Timeline for Why did early arcade games use vertical displays?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 31, 2020 at 14:26 | comment | added | Patrick Schlüter | The screen of the Xerox Alto was vertical with the beam arranged normally for top/left. | |
| Jan 28, 2020 at 11:55 | comment | added | Raffzahn | @thebusybee Many! In the early days it was maybe even the majority. Vector displays allow highres displays with small hardware. Bitmap needs RAM for all pixels (or all tiles plus much ROM), vector hardware only needs RAM for coordinates - or less with the CPU drawing. Examples are Armor Attack, Asteroids, BattleZone, Barrier , Demon, Eliminator - I guess there's the whole ABC, including true classic like Lunar Lander and Omega Race. They came as well in colour, like Black Widow, Box Bugs, Chaos Chasm, Star Wars & Empire Stricks Back, Tempest and Aztarac (eventually the last of this kind). | |
| Jan 28, 2020 at 7:02 | comment | added | the busybee | Down in my basement there's a PCB of Atari's Asteroids and its tube. Actually this is not driven like a TV set by writing lines of pixels. Instead it uses vectors that moves the ray directly from one coordinate to another. The coils are much smaller, and the choice of orientation is not based on technical requirements. The board can be switched for different types of application: cabinet, desk, ... -- I have no clue how many early arcade games used this technique. | |
| Jan 27, 2020 at 13:12 | comment | added | lvd | While the digital electronics might be indeed very different, the analog one, particularly that controlling the CRT tube -- obviously was of TV-style, and that allowed only drawing lines along the bigger side of the CRT. So most vertically-oriented arcade machines simply drew lines from down to up, filling screen left to right. And then it makes just a matter of taste (or, for example, a matter of cabinet size) how to orient the display, because that won't change any electronics. | |
| Jan 26, 2020 at 23:26 | comment | added | tylisirn | @Eight-BitGuru Zaxxon actually is isometric (which is special case of axonometric projection). The display timings it uses result in non-squre pixels which make the angles as drawn on screen only 0.26 to 0.52 degrees off true isometric. | |
| Jan 26, 2020 at 23:11 | comment | added | Raffzahn | @supercat it's extreme easy and has been done countless time. After all, we're only talking about 25% difference when fliping a tube. The tube itself doesn't need any change, more do the coils, as they are already meant to reach the whole area within a given frame timing. Likewise electronics just need some readjustment. Back in the days such modifications where common jobs. | |
| Jan 26, 2020 at 21:43 | comment | added | supercat | While one could construct a tube to have the longer axis be the one that scans more slowly, I don't think I'm aware of any video games ever having used such. A lot of engineering is needed to maintain linearity and focus over a wide range of beam angles, and I would expect that the coils mounted on most CRTs are optimized for the expected frequency ranges and deflection angles. It may be kinda sorta possible to rotate the yoke to swap X and Y, but I'd expect focus and linearity to suffer. | |
| Jan 26, 2020 at 20:13 | comment | added | Raffzahn | @Eight-BitGuru While technical true (BTW, Isometric is as well axonometric), it's what these games were commonly called - as usual, the public does not always care for exact naming, do they? :) | |
| Jan 26, 2020 at 20:02 | comment | added | Eight-Bit Guru | A minor point - Zaxxon isn't isometric, it's axonometric (hence the name). The projection angles are not 120 degrees. | |
| Jan 25, 2020 at 19:37 | history | answered | Raffzahn | CC BY-SA 4.0 |