Assembly Summer oldskool compo rules

category: parties [glöplog]
There might be someone thinking is there then a party in Finland were I could release my VIC-20, ZX Spectrum or MSX demo and have somewhat comparable competition, well atleast Simulaatio had a oldschool demo compo last year, so Simulaatio might have one again(?).

But even there you'd have to compete against PC / Amiga though
added on the 2016-01-27 19:01:27 by britelite britelite
I think any PC with 32Bit (386 and above) is beyond "oldschool".
8088 and the like would fit, though.

Might be more like "MS DOS" as a separate mid-level competition since that´s what it basically is most of the time anyway.
added on the 2016-01-27 19:12:53 by T$ T$
Britelite, correct. I don't have a proper solution for that. My shoddy suggestion is that Simulaatio should limit their hardware age to pre-1990 to even things out a bit.
added on the 2016-01-27 19:14:05 by branch branch
Branch: Agreed on everything u wrote. Simulaatio Oldschool rules allowed 486 (with no speed limit) and GUS against older hardware though, but no problems there.
added on the 2016-01-27 19:20:13 by mikron mikron
Oh this was already replied in the 4th page :D
added on the 2016-01-27 19:21:10 by mikron mikron
I don't think 486/50 would be "normal" 1992 scene pc hardware. Assembly 92 invitation implies the compo Amiga was just A500 + 512 trapdoor. Does anyone know what the compo PC was? Most certainly not 486/50, if in 1993 it was 486/33. I saw Unreal for the first time on a 386/40.
added on the 2016-01-27 19:49:31 by yzi yzi
Yzi, but could you not overclock 486/25 to 50Mhz by overcloking FSB? To be honest I have no idea how much 486/25 cost in 1992 because I got my first proper computer(486) in the late 90s.
added on the 2016-01-27 21:13:19 by branch branch
From https://www.kameli.net/demoresearch2/pioneerien_leluista.pdf
Vuoden 1991 tärkein lentosimulaattori vaati kunnolla toimiakseen vähintään 486-prosessorilla toimivan PC-koneen, joka tuohon aikaan maksoi lisälaitteineen vielä yli 19.000 mk.

19000 FIM = 4677 EUR in 2015 money according to this converter.
Though the article doesn't specify what kind of 486 machine that was.

A magazine from 1992 talks about new 486 machines http://raketti.pcuf.fi/yhdistys/pc-kayttaja-lehti/Lehti%201992-1.pdf

I guess it might be plausible with a stretch of imagination. But I can say machines like that were not common. Just like Amiga 3000. So if "1992" means Amiga 3000 and 486/33+VGA+SoundBlaster 1.5, then... it still doesn't feel very 1992 to me, but whatever. I'd rather have the specs taken from the actual Assembly 1992 demo compo machines. (anyone? whose PC it was?)

One more link:

(month unknown)
Compaq Computer introduces the Compaq Deskpro 486/50L computer. It features 8 MB RAM, 120 MB IDE hard drive, 50 MHz 486, 256 kB cache, seven EISA slots, 1.2 MB disk drive, 1.44 MB disk drive, 512 kB VGA. Price is US$11,299. [1067.255]
added on the 2016-01-27 21:55:33 by yzi yzi

Tseng ET6000 for the win. :)
added on the 2016-01-28 07:50:56 by Vousti Vousti
yzi: Fuck the trapdoor, it's 2016!
added on the 2016-01-28 07:52:00 by Vousti Vousti
Have you considered keeping the Amiga compo? It might not attract as many entries as last year but still, last year it had as many entries as the previous three years oldschool compos together and some good ones aswell. And then add option 1 (8-bit compo) to that...
added on the 2016-01-28 11:20:09 by malmix malmix
Yzi, fair enough.

So I was thinking about the second option once again.
Pentium is way better than a 060 at floating point performance, otherwise they are fairly similar in performance. I would've prefered something like Cyrix 5x86 or K5 for compo to even things a bit in floating point calculation but especially K5 isn't very common CPU and hard to get.
I fear that especially AGA will be set behind the Falcon( I assume Falcon would have the optional FPU inserted) and PC in the second option because you have to do C2P transformation and have slower FPU performance on Amiga. Is this a major problem or would coders rather use fixed point anyways.

Anyways I'm writing a new demo engine for 386 and better, regardless what the voting result will be.
added on the 2016-02-04 13:35:30 by branch branch
I assume Falcon would have the optional FPU inserted

Oh, oops. Shows how I don't know anything about 6888X FPUs. So optional 6888X is useless with 060, right? And still 68882 performance isn't very good compared to Pentium anyways.

But still 060 vs. Pentium in FPU performance.
added on the 2016-02-04 13:45:31 by branch branch
branch: That's all moot. People who depend on float performance when coding amiga demos don't deserve to be taken into consideration anyway.
3 , whatever the hardware power, a crowd pleaser entry could win
Korvkiosken, that's something I was thinking and even wrote it. So ok cool no argument there!
added on the 2016-02-04 18:11:33 by branch branch
added on the 2016-02-04 19:01:28 by luutifa luutifa
I don't think 486/50 would be "normal" 1992 scene pc hardware. Assembly 92 invitation implies the compo Amiga was just A500 + 512 trapdoor. Does anyone know what the compo PC was? Most certainly not 486/50, if in 1993 it was 486/33. I saw Unreal for the first time on a 386/40.

I agree. My first PC after I moved on from Amiga was it bought for xmas '93 (a few months just starting my first year of college doing computer studies ), it was a 486 dx33, 500 meg hdd with 512kb cirrus logic card, and a soundblaster16, and it was around £750. Within a year or so it had an amd dx4-100 and cdrom upgrade. (each upgrade was about a £100 each time)
added on the 2016-02-05 10:39:31 by Canopy Canopy
My issue with the third option is, if the compo PC is actually 1992 stuff, coding for it and especially testing on real hardware will be a lot more difficult. Fewer entries, more aftermath. If it's a 486, then the title should be 1993 and there should be a GUS in there. In my current opinion anyway.

Whose PC was the Asm 92 compo machine? Specs?

Branch: what sort of an engine are you making? Why not put some of your stuff in a "386+ DOS toolbox" thread or something. ;) I'll contribute.
added on the 2016-02-05 11:25:38 by yzi yzi
yzi: regarding the third option: as with most other platforms, people submitting a demo should preferrably bring their own hardware, and it's up to me and Jope to OK said hardware. we can provide hardware for most of the popular platforms, but you shouldn't count on it
added on the 2016-02-05 11:32:39 by britelite britelite
Bring your own device... What kind of PCs do you think you would OK, should the third option be chosen?
added on the 2016-02-05 18:06:39 by yzi yzi
Bring your own device... What kind of PCs do you think you would OK, should the third option be chosen?

One that has components that you could buy in 1992.

Of course the case doesn't have to be 1992, neither the power supply, but the bus solutions, the cpu model / speed and so on.
added on the 2016-02-09 09:21:16 by Jope Jope
I hope you'll announce the exact spec limits if option 3 gets chosen. Otherwise the whole thing will be nothing but a big gray area.

Here someone is talking about having tried using a GUS in a 486DX50 machine, in October 1992.

Hans Christian Egeberg from Norway had received his GUS in mid-October 1992 and installed it in a 486/33...

I wonder if those classify as normal people... ;)

Anyway, thanks for organizing. I started scavenging for old source codes and installed Open Watcom and stuff in Dosbox yesterday.
added on the 2016-02-09 17:47:21 by yzi yzi

You could add 040s to miggies in 1992 (http://aminet.net/docs/rview/FusionForty.txt), in fact you could buy A4000 in 1992 (http://aminet.net/gfx/3d/povray40.lha). But that wouldn't be oldschool if you ask me. A 16 bit competition with (A500, ST, 286 would be more realistic, at least my friends bought 286 when I had my A500).
added on the 2016-02-09 23:21:14 by Crumb Crumb
No way I'm going to tug my 286+287 machine to Messukeskus even if I live quite near. Weighs like a whale(20 kg / 44 lbs).
added on the 2016-02-10 00:08:19 by branch branch