| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285 |
What is PETSCII - A guide for compo orgas
Lately, We've seen several cases of releases that don't adhere to PETSCII standard being entered into compos. Examples are: 11th place at Revision 2024 Textmode Graphics compo called "U-MOD3L", 4th place at Deadline 2024 Textmode Graphics compo called "Depth Logo with Obligatory Skull & Blood" and 2nd place at Xenium 2024 ASCII/ANSI/PETSCII compo called "Fantastic 4 Cracking Group logo".
The first mentioned example uses a custom character set instead of standard PETSCII. The second and third mentioned examples use multiple background colors and a custom combination of both "upper" and "lower" PETSCII character sets which is not possible in standard PETSCII.
Several PETSCII editors/paint programs out there allow for this faux/"fantasy" modes by untying the newcomer authors from original hardware restrictions. Some of them churn out C64 executables that utilize either normal character mode but with custom character set defined and written along with the displayer, ECM mode again with custom character set being written in the prg file, or downright hires bitmap mode (which is way out of even most lenient definition of "textmode graphics"). This furtherly confuses both newcomer authors and compo orgas because it leaves them under false impression that the file is compliant with standard PETSCII.
The shortest possible definition of PETSCII would be: if a picture can be recreated by using BASIC to print it on the screen (thx Groepaz) then it's a PETSCII. Or, if you can recreate it with no commands whatsoever (other than 2 POKEs for border/paper colors), by physically using cursor keys and the rest of the C64 keyboard Raquel Meyers style then it's a PETSCII for sure. I know compo orgas can't go writing BASIC programs or playing around with a real C64. Therefore I've attached a precise PETSCII specification at the bottom of this text. The origin of this specification is Shine's PETSCII World Discord server and the author is wbochar (a PETSCII artist and coder/maintainer of Petmate). Now, I'm aware that orgas can't reprint all this text when organizing a compo, but if they read and understand it, I'm sure they can distill the gist of it into something shorter that fits their needs. As long as they themselves are aware of the precise definition. Additionally, if future orgas are not sure about a specific entry, they can always contact Shine's PETSCII World on Discord or X, as the place is inhabited by nice people ready to help.
=======================================================================
Single Frame 'standard' PETSCII in PRG format
1. Uses built in character rom, UPPER or LOWER case (no mixing or flipping between cases).
2. No relocating ROM's, soft/custom roms, or copied ROM's.
3. petscii/data in standard (for that machine) screen and color memory area (if there is a color area)
4. Frame size is the default character editor dimensions for that platform (c64: 40x25 chars)
5. static background and border color (if that machine has that)
6. loops showing the picture (ie "jmp *")
7. No sprites, music, splits. rasterbars or other code manipulating the system. If you have to clarify something else thats legal, then assume No.
8. Auto starts from basic
So basically the PRG (program) on c64 just loads the screen chars and colors, sets the background, border and "pauses/loops" showing the pic.
Most of the time, I mean 99% we are talking about a c64 showing the petscii.
But technically, there are few platforms out there with their own distinct PETSCII/Colors/Frame implementations.
examples:
c64: 40x25 chars, 16 colors, background and border color.
PetX032: 40x25 or 80x25 chars, Mono Color (green/White), black background and no border color. There are multiple Char roms available for various pet versions..
vic20: 22x23 chars, Color is Fluid.., border 8 colors, background can have 16. The char roms are closer to the Pet than the c64
c128, c16... all have different color, screen size and rom differences..
So when you enter a compo or post a 'PETSCII' online.. we are usually talking about c64 40x25 chars.
If the compo has specific rules like "C64 Micro PETSCII 16x16 Mono Color" then override the values in the list above with the compo values.
Which means I can put 16 x 16 anywhere on the 40x25 screen with one color and choose another color for the Background, Border.
Any messing with the underlying char ROM's makes this a highres image that resembles a PETSCII, but is not a PETSCII.
The whole fun of this, is to work within the confines of PETSCII.
It's great to make art however you want to do it.. but if you want to call it a PETSCII image.. then those are the rules/guidelines.
There are many other formats that are PETSCII.. Wide and Long that scroll, animations, gfx demos. They all use the default charset/colors for that platform. |
|
| |
TheRyk
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 2244 |
Is it Groundhog Day already?
Quoting 'Myself quoting ChatGPZ'
Quoting 'ChatGPZ'If you can print it, it's PETSCII
see: Plain PETSCII Graphics Competition 2013
worked quite well for a decade as a definition
As for Deadline 2024, well, to me it was clear beforehand that competing with a C64 PETSCII single screen in that "Mixed Text Graphics" with PC-ANSII and whatnot scrolling forever was Harakiri, but for fun I competed, anyway. Appreciated that FlashParty tried to split sub categories as soon as it made sense, however. The good old "If there's 3 entries of something, it's an own category" rule is a good one imho. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285 |
3 invalid PETSCII entries in 3 big demoparties this year tell me that something isn’t working. Be it the definition, or orgas knowledge of the definition.
Pouet (I posted this text over there too) was and is the main channel for this, as there is bound to be orgas over there that are (obviously) not familiar with PETSCII specification. Of course, here at CSDb, most everyone is familiar with the specs. Here I was hoping for some thinking aloud from you all about what can be done to better educate orgas at big events. |
| |
Guinea_pig
Registered: Feb 2024
Posts: 1 |
I think visually, so I think pictures, or even a combined picture, demonstrating what makes an image a legal or illegal PETSCII would be in order. I might try my hand at it if I get a minute... |
| |
TheRyk
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 2244 |
In practice, it's of course a matter of
a) how much experience orga has (to improve that is 4gentE's point)
b) how obvious rule violations are to identify
c) luck/time
In the Plain PETSCII competitions I rip every single entry for the voting disk, so any fishy stuff like changing Charset, raster-hanky-panky, sprites is eliminated, anyway.
However, when I'm BCC orga and get some floppy disk on my table half an hour after before the deadline, that's a different story, I'm probably also not infallible. If something is obviously using sprites or more than one $D021 color, disqualifying or moving to other category is an option. If ROM is copied to RAM to manipulate a fistful of chars, it's not always easy to spot at first glance.
Would be easier if people just played fair or at least realized using other fonts than ROM can't be PETSCII per definition. |
| |
Shine
Registered: Jul 2012
Posts: 369 |
Would it be suited, to have a tool like "ValidPETSCII", which checks if it's 100% (native) PETSCII? |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
We even had people uploading "non PETSCII" as "PETSCII" entries here on csdb - the big problem here is how some "PETSCII" editors let you produce such images (combine upper/lowercase, or use foreign charsets) and then save it as executables. Which i can imagine is hard to grasp for newbies. |
| |
Jetboy
Registered: Jul 2006
Posts: 337 |
Quoting 4gentE or downright hires bitmap mode (which is way out of even most lenient definition of "textmode graphics").
Well, technically hires bitmap is text mode, where there is 1000 characters, and all appear only once, and are ordered from 0 to 999, and you cannot reorder them. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
that is in fact more true than one - hires mode is textmode with hardwired vram :) |
| |
spider-j
Registered: Oct 2004
Posts: 498 |
Quoting JetboyWell, technically hires bitmap is text mode, where there is 1000 characters, and all appear only once, and are ordered from 0 to 999, and you cannot reorder them.
I'm not sure what you mean by "technically". In my book the word "textmode"* implies that chars can be typed in from a keyboard.
*I'm only refering to Deadline compo – because it was called "textmode". Don't know about the other incidents. |
| |
Burglar
Registered: Dec 2004
Posts: 1101 |
whats the tldr of the first post? |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285 |
Quote:Well, technically hires bitmap is text mode, where there is 1000 characters, and all appear only once, and are ordered from 0 to 999, and you cannot reorder them.
I don’t think this technical curiosity is helpful for this conversation. At all. On the contrary, in fact. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285 |
Quote:whats the tldr of the first post?
There are PETSCII tools out there that ignore some (or all) native restrictions and churn out PETSCIIs that do not adhere to standard. Unknowingly, newbies use those tools and enter PETSCII compos. Orgas don’t know that these entries are invalid. The fact they were made by a “PETSCII tool” confuses them. That’s as short as it gets. It already happened 3 times on 3 big parties this year. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
Quote:I don’t think this technical curiosity is helpful for this conversation. At all. On the contrary, in fact
sorry, you are right |
| |
t0m3000
Registered: Feb 2024
Posts: 3 |
I'll write here again what I already wrote on pouet.
"For me as a beginner, PETSCII is the (plain) character set from the ROM, only one background color and 40x25 on the C64." |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5094 |
Quote: Quote:I don’t think this technical curiosity is helpful for this conversation. At all. On the contrary, in fact
sorry, you are right
so that means Groepaz == Jetboy, 2 csdb accounts ? |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
isn't it obvious? |
| |
Burglar
Registered: Dec 2004
Posts: 1101 |
Quote: Quote:whats the tldr of the first post?
There are PETSCII tools out there that ignore some (or all) native restrictions and churn out PETSCIIs that do not adhere to standard. Unknowingly, newbies use those tools and enter PETSCII compos. Orgas don’t know that these entries are invalid. The fact they were made by a “PETSCII tool” confuses them. That’s as short as it gets. It already happened 3 times on 3 big parties this year.
thanks :)
there's a simple solution to this, make a screenshot with vice and run it through png2prg 1.8:
png2prg -m petscii screenshot.png
if it fails, it's not petscii :) |
| |
Dr. TerrorZ
Registered: Oct 2013
Posts: 17 |
I consider PETSCII as a screen mode, the default C64 text environment. The rules in the first post then tell what's traditionally allowed/not allowed in "a PETSCII".
Hires is another screen mode. Multicolor is another screen mode. ECM is another screenmode. No matter if these are also somehow charmodes.
My biggest confusion comes from the multicolor textmode, because that can be achieved with a few POKEs and fulfills most requirements.
In the past I've tended to accept multicolor charmodes as some kind of fringe PETSCII, but I guess they also fail this "it's not the default screen mode" test. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285 |
It’s similar with ECM PETSCII. It deserves a new category. And a definition. Imho, these pics should use the first 64 chars from the ROM charset. But this is another subject, as all of these should not be allowed in a PETSCII compo in the first place.
@Burglar
Well, this sounds like a pretty elegant solution. Orgas behold!
P.S. As for invalid entry at this years’ Deadline - this is by far the lamest orga performance. The entry preview PNG has faux CRT RGB splits and it seems that PRG wasn’t even delivered, the download on scene.org is a .pscii flie. They didn’t mind this. I tried to warn them to take counsel on the entry in realtime during the show through their Discord, got quickly dismissed with “orgas know what they are doing”. |
| |
jmin
Registered: Feb 2024
Posts: 10 |
Anybody called for a EU regulation yet?
All joking aside, but I do feel that you're mixing different topics here and thus might (unintentionally) cross the line to boring gatekeeping.
I've had my fair share of "That's not PETSCII!" comments/PMs - even for a pic not tagged as PETSCII :D - and sure, using PETSCII Editor's export function has lead to some confusion as the charset is always copied here, but why not try helping those three newbies out instead of slamming down a "pure PETSCII only"-hammer on everyone. PETSCII is fun, MC PETSCII is ugly but fun, ECM PETSCII is challenging, but fun. Haven't done a PETSCII+rastabars or a PETSCII+sprites yet, but I'm sure it's fun too and I do wish that there are compos for each of those.
Clearer compo rules: yes, but keep them under 12 pages, please.
Better QA for compo entries: yes, but what about all the drama we're gonna miss out on?
Better tagging: yes, but that's not gonna happen here on CSDb, right?
Lastly, thanks for bringing this discussion onto various platforms instead of keeping it in a limited/locked-up group only ;-) |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2980 |
4gentE: This has nothing to do with orga ignorance, but rather with how lenient or strict any platform-specific rules (if they even exist) are interpreted.
It's all quite arbitrary anyways, and as for Deadline, in a multi-platform compo called "text mode", the entries were perfectly within the published (and yes, rather lenient regarding PETSCII) compo rules. Thus, there was no basis for disqualification.
That said, this kind of rule detail is always subject to change from party to party. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285 |
@Krill:
I’m looking for constructive suggestions here.
I understand what you said, but don’t understand where is it going?
Are you saying that everything is allright and nothing should be done?
About ignorance. The guy who made that #2 Xenium faux PETSCII entry felt encouraged enough to insult me on Pouet. I warned Darya about the dubious entry, suggested they take counsel during the show. Dismissed. Venom makes fun of this on Pouet. Why did they even accept something that was not .prg and not .d64 as PETSCII? How would you call this if not ignorance? Dontgiveafuckery perhaps? Not knowing something is not a disgrace. Not wanting to learn and lashing out at ones who know and try to teach you is a disgrace. For example, psenough did not know the exact PETSCII specs, so he asked. Now he knows. This is and should be normal, rational behaviour.
We need specs everyone understands. Letting it all go for anybody to do whatever he/she wants (and out of ignorance, not mischief mind you) and not trying to educate is a disaster. What goes next? And why? They don’t let MP3s in “tracked music” compos do they?
@jmin:
Why not trying to help the newbies out?
That’s exactly what I’m trying to do. Help the newbies out. Tools that hide the facts from them and make them “cheat” are not helping them. They are adding to confusion and are putting them in “entitled defense” mode. Like that guy who was insistent that original PET charset was in fact also present in C64 ROM, and that he was the first in history to discover it. Do you think, if he continued with this hobby, he will be very happy that a sneaky tool made him say that?
Like I mentioned somewhere, I’m willing to show any of them how to code the PETSCII displayer themselves because it’s embarassingly trivial as we all know. I don’t think usage of instant tools that do things user does not understand under the hood is really what this hobby is about in the long(er) run.
Arrogant or ignorant orgas are also doing these newbies a disservice. |
| |
jmin
Registered: Feb 2024
Posts: 10 |
@4gentE: Gotcha. A "Check your PETSCII submission"-tool would indeed be helpfull for both, orgas and graphicians and most likely would solve a lot of confusion, stress and frustration and at the same time might even lower the barrier for folks starting out. Not sure though if .png should be the input format; most tools do offer a more "native" export format that could be used while highlighting the fact that PETSCII isn't pixels but just text typed out in the machine's build-in charset - IMHO plain, MC and ECM PETSCII should still be supported though ;-)
Further, coding a "PETSCII displayer [...] because it’s embarassingly trivial" is not that trivial if you have no connection to coding at all (and not everyone's goal either; i don't see me (yet) coding a hires viewer) but again, the "Check your PETSCII submission" tool could solve that problem too. Output could be a high quality .prg file which again would make everyone happy.
Persuading orgas to require usage of such a tool is a different story though but who knows, if it makes life easier for everyone, it might work out. PETSCII pros are hopefully open-minded enough for using that tool too without feeling belittled. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
Quote:Not sure though if .png should be the input format; most tools do offer a more "native" export format that could be used
Many tools export .prg files with displayer, or some crazy other format. I am trying to add more of them to petconv right now :)
However, i think a toolchain that is suitable for quick checking should involve VICE for running the provided prg and making a screenshot (this can be automated fully) and then some tool can be used to check the result for valid petscii. Else you'd have to require the picture being provided in some particular format, which will not be very practical.
PS:
x64sc -default -console -warp -limitcycles 100000 -exitscreenshot foo.png -autostartprgmode 1 foo.prg
(experiment with number of cycles so it doesnt take too long and still provides proper result) |
| |
WVL
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 902 |
I never tried, but png2prg also allows to convert a png to petscii. I don't know if the conversion is perfect, but wouldnt a simple check with png2prg be all that is needed to confirm PETSCII-ness?
I bet Burglar could even add it to the Votox engine. |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2980 |
Quoting 4gentEAre you saying that everything is allright and nothing should be done? The only problem, perhaps, is allowing to mislabel the entry to "PETSCII" rather than "enhanced/loose/somethinglike PETSCII", but the entry was still conforming to the rules. |
| |
Burglar
Registered: Dec 2004
Posts: 1101 |
Quoting jminFurther, coding a "PETSCII displayer [...] because it’s embarassingly trivial" is not that trivial if you have no connection to coding at all (and not everyone's goal either; i don't see me (yet) coding a hires viewer) but again, the "Check your PETSCII submission" tool could solve that problem too. Output could be a high quality .prg file which again would make everyone happy.
I already shared the tool to do all that above, add the -display flag and you get a crunched prg with displayer.
Quoting chatGPZHowever, i think a toolchain that is suitable for quick checking should involve VICE for running the provided prg and making a screenshot (this can be automated fully) and then some tool can be used to check the result for valid petscii.
This is how votox (X voting system, also used at Transmission) works. Except I have to press Alt-F4 to close vice (waiting for a good screenshot moment with demos/4ks).
It's trivial for me to add petscii validation in the process.
So far I only doubted once that an entry was true petscii, I was wrong and Ernie won the compo :P |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285 |
@Krill
Quote:but the entry was still conforming to the rules.
The rules said “no custom fonts”. The entry that used chars from both sets can either be said to use a custom font or it’s a bitmap.
If we go the "enhanced/loose/somethinglike PETSCII" route, meaning allowing custom charsets, then the compo in fact becomes “tiled gfx compo”, and every NES game screen, every NES gfx complies, also all those superb technolandscapes Ray Manta expertly crafts. And this kind of compo would be awesome, just awsome. But it’s not Textmode (ASCII / ANSI / PETSCII).
Oh, and all those beautiful logos from Raistlin’s last compo. All of them are custom char gfx.
Please contribute something helpful (like everybody else here, big THANKS everybody!) Please. What you’re writing doesn’t really help. Normally, I like blabbering away with you like there’s no tomorrow, but I don’t feel like going back and forth with you around exact wording/unimportant stuff in this case. No “well, tecnically”-s. I really really care about this subject. And I’ve talked to quite a few PETSCII artists about it. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
Quote:So far I only doubted once that an entry was true petscii, I was wrong and Ernie won the compo :P
LOL (awesome gfx) |
| |
jmin
Registered: Feb 2024
Posts: 10 |
@Burglar: I know, I was looking at it from the three contestants' point of view mentioned in the initial post and I guess using a command line tool wasn't on their mind at all for verifying or optimize anything beyond their editor's output. Here, a hurdle to take before submission might be key. Well, except, newbies should be kept out of a compo; an actual argument that I've read before too "to keep high level of quality" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
BTW, I was in a similar spot when starting out earlier this year during a vacation only having a Chromebook available; tripped over unexpected stuff like correct screenshot size for CSDb and correct color palette for the compo in question and so on.
Anyway, focus might be more on orgas, so yes, those guys don't have any excuse not using already available tools for validation. |
| |
Burglar
Registered: Dec 2004
Posts: 1101 |
Quoting 4gentEPlease contribute something helpful (like everybody else here, big THANKS everybody!) Please.
I think what Krill points out does help, he is merely pointing out that orgas control what is allowed and not, they will interpret their rules their way.
I'm guessing a small lack of understanding of the petscii format is the root cause of this. They simply didn't check, didn't care or had an "we accept everything" policy to save time.
Mind you, there were a huge amount of entries and huge delays. For the compo team, these are very very taxing stressful times (been there, done that). "looks like its petscii" was good enough for them, I'm sure :)
And why they dismissed you on other chats, well, when ppl just completed organizing a very complex but successful event, you're gonna tell someone complaining in your style to f off ;) |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285 |
Quote:Anyway, focus might be more on orgas, so yes, those guys don't have any excuse not using already available tools for validation.
That! Thanks! Now you’re talking! Newcomer PETSCII artists just use the tools that are out there. Those tools lie to them. This is not the artists’ fault, nor tool coders’. It’s just a circumstance we are witnessing. Orgas have to be made aware of that, provided with means to check entries, and go the extra mile. There’s no other proper way out. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285 |
Quote:And why they dismissed you on other chats, well, when ppl just completed organizing a very complex but successful event, you're gonna tell someone complaining in your style to f off ;)
Haha I get it, I really do, that’s why I took no offense.
Quote:"looks like its petscii" was good enough for them.
This is a damn shame. A damn shame. “UNESCO cultural heritage” hahaha. |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2980 |
Quoting 4gentEThe rules said “no custom fonts”. That's in another section, not "PETSCII" specifically. Note how "ansimation" or "iCE colours" are not PETSCII-related either. It is somewhat ambiguous, granted.
Quoting 4gentEIf we go the "enhanced/loose/somethinglike PETSCII" route, meaning allowing custom charsets, then the compo in fact becomes “tiled gfx compo” No, it won't, at least not necessarily. Rules can be fine-tuned to disallow certain things but not others. Again, it's all arbitrary.
I don't see why "something-like PETSCII" should be disallowed in a multi-platform compo, as long as it's clearly labelled as not strictly PETSCII. The C-64-only compos/parties may go the hardcore route. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285 |
@Krill
OK fair enough. You’re saying there’s more than one way out of it.
1) Orgas can get their shit together and have a true PETSCII compo.
2) Or they can continue to act ignorant and have a "something-like PETSCII" compo.
Is it just me or (2) sounds lame and indolent? Like let’s have a “something-like tennis” tournament because we couldn’t be assed to learn tennis rules. Why would anyone want to go down the route (2) is beyond me. Past compos declared “PETSCII” and failed to deliver. If they want to have a “something-like PETSCII” compo in the future, they should declare it that way so that I (and some more people perhaps) don’t contribute to that. Oh, by the way, shouldn’t orgas ask around actual PETSCII artists for their opinion? If not, then who should make that decision? People who were not aware of PETSCII specs in the first place? Why?
How about “something like C64 demo”? Or “something like MultiColor” where you allow for 320x200 pixels instead of 2x1 pixel bricks while we’re at it? |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2980 |
Quoting 4gentEOh, by the way, shouldn’t orgas ask around actual PETSCII artists for their opinion? If not, then who should make that decision? People who were not aware of PETSCII specs in the first place? Rest assured that the Deadline orga team has a few members who know exactly what PETSCII is and what isn't. The point is still that it's a mixed platform compo, and as such you're comparing apples to oranges either way.
And if you feel so strongly about this, why, go and make your own compo/party/demo about it. =) |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285 |
Quote:Rest assured that the Deadline orga team has a few members who know exactly what PETSCII is and what isn't.
Either I call “bullshit” on that or that “few members” did not look at the offending entry. Personally, I don’t buy this being a decision they pondered on. I’m telling you, it was the only entry that neither had a proper screenshot nor executable. I think they just didn’t know PETSCII specs. They still don’t. And you’re not teaching them. Simple as that. On the other hand, if they did know the specs and decided to go with it like they did, things look even worse. |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2980 |
So where's your compo/party/demo about it? :) |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285 |
@Krill:
You sabotaged this thread that was important to me. After I literally begged you not to. You just can’t help it, can you? Thanks a lot mate. |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2980 |
4gentE: Not quite sure what you expect. Both of us basically repeated our points several times without an agreement. As usual. Please excuse if ranting about my fellow orgas rubs me the wrong way. =) |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285 |
…and before you came people were starting to come up with actual solutions. Thanks again, it will be remembered. |
| |
MagerValp
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1078 |
Why does it necessarily have to be ignorant compo organizers? For a mixed platform text mode compo, it may very well be fine with custom fonts and enhanced color schemes, that's really up to the organizers. PETSCII is just a strict subset of that, and as we've seen not all C64 entries will qualify as been PETSCII graphics — causing some hilarious comment threads.
For a pure C64 compo it's easy enough to define PETSCII, but for a mixed platform compo it's a lot trickier but you can at least have rules like "rom font only, text mode only" which would lock it down somewhat. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
Mixed compos are a tricky case - i can see how certain loose interpretation of "what should be" produces outrage.
At Breakpoint/Revision we used to apply a pretty strict definition for that matter (no idea of that is still the case) |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285 |
Quote:it may very well be fine with custom fonts and enhanced color schemes
Then we’re back to tile based gfx, as I described earlier. Text mode “with custom fonts and enhanced color schemes” is is not text mode at all, it’s “tile based gfx”. And it’s fine. But I have this feeling that if you entered with a screen from Super Mario Bros, you’d be disqualified. Yet it’s perfectly legit according to your description above. Plus, if it didn’t get disqualified (which I claim is impossible) then all those ASCII / ANSI artists would be “delighted” by your winning “textmode” entry.
See, I thought long and hard about this. Had some conversations with PETSCII artists. Tried to go about it from all ends. I still think it should be “real PETSCII” or nothing. Nobody said they must support PETSCII. They can also go with either ASCII/ANSI only having PETSCII in a separate compo, or without PETSCII whatsoever if PETSCII specs pose a too tall a hurdle for them. Just don’t go with “almost-PETSCII” specs because it’s lame. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
You could also look at it from a different angle: talk to some ANSI artists and let them tell you how strict they take it(*). You'd be surprised :)
(*) very |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285 |
@ChatGPZ:
Exactly. ANSI is a “serious art”. ASCII is a “serious art”. That’s why they have strict rules which no one in his/her right mind would go against. But PETSCII by not having strict rules is never going to be “serious”. And the only one to blame is us. So if this is OK with existing PETSCII artists and other C64 enthusiasts, if they are OK with disrespect PETSCII gets, being treated as a retarded child of the textmode family, then I’m alone in seeing its potential. To me, the worst thing about this all is that what we’ve witnessed this year with faux PETSCII is new to me. Rules seemed to have been respected until recently, so PETSCII was also “serious art” until recently. And we all should do what about this relatively new transgression? Just let it go? Pretend rules never existed? Why exactly should we do that? |
| |
MagerValp
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1078 |
Whereas in the Amiga ASCII scene the use of custom fonts seem to be encouraged. Different platforms, different traditions.
But even if we standardize PETSCII as text mode and rom font only (aka can be printed from BASIC (which, again, I can do a shit ton of tricks in BASIC if that's your definition... :)), is that upper case or lower case? ECM allowed? What about scrolling? What about animation? And if you allow scrolling or animation, is it only BBS style printing or do you allow smooth scroll and animation frames or multiple pages? All of the above have been used in "proper" PETSCII compos. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
Quote:Whereas in the Amiga ASCII scene the use of custom fonts seem to be encouraged.
Not really - the default is "Topaz" (Or an alternative one that is very similar). Nothing custom though.
Revision:
Quote:
Amiga ASCII : Will be shown using DMG’s Amiga fonts.
Evoke:
Quote:
PabloDraw’s built-in Topaz font will be used for displaying Amiga style ASCII.
Nordlicht:
Quote:
Amiga ASCII’s will use the built-in topaz font for displaying
Deadline:
Quote:
Amiga ASCII/ANSI can use any font supported by AnsiLove; the default is “topaz”.
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
Quote:But even if we standardize PETSCII as text mode and rom font only (aka can be printed from BASIC (which, again, I can do a shit ton of tricks in BASIC if that's your definition... :)), is that upper case or lower case? ECM allowed? What about scrolling? What about animation? And if you allow scrolling or animation, is it only BBS style printing or do you allow smooth scroll and animation frames or multiple pages? All of the above have been used in "proper" PETSCII compos.
Pretty much all compos have had a "no animations" rule since forever. Some have "one screen" now to eliminate the converted mega large ANSI stuff that became popular in the past years.
That said, having to deliver the pictures as .seq files - very similar to the requirement for PC or Amiga - would solve pretty much all problems outlines here. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285 |
Quote:But even if we standardize PETSCII as text mode and rom font only
IF we standardize? I thought it was standardized already. Why don’t we look at ALL (that’s 100%) PETSCII entries at CSDb. They all are text mode and rom font only. Some are taller, like 40x50 or something. That looks as an established standard to me. “Lowercase or uppercase”? What? Either. As in ONE or ANOTHER. You know that atleast as well as me. Why are we playing these games? Who gains from this resistance to continued compliance to already existing standards? I don’t understand. |
| |
MagerValp
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1078 |
Quoting chatGPZQuote:Whereas in the Amiga ASCII scene the use of custom fonts seem to be encouraged.
Not really - the default is "Topaz" (Or an alternative one that is very similar). Nothing custom though.
Well yes it's not anything goes, but it's definitely not just Topaz and only Topaz. As a bare minimum there's Kickstart 1.x and 2.x Topaz to deal with, but places like https://www.asciiarena.se default to mOsOul with MicroKnight and P0T-NOoDLE as options.
So if we're talking about multi platform text mode compos, even a rule such as ROM font only becomes tricky. |
| |
wbochar
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 29 |
@MagerValp:
Standard PETSCII is whatever the basic/screen editor supports for that unmodified platform. It's a static image. If you were entering in basic on a c64.. you poke the 2 colours for BG/Border then use the screen editor to create the image. C= + Shift switches the Uppercase/lowercase mode. That's what is meant when using basic to enter a PETSCII.
Sure you can have other types of PETSCII variant images out there, like there are in other image categories. But there is always a base version of the format. That is what being discussed here.
@chatGPZ: SEQ file as part of the submission, like a work stage. I would submit a PRG for the ease of the compo and an seq as a work proof. It would also help new people to validate their work against their tools. |
| |
MagerValp
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1078 |
Quoting 4gentE
IF we standardize? I thought it was standardized already. Why don’t we look at ALL (that’s 100%) PETSCII entries at CSDb.
Yes, CSDb has a fairly clear standard of what PETSCII is, but aren't you talking about multi platform text mode compos?
CSDb's definition makes perfect sense for a pure C64 PETSCII compo, but it isn't necessarily the best option for a multi platform compo.
This is fine. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285 |
Quote:So if we're talking about multi platform text mode compos, even a rule such as ROM font only becomes tricky.
As I’ve been told, in Deadline’s multi platform text mode compo, there were rules exclusive to each format. For example, PETSCII was limited to 40x25 while for Amiga multiscreen was allowed. It’s similar at other parties. I’m not suggesting this is either a good or a bad solution, I just want to say that the problem described in the quote is thus not a problem at all. Or, to be precise, it’s not a newly introduced problem. |
| |
MagerValp
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1078 |
Quoting wbocharStandard PETSCII is whatever the basic/screen editor supports for that unmodified platform. It's a static image. If you were entering in basic on a c64.. you poke the 2 colours for BG/Border then use the screen editor to create the image. C= + Shift switches the Uppercase/lowercase mode. That's what is meant when using basic to enter a PETSCII.
That's an inadequate or at least incomplete definition for the TED machines. The 121 colors are only available by directly poking color ram. Printing or typing only gives you a 16 color subset of the palette. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
Quote:@chatGPZ: SEQ file as part of the submission, like a work stage. I would submit a PRG for the ease of the compo and an seq as a work proof. It would also help new people to validate their work against their tools.
For the ease of the compo, some (pc based) viewer could be used that supports them - just like it is usually done for PC or Amiga. Having to deal with native executables actually makes it more annoying for the organizers. |
| |
MagerValp
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1078 |
Quoting chatGPZPretty much all compos have had a "no animations" rule since forever. Some have "one screen" now to eliminate the converted mega large ANSI stuff that became popular in the past years.
Well, here's the PETSCII compo winner from Pågadata 2024, with multi screen smooth scroll and animation: Kojak
Categorized as PETSCII on CSDb (as it should be, imho). |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285 |
Excuse me for asking, but what exactly do you want? I see you are pushing back from whatever angle. So first it was “this won’t work for multi-platform, only PETSCII exclusively”. Now it’s “Aha! But what about trying to do it on a TED machine from BASIC”? Please, don’t take offense by my asking you what do you want? I’ll tell you what I want. I want already established standards to be respected in the future too. It seems that big party orgas have trouble understanding PETSCII standards in the light of new tools that allow for impossible pics. If you’re playing devil’s advocate, so that we can come up with a more bullet proof definition I thank you and salute you sir! But if you’re just giving artificial pushback only for pushback sake, please stop. Allow me to apologize once more if I misunderstood something as English is not my native language. Thank you sir. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
Quote:Well, here's the PETSCII compo winner from Pågadata 2024, with multi screen smooth scroll and animation: Kojak
They don't seem to have any rules whatsoever too, not sure why you want to mention them in this context. |
| |
MagerValp
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1078 |
Quoting 4gentEExcuse me for asking, but what exactly do you want?
You've opened a discussion thread about compo rules for text mode graphics, so I'm assuming you want feedback on those proposed rules.
I find the proposed rules both limited and rather lacking, and I also think it's okay to run a text mode compo in the wider sense than what you're proposing here.
You don't have to agree with me, and that's fine. |
| |
Edhellon
Registered: Aug 2003
Posts: 22 |
Quoting MagerValpThat's an inadequate or at least incomplete definition for the TED machines. The 121 colors are only available by directly poking color ram. Printing or typing only gives you a 16 color subset of the palette.
That is not entirely true, you do have the "COLOR" BASIC command to change your ink color to any of the 121 colors so using all colors purely from BASIC is possible. Of course with fullscreen pictures that might be difficult to use... |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285 |
Quote:You've opened a discussion thread about compo rules for text mode graphics, so I'm assuming you want feedback on those proposed rules.
You’re assuming right! Thank you! |
| |
MagerValp
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1078 |
Okay, good that that's settled.
I'm generally in favor of minimalistic rules, e.g. at the Swedish parties where I've been active it's just called the PETSCII compo and everyone (mostly) behaves. Creatively breaking the rules is just good, and if there's ambiguity I've come to appreciate letting the voters decide rather than us organizers.
However if this is about textmode compo rules primarily aimed at organizers that aren't intimately familiar with the C64 platform, simple rules like "what you can print from basic" aren't going to be any help at all.
The problem is that defining a set of strict rules is incredibly hard. Even harder still if you try to define a set of rules for all PETSCII platforms, and not just C64. You've made an attempt above, but I think they're both overly strict and not explicit enough. It's easy to find entries that would be disqualified according to those rules, like those I've pointed out above, and I don't think that's the right way to go.
I'm personally cool with there being a bit of chaos out there, we can sort it out when the entries get added to CSDb and categorize them as hires graphics or whatever. But if you want a set of clear rules that are easy to understand and follow while not stifling creativity you're going to have to iterate a bit more. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
"seq" file would be very simple and easy. all that is needed is a pc based viewer (if that doesn't exist already - probably adding a PETSCII mode to Acid View wouldn't be hard) |
| |
TheRyk
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 2244 |
Though I know your .SEQ file fetish and also that you're BASICally right, making things more complicated than they are already - unless you code some petcat-based frontend that does the job via mouseclick for competitors or orgas who've got no idea... |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
As said, a PC based viewer would be a requirement for this. |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2980 |
I find Burglar's solution from many posts ago quite elegant and workable already.
That said, (repeating myself) i fully agree with MagerValp that enforcing strict PETSCII or not (however defined) remains at the discretion of the compo organisers, as there are good reasons for and against depending on the type of compo and party. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285 |
Quote:there are good reasons for and against
What if I told you that the only reason why standard PETSCII specs were not respected in case of two offending entries (the one from Xenium and the one from Deadline) is simply because Playscii’s (tool that was used for making those two entries) built-in one-click bitmap to PETSCII converter is coded in a way that it doesn’t care from which set it takes chars and chooses background color anew for each cell instead of sticking to global background color? So that the authors were in fact accidentally stuck with invalid files during wiring, invalid files which you’re here bending backwards to present as valid for some unknown reason. Would that still be a “good reason” against sticking to PETSCII standard? |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
Also a big difference between compo organizers making rules that may allow this and that which may or may not comply with "strict PETSCII" (this is obviously fine AND NOT WHAT IS DISCUSSED HERE) - and organizers that are just clueless and/or not giving a damn.
Again, look at it from the ASCII/ANSI perspective, and imagine what happened if someone would suddenly enter such compo with a bitmap image. |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2980 |
Quoting chatGPZAgain, look at it from the ASCII/ANSI perspective, and imagine what happened if someone would suddenly enter such compo with a bitmap image. You mean one of those huge scrolling things with just 3 different chars (empty/full/checkered) and colours? =) |
| |
jab
Registered: Apr 2020
Posts: 20 |
Great findings, 4gentE! Very plausible that those pics are made with Playscii, and its converter was involved.
Quoting KrillYou mean one of those huge scrolling things with just 3 different chars (empty/full/checkered) and colours? =)
Don't forget the vertical and horizontal half blocks, they add so much variety... |
| |
jmin
Registered: Feb 2024
Posts: 10 |
Quote: As said, a PC based viewer would be a requirement for this.
In case "PC based viewer" doesn't include the web, IMHO a small JavaScript widget (with parameters for allowing all the mentioned PETSCII variants) that's reading a .seq or bytestream or whatever and generate the corresponding PETSCII pic would be neat. Shouldn't be that hard to do.
That script could then be added by orgas to their party website right next to the compo's rules and their "remote entries"-info (high chance that newbiews do remote entries, right?) as a "validate your entry" thingy. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
Quote:Shouldn't be that hard to do.
To be honest... its not trivial, "PRINT" has a lot of strange quirks that need to be considered for this. I put quite some effort to make petconv work with most of them, it's still not perfect though (but i am not sure it would affect anything that would be valid in such compo) :) |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2980 |
An automated validation tool would most likely give false negatives rather rarely.
In that rare case, someone in the know can step in and analyse the maybe-offending entry manually, or the author may be asked to provide a BASIC program instead, and the validation tool be improved. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
Oh, sure. It will certainly work fine for all practical purposes.
As for a pc based "seq viewer" - someone could easily hack up one of the existing PETSCII terminal programs to work like that. (CGTerm is SDL and already has "dump buffer" support IIRC) |
| |
TheRyk
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 2244 |
Quoting Krill... i fully agree with MagerValp that enforcing strict PETSCII or not (however defined) remains at the discretion of the compo organisers, as there are good reasons for and against depending on the type of compo and party.
Goes without saying imho.
However, if you host or compete at some various-systems or anything-goes-as-long-as-it's text compo and are unsure, then uploading stuff here without setting subcategory flag is an option, a better option than flagging sth PETSCII which has nothing to do with ROM font or displays upper and lower case or whatever.
-> Whenever uploader (no matter if that's author or orga) is unsure, just flag it release type "C64 Graphics" and enough peeps with expertise will jump out of their holes and check if it's PETSCII. |
| |
oziphantom
Registered: Oct 2014
Posts: 490 |
C128 violates rules 1 and 2 within the confines of BASIC PRINTABLE.
It would be able to violate 4 with "BASIC PROGRAM" limits, and 7 as well but we can all agree that it is wrong to do so ;)
you could also violate any "animation" rules potentially with static C128 code as well. Be it BASIC or ML. |
