on the 'net to make your own if you have a newer SID to spare. Luca (in Italy) is attempting to gauge the market for reproducing the SIDCard in quantity, and would probably appreciate your input.
|
|
Posted By
Lenoardo
on 2003-07-28
| Re: Plus4 and C64 differences
As I grew up as a C64 Owner, I used to play around with C16/Plus4 in the shops and loved its easy BASIC language compared to the C64.
I always wanted to own a C16 or Plus4, but 16bit computers soon came out and it was time to forget the 8bits.
Altought c16/plus4 wasnt as near as successful as the C64, I believe it could of been a big success had it come with a SID Chip like the C64.
I must admit the 2-Channel TED Sound is the only thing puts me off the C16/Plus4.
But learning the C16/Plus4 on emulators I relizeased it had a bigger range of beautiful colours, than the C64.
But I wish it didnt have to leave out the great SID Chip. :|
But C16/Plus is surely my 2nd favourite Commodore computer. 
|
|
Posted By
Spector
on 2003-06-25
| Re: Plus4 and C64 differences
Very interesting answers, it looks from what has been said that there is little in it. Which makes it even more of a shame that the Plus4 stalled - it would have been good seeing a battle between the two machines in the mid-eighties. Guess there was only room for one, and that was the one that was already established and marketed properly.
|
|
Posted By
MC
on 2003-06-25
 | Re: Plus4 and C64 differences
The processor of plus4 runs about 20-30% faster on the average than the processor of a C64. As vector effects are 99% CPU dependent, it means 20-30% better performance for the very same code on plus4.
Plussy rulz 
|
|
Posted By
SVS
on 2003-06-25
 | Re: Plus4 and C64 differences
From my tests, i.e., the new BOX command is 3 times speeder than standard BOX command
|
|
Posted By
SVS
on 2003-06-24
| Re: Plus4 and C64 differences
You could test the 3D capablies by using "Graphic tool" (Sorry Csabo, I've forgotten how to insert a direct link...).
This SW allows to write very short Basic lines to obtain fantastic fx. (Each coordinate allows 3rd datum for Z-axis).
|
|
Posted By
Csabo
on 2003-06-24
| Re: Mercenary
Welcome to Plus/4 World Scott, glad you like our site
Ah yeah, good old Mercenary - Escape from Targ. You are right, it was specifically written for the Plus/4 (although probably using the same codebase). I've just checked the C64 version, and they seem... well, just about the same. Like I said, any speed advantage on the Plus/4 would be really minimal...
|
|
Posted By
Scott
on 2003-06-24
| Re: Plus4 and C64 differences
My first posting here, great site.
I believe Mercenary was written specifically for the +4, so perhaps that would be a fair comparison between the 2 machines.
Scott
|
|
Posted By
Csabo
on 2003-06-24
| Re: Plus4 and C64 differences
Like bubis said, a bunch of those were converted to the Plus/4 (in fact, we have a separate category for Freespace). But because these are just conversions of the C64 counterparts, they won't really answer your question on whether the machine was more capable for 3D. Only a software that was specifically written for the Plus/4 would answer that...
The processors are the same, and if we take away the sprites, the graphics modes are almost the same. But my guess is, because of the faster speed of the Plus/4, maybe it could achieve slightly(!) higher framerates than the C64.
|
|
Posted By
bubis
on 2003-06-24
| Re: Plus4 and C64 differences
Here it is: Driller
|
|
Posted By
Spector
on 2003-06-24
| Plus4 and C64 differences
Is the plus4 more capable of handling 3D games like Driller than the C64? Since it doesn't use sprites as such, it would play to the plus4's advantage and to the C64's weaknesses. So, would it be better?
|
|
