Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Idle Apple

1993's 'Second Reality' Demo Recreated for the Apple II (deater.net) 34

Long-time Slashdot reader deater writes: The Second Reality demoscene demo from 1993 is one of the most well known demos of all time, pushing a 486 running DOS to its limits. There have been remakes for other architectures over the years, including Atari ST, Gameboy color, and Commodore 64. At this past Demosplash 2023 demoparty a version for the Apple II was released (and won 1st place), which was quite a challenge as the Apple II graphics have essentially none of the hardware acceleration available on the other platforms.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

1993's 'Second Reality' Demo Recreated for the Apple II

Comments Filter:
  • I am not an atomic playboy!

    2nd Reality always impressed me. So much in such little code, running on hardware that could barely support it.

    • Get down (Score:4, Interesting)

      by JBMcB ( 73720 ) on Sunday November 19, 2023 @01:59PM (#64016487)

      My friend had is 486 rigged to a surround receiver and, confirming the logo that shows up in the intro, 2nd Reality is actually recorded in Dolby Surround Sound. As there was no encoder, that means the sound effects were pre-encoded in surround sound, then assembled to reproduce those effects.

      • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        My friend had is 486 rigged to a surround receiver and, confirming the logo that shows up in the intro, 2nd Reality is actually recorded in Dolby Surround Sound. As there was no encoder, that means the sound effects were pre-encoded in surround sound, then assembled to reproduce those effects.

        Dolby Surround isn't anything magical, actually. It's only a little bit more than a Halfler Circuit [wikipedia.org].

        Matrix encoding and decoding of surround sound is well understood at this time- and a super cheap method was to use th

    • I often wonder if today's game code was built as efficiently as back then, how much better they would be. Back then they were limited by the hardware and code had to be tighter and less wasteful of resources. I've noticed that as hardware has improved by so many orders of magnitude, the quality of the gaming experience has not kept up at the same rate. I have to believe companies are trying to allow shittier coding be made up for hardware improvements; it's annoying as hell thinking about how games (and muc
      • A lot of code today is really inefficient because there's no reason to optimize it. But not game engines. That's one place where people still care about performance. A lot of work goes into squeezing out every last fps.

        I think a bigger difference is that there's a lot less cheating today. Old school demos are all about cheating. You try to do simple things that look like you're doing something complicated. Like pseudo 3D, or warping images in simple ways, or modifying a color lookup table to animate t

    • by Rei ( 128717 )

      There were IMHO more impressive other demos, but it definitely was still impressive and iconic for its era. Good music too (BTW, there's some good covers out there [youtube.com])

      One thing I think people tend to forget about the demoscene of that era is that they weren't just hampered by hardware, not even the lack of libraries, but even file formats. This was an era where sound tended to be stored in WAV files. When graphics were stored in formats like PCX or even BMP. Like, JPEG had just been invented 6 months before S

      • by La Gris ( 531858 )

        This no way this demo was played on a legacy Apple II. The sound at least seems to be handled by one of C64's Audio controller.
        The Apple II only had a CPU driven flip-flop, at best you could do square wave and if you were clever you'd be able to run two counters and produce duo tones like with the Electric Duet sequencer.

        In 1986 I was able to code a proof of concept text scrolling in a sine form. A lot of it was flattened pre-mapped STA ADDR.x with a specially designed font to be always aligned on a 7 pixel

        • I think itâ(TM)s a IIgs. Still technically a II but yeah, not what I think of when I read Apple II either.

          I grew up on a ][+ and still have a ][e kicking around somewhere!

          • I think itâ(TM)s a IIgs. Still technically a II but yeah, not what I think of when I read Apple II either.

            I grew up on a ][+ and still have a ][e kicking around somewhere!

            No. Not a IIgs.

            If it was, it would have been about 4 times faster, and not needed that Mockingboard interface for sound.

            That was a bog-standard ][ or ][+. Not even a //e.

        • Video shows that it the system was equipped with a Mockingboard, which brings AY sound chips and dedicated timers
        • This no way this demo was played on a legacy Apple II. The sound at least seems to be handled by one of C64's Audio controller.
          The Apple II only had a CPU driven flip-flop, at best you could do square wave and if you were clever you'd be able to run two counters and produce duo tones like with the Electric Duet sequencer.

          In 1986 I was able to code a proof of concept text scrolling in a sine form. A lot of it was flattened pre-mapped STA ADDR.x with a specially designed font to be always aligned on a 7 pixels boundary. The text scrolled on a VSYNC 7 pixels at a time (a whole octet in the graphic memory 8192 area). So it was very smooth, but required at least a IIe as the plain II or II+ did not have this VBL mapped at a memory address.

          The credits credit a Mockingboard running off a 6522 VIA for the sound.

          The startup also states a 65C02; but who knows? It looked like they started up a plain, ordinary Apple ][ or ][+.

          If they had used an Apple IIgs, they could have smoked that Mockingboard with the Ensoniq "Q-Chip", plus taken advantage of the 65816's 2 MHz Clock, and 16 bit operations. That last enhancement would have sped the graphics up immensely!

    • I bow before these geniuses

  • by iAmWaySmarterThanYou ( 10095012 ) on Sunday November 19, 2023 @01:56PM (#64016481)

    This is the dos one they made back then not the Apple one referenced in the article.

    https://demozoo.org/production... [demozoo.org]

    That's their site. It starts off black for the first several seconds, your viewer is not broken.

  • While it's a little interesting to see how they re-interpreted it on the less powerful hardware (as someone who remembers the original demo well), for the most part the results aren't that great. A lot of the cool-looking effects have been replaced with much less impressive interpretations, and some of the sequences are so messy and low-framerate that if you don't know what it's supposed to look like already, you probably wouldn't be able to figure it out.

    I don't know what kind of competition this was again

    • some of the sequences are so messy and low-framerate that if you don't know what it's supposed to look like already, you probably wouldn't be able to figure it out.

      If you weren't exactly rockin' the best rig when Second Reality originally came out, it had bad frame rates on a PC too.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Second realty was a radical shift for the demo scene. Previously the competition was all about getting the most out of a fixed hardware platform. A stock C64 or Amiga. Code was mostly assembly, memory was tight. Graphics and sound were limited and needed a lot of technical skill, as well as artistic.

        With Second Reality the focus shifted to algorithms. There was no reference hardware, graphics limitations were removed, as many 16 bit PCM should channels as you like...

        Personally I didn't like it very much, bu

  • by HalAtWork ( 926717 ) on Sunday November 19, 2023 @06:13PM (#64016887)

    One of the original coders from Future Crew, Samuli Syvähuoko aka Gore, commented on the video. Positive praise from an OG!

  • Don't have much to add, but yes I am a long-time reader. I started when this was still the "News" section on cmdrtaco's personal website "Chips and Dips". I found it after buying a Linux shirt from him due to a usenet posting on comp.os.linux.announce. I could have probably had a 4-digit account number but I thought it was annoying when logins were added and refused to sign up until much later.

Dynamically binding, you realize the magic. Statically binding, you see only the hierarchy.

Working...