Running my Speccy on the Amstrad CPC

[Nitrowing]

Thanks @XTM,

Yes the MSX2 is very capable. Very little English language documentation though sadly

Mine's on it's way (from Japan)
The https://www.msx.org/ forum is very helpful

[+3code]

600x200 doesn't sound like double pixels too me ...

On screen, something like 2x vertically (not horizontally). But I haven't played with Japanese machines for a long time, I could be wrong.

[Arcachnar]

Sorry for being off topic, but which MSX2 did you get from Japan? (Its NTSC, right?) I always wanted to get one, but was never sure which one is the best.

On topic: Most from Japan are more like 640 × 200/400 (like PC 8801 or 9801) or 256×192 (like MSX or PC 6001) than 600 x 200 though.

[+3code]

On topic: Most from Japan are more like 640 × 200/400 (like PC 8801 or 9801) or 256×192 (like MSX or PC 6001) than 600 x 200 though.

Yes, that. The PC98 was simply a IBM PC compatible with a NEC proprietary graphic card IIRC (somehow as the unsuccessful Amstrad PC graphic card, but better).

[Jbizzel]

I don't know about Amstrads connected to their monitors and have never seen the TV modulator in reality.

Or are you saying on the CPC monitor the pixels were taller than wide? Did the monitor have some kinda screw you could turn to adjust the vertical height of the screen?

Here is a video I made of a modern cpc game on a real CRT monitor. It looks lovely even with out the plus extras

[PeterJ]

I don't know the detailed technicalities @AndyC , and I very much appreciate that different monitors (and emulators) can make things look very different. Also that modern screens are 16:9 or 16:10 compared to 4:3.

However these are the specifications

Mode 0: 160×200 pixels with 16 colors (4 bpp)
Mode 1: 320×200 pixels with 4 colors (2 bpp)

So if mode 0 is half the horizonal width (320/2 = 160), then the pixels are surely double width.






No 8bit computer is perfect, and this is not a dig at the CPC (It's a British designed machine which is fantastic, and has a very capable structured BASIC), but I just can't cope with those double width (or fat) pixels (whatever the machine). I like things square! Also 160 wide (without any fancy stuff going on) just seems far to narrow of a playing field in most games I've seen (admittedly most of them are lazy Spectrum conversions)

[Nitrowing]

Sorry for being off topic, but which MSX2 did you get from Japan? (Its NTSC, right?) I always wanted to get one, but was never sure which one is the best.

Panasonic MSX2 FS-A1 @PQR made me do it

[Arcachnar]

Oh. Sound good. Thank you. Do you already have any (NTSC) games for the MSX2? (it can play MSX1 and MSX2 games)

[AndyC]

Oh yes, they are definitely double the width of Mode 1 pixels, it's just that Mode 1 pixels aren't actually square either (they're almost square though). You can see that they're very close on a Speccy, because drawing a circle ends up with a circle. On the Amstrad doing the same (albeit using trig) ends up being slightly oval.

Don't get me wrong, they're still fat rectangles, it's just that looking at an emulator, which tends to approximate a Mode 1 pixel as square, tends to distort the image slightly and exaggerate the width somewhat. Like all 8 bit machines, it's often the skill of the artist compensating for the deficiencies of the hardware that makes all the difference in the end though.

[AndyC]

Also 160 wide (without any fancy stuff going on) just seems far to narrow of a playing field in most games I've seen (admittedly most of them are lazy Spectrum conversions)

Often those are only 128 pixels wide, as they shrink the screen width to be the equivalent of 32 Mode 1 characters wide (it makes maths easier and conveniently makes the screen dimensions match the Speccy)

[spider]

This is something I still need to get around to investigating properly while I still have a real CPC as there may be other emulators and/or updates now given when this one first appeared.