Comments on collisions

The author’s latest hiatus has ended with some responses to comments. A poster called “Tom” responded to De-debunking the author waffles about MSX part 2 with the following:

So your girlfriend dumped you for a C64 or what? Do you really believe it’s “very difficult” to make two sprites bounce off of each other on the C64? That’s some funny stuff right there! I think your group leader meant it would be difficult to calculate the exact ANGLE of the bounce based on the edges of the sprite, to get a realistic bounce. Simply detecting collision and making them bounce apart (reversing X or Y) is NOT difficult AT ALL! Sheesh!

To which the author replied:

Your email address starts off with vic20owner@ , so that says it all. You probably first learnt to program on a Commodore VIC-20.

Of course, this “logic” is flawed; being a VIC 20 owner doesn’t automatically mean that he initially learnt on the VIC or even that it was his first home computer.

According to my extensive research, the VIC-20 has the same version of BASIC built in as the Commodore 64, meaning Commodore BASIC V2.0. This means that it has no BASIC commands for colour, graphics, or sound either, but this was on simpler hardware than the C64, so that people had less addresses to PEEK and POKE. I don’t think that many people would have bought a VIC-20 if they’d been warned about this in advance, though.

The VIC 20 was the first home computer to sell a million units and there is absolutely no way that this would have happened if these things were really issues for potential computer owners in 1981; just the “word of mouth” feedback from existing users alone would have got in the way.

Your delusion about how detecting two sprites colliding on the C64, then making them bounce off each other in Commodore BASIC V2.0 is “not difficult at all” must be due to you learning how to do something similar on the VIC-20, but which was less complicated than on the C64.

This is, of course, complete and utter garbage; the C64 having hardware sprites makes what the author has been whining about incessantly easier than it would be on the VIC 20. So much for his supposedly “extensive research” eh, dear reader?

I made it clear to my C64 group leader what I wanted him to do. All he did was get the C64 to display numbers in the top left hand corner of the default text screen, which he said indicated when the two sprites collided. I wanted something to actually HAPPEN, even getting the sprites to stop at that point.

And something did happen, the number changed.

There was presumably a communication failure at some point, but we only have the author’s word that it wasn’t down to him and several years of blog posts that demonstrate his issues in that department to counter that statement. Your correspondent feels that, since we don’t have anything even approaching an accurate or unbiased account of events, the possibility offered by “Tom” is viable; that the C64 group leader took the word “bounce” to mean something far more complicated than the author actually was wanting.

If, as you say “Simply detecting collision and making them bounce apart (reversing X or Y) is NOT difficult AT ALL!” then I demand that you post another comment here, including a BASIC listing complete with lots of REM statements, showing how this is done.

The author has already seen how easy the collision detection can be because the C64 group leader demonstrated it to him decades ago and, since he’s already worked out a method that he’s satisfied with for his MSX2 program to handle the “bounce”, he could actually write it himself instead of naively expecting other people to do the work for him. Presumably doesn’t want to because that would negate some of the “arguments” he’s still vainly clinging to.

Slight edit: your correspondent would like to apologise for initially posting this without a title; he blames this on the pain killing medication he’s recently been taking.


This entry was posted in Commentary, Debunking and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Comments on collisions

  1. duckman777 says:

    I’m getting good laughs at the expense of his posts, and am really trying to understand why he is so hung up on attempting to defame a computer that has been out of production for 20 years.

    Oh, well … as long as he’s willing to put the nonsense out there, I guess I’ll continue to get some laughs from it.

    • TMR64 says:

      He seems to blame the C64 and by association Jack Tramiel for his own failings, presumably extending that point to cover what happened after his teenage years. What is surprising is the sheer arrogance, the belief that his personal opinions or experiences somehow outweigh not only those of everybody else but, apparently, reality.

      Still, responding to him gives me something to do of an evening if there’s nothing on the telly…

Comments are closed.