Breathless 2 (96, 97, what ever)
kid...@cyberhighway.net
So what ever happened to rumoured Breathless 2? I mean... The first Breathless
rocked, I was really looking forward to another. These Wolf 3D clones everyone
keeps calling Doom clones (ie Nemac 4, Genetic Species, etc.) just aren't
cutting it. I want stairs, elevators, balconies, etc. B-)
John Haas
Alas, there will apparently be no more Breathless. I sent an email to Power
Computing inquiring when a sequel might come. They said that due to
"logistical problems" there would be no more. A sad day for me (and maybe
you as well) because I was one of the biggest Breathless fans anywhere. I'm
currently playing the daylights out of NEMAC IV and have grown to like it
although it's no Breathless.
Regards,
John
__
__ /// A1200, 3.1 OS, 10Meg, 85Meg HD, SCSI+, '030/FPU/MMU.
\\\/// A600, 3.1 OS, 6 Meg, 85Meg HD, SCSI+, RomSwitcher, HD Floppy.
\XX/ EZ135/14.4Modem/NEC210 CDRom/1960 Monitor. Email=jh...@novia.net
Paul Carrington BA
In article kid...@cyberhighway.net writes
>I want stairs, elevators, balconies, etc. B-)
3D Games Creator! Yes! that's what you need!
Mr Paul Carrington BA (Director) Vulcan Software Limited /
Vulcan House /
Tel: +44 (0) 1705 670269 72 Queens Road /
Fax: +44 (0) 1705 662226 Buckland /
Email: Pa...@vul-soft.demon.co.uk Portsmouth /
Pages: http://www.vulcan.co.uk Hants PO2 7NA /
England UK /
JF. Howlett
Paul Carrington BA (Pa...@vul-soft.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article kid...@cyberhighway.net writes
:
: >I want stairs, elevators, balconies, etc. B-)
: 3D Games Creator! Yes! that's what you need!
:
: Mr Paul Carrington BA (Director) Vulcan Software Limited /
What we need is less vaporware ;)
Give us some screenshots at least :)
josh.
Paymon
kid...@cyberhighway.net wrote:
>
> So what ever happened to rumoured Breathless 2? I mean... The first Breathless
> rocked, I was really looking forward to another. These Wolf 3D clones everyone
> keeps calling Doom clones (ie Nemac 4, Genetic Species, etc.) just aren't
The team disbanded for one reason or other. Don't expect a sequel unless
someone else picks it up, to be honest nobody else will do such a good
job.
--
Paymon Yau | 00 | Get the lard out and party
pay...@iclweb.com | oo \ | http://www.bunny123.demon.co.uk
| o \ / | Where men are men and sheep are nervous
SH ICL that's IT | mm m--/ |
John Haas
>kid...@cyberhighway.net wrote:
>>
>> So what ever happened to rumoured Breathless 2? I mean... The first
>> Breathless rocked, I was really looking forward to another. These Wolf 3D
>> clones everyone keeps calling Doom clones (ie Nemac 4, Genetic Species,
>> etc.) just aren't cutting it. I want stairs, elevators, balconies, etc. B-)
>The team disbanded for one reason or other. Don't expect a sequel unless
>someone else picks it up, to be honest nobody else will do such a good
>job.
>--
What a shame. Such a marvelous 3D engine too. Far and away the best one.
unknown
Paul Carrington BA (Pa...@vul-soft.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>In article kid...@cyberhighway.net writes
>>I want stairs, elevators, balconies, etc. B-)
^^^^^^^^^
/TypicalCompSysAmigaGamesUserMode#ON
What about flowers? =|-)
>3D Games Creator! Yes! that's what you need!
Does it handle flowers on balconies? If not then it sucks ;^)
Maybe if you get rid of AGA and make a CyberGFX-3D-III-only version then it can
handle flowers, and it should need at least 32.0MB of RAM (so you'll need more
than 32MB to run it, because the OS and its multitasking must remain alive!
I need to use FinalWriter while I play). *I* dont know a _single_ person that
has an Amiga with less than 64MB of memory, dont say bullshits Paul about the
market because *I* know that all Amiga users have CyberGFX-3D-III, 64MB RAM,
4 PowerPC's and 8GB hard disk. If not, then upgrade...dammit: the Amiga parts
cost just 4 times more than a PC and 40 times more than a console!
If you can't handle these innocent criticisms then you suck more than all
the other developers that already left.. those lamers like Andy Davidson with
that megacrap Worms that doesn't even handle realtime zoom on an A500, or Fabio
Bizzetti's VirtualKartingDeluxe that reachs *only* 50fps on unexpanded A1200's
(now that Gateway2000 produces the new 200Mhz A1200, haven't you heard of it?),
or Andy Clitheroe's TKG assembly source that doesn't even *compile*, nor can
be *interpreted*, nor runs under Arexx!!! Or the makers of Breathless that got
so much rich thanks piracy (they pirated their own copies) that they escaped to
Bahamas and now they don't wanna code BreathlessII anymore. Or ... (long list
deleted).
Thanks God Geoff Crammond hasn't abandoned us, and everyday we express our
gratitude to him for his F1GP-II on Amiga, and all the other major software
houses (like Electronic Arts, Konami, Virgin, etc..) that still support the
Amiga and thus get no bad words from us. While we spit on the face of these
lame developers left, because they want (wanted?) to support us and our new
megapowerful Amiga models.
/TypicalCompSysAmigaGamesUserMode#OFF
---
What doesn't kill me makes me more sick of being alive, and kicking.
blubb (tm)
ZigZag
Steffen Haeuser
˙° Z...@zag.net wrote : ˙´
Hi!
> Yeah but what really SUCKED about Breathless was that it had NO Graphic board support which imho made the whole thing suck. Such a shame. Others have done it and they should have too.
The strange thing was, the DEMO of Breathless worked on GFX Board, the full
version DID NOT.
(Maybe Breathless coder can be convinced to release the sources, like Team17
did ? :) )
Steffen Haeuser
kid...@cyberhighway.net
>>So what ever happened to rumoured Breathless 2? I mean... The first
>>Breathless rocked, I was really looking forward to another. These Wolf 3D
>>clones everyone keeps calling Doom clones (ie Nemac 4, Genetic Species,
>>etc.) just aren't cutting it. I want stairs, elevators, balconies, etc. B-)
>Alas, there will apparently be no more Breathless. I sent an email to Power
>Computing inquiring when a sequel might come. They said that due to
>"logistical problems" there would be no more. A sad day for me (and maybe
>you as well) because I was one of the biggest Breathless fans anywhere. I'm
>currently playing the daylights out of NEMAC IV and have grown to like it
>although it's no Breathless.
>Regards,
>John
> __
> __ /// A1200, 3.1 OS, 10Meg, 85Meg HD, SCSI+, '030/FPU/MMU.
> \\\/// A600, 3.1 OS, 6 Meg, 85Meg HD, SCSI+, RomSwitcher, HD Floppy.
> \XX/ EZ135/14.4Modem/NEC210 CDRom/1960 Monitor. Email=jh...@novia.net
Actually... I rather liked Nemac 4 (beat sometime ago and haven't played it since).
And while it is a fun game it just isn't as dimensional as I would like. B-(
kid...@cyberhighway.net
>In article kid...@cyberhighway.net writes
>>I want stairs, elevators, balconies, etc. B-)
>3D Games Creator! Yes! that's what you need!
>Mr Paul Carrington BA (Director) Vulcan Software Limited /
> Vulcan House /
>Tel: +44 (0) 1705 670269 72 Queens Road /
>Fax: +44 (0) 1705 662226 Buckland /
>Email: Pa...@vul-soft.demon.co.uk Portsmouth /
>Pages: http://www.vulcan.co.uk Hants PO2 7NA /
> England UK /
Yes, but not I'm not quite sure I want to be creating the levels myself. B-)
And besides... It isn't out yet. Don't worry, though... I'll likely buy it.
John Haas
>>>> Breathless rocked, I was really looking forward to another. These Wolf 3D
>>>> clones everyone keeps calling Doom clones (ie Nemac 4, Genetic Species,
>>>> B-)
>>>The team disbanded for one reason or other. Don't expect a sequel unless
>>>someone else picks it up, to be honest nobody else will do such a good
>>>job.
>>>--
>>
>>What a shame. Such a marvelous 3D engine too. Far and away the best one.
>>
>support which imho made the whole thing suck. Such a shame. Others have done
>it and they should have too.
Geez, so lack of graphic board support makes the _whole_ game suck, huh?
Most who play the game (A1200 owners, I for one) probably couldn't care less
whether it had this feature or not.
I thought the graphics were great in AGA.
Even Sandvik Underlid
>>Yeah but what really SUCKED about Breathless was that it had NO Graphic
>>board support which imho made the whole thing suck. Such a shame. Others
>>have done it and they should have too.
>version DID NOT.
Which one of them, the early preview of the engine or the one that
was covermounted on some mags? Is there any improvement in speed if
you use a graphicsboard? How can I select screenmode?
<SB>-- rUSTYBRAIn -- A4000/040-40MHz/18MB/2.7GB/4xCD/CV3D/14"/os3.0
Steffen Haeuser
ĸ° jh...@nospam.novia.net wrote : ĸī
Hi!
>>>What a shame. Such a marvelous 3D engine too. Far and away the best one.
>>>
>>Yeah but what really SUCKED about Breathless was that it had NO Graphic board
>>support which imho made the whole thing suck. Such a shame. Others have done
>>it and they should have too.
> Geez, so lack of graphic board support makes the _whole_ game suck, huh?
> Most who play the game (A1200 owners, I for one) probably couldn't care less
> whether it had this feature or not.
> I thought the graphics were great in AGA.
Well, he said "what really SUCKED about Breathless", he did not say
"Breathless sucked". I too, found that breathless was a really fine game (i
played it much longer than AB3DII, to tell the truth), but i think they
reduced their sales themselves with not making it GFX Board Compatible. There
are a lot of A3000+GFX Board Systems out... such people could not play
Breathless... and the Demo Version already SUPPORTED GFX Boards !!! Only the
full version not !!!
Well, i now mailed with the Breathless coder, BTW.
Latest news are :
1. Breathless 2 is dead :( They do not think the Amiga Market it being worth
anymore.
2. I might get the sources of Breathless 1 of him to make a GFX Board
Conversion. He is not yet completely sure, if he should give out the sources
(like Team 17 did), but he said he will do this probably.
Steffen Haeuser
John Haas
>> Geez, so lack of graphic board support makes the _whole_ game suck, huh?
>> Most who play the game (A1200 owners, I for one) probably couldn't care
>> less whether it had this feature or not. I thought the graphics were great
>> in AGA.
>Well, he said "what really SUCKED about Breathless", he did not say
>"Breathless sucked". I too, found that breathless was a really fine game (i
>played it much longer than AB3DII, to tell the truth), but i think they
>reduced their sales themselves with not making it GFX Board Compatible. There
> are a lot of A3000+GFX Board Systems out... such people could not play
>Breathless... and the Demo Version already SUPPORTED GFX Boards !!! Only the
>full version not !!!
>Well, i now mailed with the Breathless coder, BTW.
>Latest news are :
>1. Breathless 2 is dead :( They do not think the Amiga Market it being worth
>anymore.
>2. I might get the sources of Breathless 1 of him to make a GFX Board
>Conversion. He is not yet completely sure, if he should give out the sources
>(like Team 17 did), but he said he will do this probably.
>Steffen Haeuser
Point well taken. You're right--graphics board support would have netted
better sales which would possibly have led to a Breathless 2. A puzzling
omission! Good luck getting the source. There was something on the Power
Computing Web Page at one time about releasing a level editor. I imagine it
never got finished however.
Antony Alonso
>>>Yeah but what really SUCKED about Breathless was that it had NO Graphic
>>>board support which imho made the whole thing suck. Such a shame. Others
>>>have done it and they should have too.
>>version DID NOT.
>Which one of them, the early preview of the engine or the one that
>was covermounted on some mags? Is there any improvement in speed if
>you use a graphicsboard? How can I select screenmode?
I grabbed that one off aminet, I forget it's name. The odd thing was it
DIRECTLY promoted to my PicassoII at the time (now I'm CV64 - NOT that
shit 3d one) without any user intervention.
Night...@Clarksburg.com
Bill Gates
kid...@cyberhighway.net writes:
>>In article kid...@cyberhighway.net writes
>
>>>I want stairs, elevators, balconies, etc. B-)
>
>>Mr Paul Carrington BA (Director) Vulcan Software Limited /
>> Vulcan House /
>>Tel: +44 (0) 1705 670269 72 Queens Road /
>>Fax: +44 (0) 1705 662226 Buckland /
>>Email: Pa...@vul-soft.demon.co.uk Portsmouth /
>>Pages: http://www.vulcan.co.uk Hants PO2 7NA /
>> England UK /
>
>Yes, but not I'm not quite sure I want to be creating the levels myself. B-)
>And besides... It isn't out yet. Don't worry, though... I'll likely buy it.
>
>
Bill Gates
John Haas <jh...@nospam.novia.net> writes:
>>John Haas <jh...@nospam.novia.net> writes:
>>>>kid...@cyberhighway.net wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> So what ever happened to rumoured Breathless 2? I mean... The first
>>>>> Breathless rocked, I was really looking forward to another. These Wolf 3D
>>>>> clones everyone keeps calling Doom clones (ie Nemac 4, Genetic Species,
>>>>> B-)
>>>>The team disbanded for one reason or other. Don't expect a sequel unless
>>>>someone else picks it up, to be honest nobody else will do such a good
>>>>job.
>>>>--
>>>
>>>
>>support which imho made the whole thing suck. Such a shame. Others have done
>>it and they should have too.
>
>Most who play the game (A1200 owners, I for one) probably couldn't care less
>whether it had this feature or not.
>I thought the graphics were great in AGA.
>
> __ /// A1200, 3.1 OS, 10Meg, 85Meg HD, SCSI+, '030/FPU/MMU.
> \\\/// A600, 3.1 OS, 6 Meg, 85Meg HD, SCSI+, RomSwitcher, HD Floppy.
> \XX/ EZ135/14.4Modem/NEC210 CDRom/1960 Monitor. Email=jh...@novia.net
>
>
So what your saying is that because I don't like lame AGA and prefer a more powerful machine with a 24bit graphics card that I have no right to be able to play games???
Paul Carrington BA
In article foo.bar writes
>>3D Games Creator! Yes! that's what you need!
>Does it handle flowers on balconies?
If you want sure, in fact in one of the demo worlds I will make sure
there are flowers just for you.
>it should need at least 32.0MB of RAM
:) huh hu....
>I need to use FinalWriter while I play
Wow, ambidextrouse or ambinectar or something.
>). *I* dont know a _single_ person that
>has an Amiga with less than 64MB of memory,
You should get out more!
>dont say bullshits Paul about the
>market
Bullshit! There I said it...
> because *I* know that all Amiga users have CyberGFX-3D-III, 64MB RAM,
>4 PowerPC's and 8GB hard disk.
Your definition of `all` needs adjusting...
> If not, then upgrade...dammit: the Amiga parts
>cost just 4 times more than a PC and 40 times more than a console!
:)
>If you can't handle these innocent criticisms then you suck more than all
>the other developers that already left.
Criticisms! where? just you waffling from what I can see..
<SNIP>
mmm, can't really comment on any of that.. :(
Steffen Haeuser
ĸ° stupid...@imamoron.net wrote : ĸī
Hi!
>>Yes, but not I'm not quite sure I want to be creating the levels myself. B-)
>>And besides... It isn't out yet. Don't worry, though... I'll likely buy it.
>>
>>
> If it doesn't have Graphic card support it will not be worth looking at .....
The 3D Construction Kit *HAS* GFX Board Support !!! I myself coded it !!!
(The GFX Board Support, not the 3D Constr. kit...)
Steffen Haeuser
Steffen Haeuser
ÿ° Night...@clarksburg.com wrote : ÿ´
Hi!
> I grabbed that one off aminet, I forget it's name. The odd thing was it
> DIRECTLY promoted to my PicassoII at the time (now I'm CV64 - NOT that
> shit 3d one) without any user intervention.
I can tell you more here...
The coder of Breathless supported the vilintuisup.library at this time... but
later he removed the GFX Board Support again, as he had to rewrite some code
that used sprites, then, if he wanted the full version on GFX Board... also he
planned at this time a Breathless 2 with GFX Board and Network support (which
never appeared).
But well, it is possible that i will get the Breathless source, i am in talks
with Alberto Longo :)
About the demo speed: It IS faster, but not that fast like it could be, as
there were still enhancements about the engine in the full version... AFAIK...
Steffen Haeuser
Steffen Haeuser
ĸ° jh...@nospam.novia.net wrote : ĸī
Hi!
> Point well taken. You're right--graphics board support would have netted
> better sales which would possibly have led to a Breathless 2. A puzzling
> omission! Good luck getting the source. There was something on the Power
> Computing Web Page at one time about releasing a level editor. I imagine it
> never got finished however.
Well, i need the good luck... but well, i think it will work :) Hmmm, yeah,
probably the level editor was never released... Well, with the source, i could
have a look about how the level format looks, even ... but i find GFX Board
Support for now more important... but well... more improvements could be
possible :)
Steffen Haeuser
Kyzer
Steffen Haeuser, while smelling of fish, wrote:
: The 3D Construction Kit *HAS* GFX Board Support !!! I myself coded it !!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The FreeScape one by Domark?
--
Stuart 'Kyzer' Caie, Aberdeen University, Scotland. Email to: ky...@4u.net
My opinions are not those of Aberdeen University, and I do not speak for or
on behalf of AUCC.
..100% Amiga, forever!.. http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~u13sac/
--
Random sig of the day:
Amiga makes it, well, not necesarily possible, but a lot of fun trying anyway.
Steffen Haeuser
ĸ° junk...@sysc.abdn.ac.uk wrote : ĸī
Hi!
> Steffen Haeuser, while smelling of fish, wrote:
> : The 3D Construction Kit *HAS* GFX Board Support !!! I myself coded it !!!
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> The FreeScape one by Domark?
No, the one in Developpement by Vulcan Software, earlier called "Cold Blood".
Steffen Haeuser
Steffen Haeuser
ĸ° Pa...@vul-soft.demon.co.uk wrote : ĸī
Hi!
>>Does it handle flowers on balconies?
> If you want sure, in fact in one of the demo worlds I will make sure
> there are flowers just for you.
>>it should need at least 32.0MB of RAM
> :) huh hu....
>>I need to use FinalWriter while I play
> Wow, ambidextrouse or ambinectar or something.
>> because *I* know that all Amiga users have CyberGFX-3D-III, 64MB RAM,
>>4 PowerPC's and 8GB hard disk.
> Your definition of `all` needs adjusting...
Well, i think the originial poster was REALLY a moron... but even if he tries
to make a joke of it, i still believe the standard Amiga these times is :
030 or 040
GFX Board
at least 8 MB RAM
If you (not Paul adressed, i meant the original poster of the message :) )
do not believe ME, have a look about what ClickBOOM thinks on their
homepage...
Steffen Haeuser
Tim
> ĸ° stupid...@imamoron.net wrote : ĸī
>Hi!
>>>Yes, but not I'm not quite sure I want to be creating the levels myself.
>>>B-) And besides... It isn't out yet. Don't worry, though... I'll likely buy
>>>it.
>>>
>>>
>> If it doesn't have Graphic card support it will not be worth looking at
>> .....
>The 3D Construction Kit *HAS* GFX Board Support !!! I myself coded it !!!
>(The GFX Board Support, not the 3D Constr. kit...)
>
>Steffen Haeuser
Steffen - we love ya ;)) Keep up the good work!
Tim :)
Nautilus
Bill Gates wrote:
> >>>I want stairs, elevators, balconies, etc. B-)
> >>3D Games Creator! Yes! that's what you need!
> If it doesn't have Graphic card support it will not be worth looking at .....
Yeah, generic graphic card games... buy a PC or Mac!
The power of AMIGA is in its custom chipset.
Tchau,
Daithi O`Cuinn
>>Does it handle flowers on balconies?
>If you want sure, in fact in one of the demo worlds I will make sure
>there are flowers just for you.
>>it should need at least 32.0MB of RAM
>:) huh hu....
>
>>I need to use FinalWriter while I play
>Wow, ambidextrouse or ambinectar or something.
>
>>). *I* dont know a _single_ person that
>>has an Amiga with less than 64MB of memory,
>You should get out more!
<snip lots of point missing>
I fear that everyone on CSAG has suffered from
an irony lobotomy ;)
Clue : HE WAS JOKING.
Johan Rönnblom
Steffen Haeuser wrote:
> Well, i think the originial poster was REALLY a moron... but even if he tries
> to make a joke of it, i still believe the standard Amiga these times is :
>
> 030 or 040
> GFX Board
> at least 8 MB RAM
Most Amigas are A1200s, which more or less proves you're wrong about the Gfxboard.
Have you any idea of what a good Zorro expansion for A1200 costs?
I think you're more or less right about processor and memory though, because most
people have (a) simm socket(s) these days, and if they don't have 8Mb already they
would get it if they needed it.
> If you (not Paul adressed, i meant the original poster of the message :) )
> do not believe ME, have a look about what ClickBOOM thinks on their
> homepage...
I will..
/Johan Rönnblom, Team Amiga
kid...@cyberhighway.net
>I grabbed that one off aminet, I forget it's name. The odd thing was it
>DIRECTLY promoted to my PicassoII at the time (now I'm CV64 - NOT that
>shit 3d one) without any user intervention.
>Night...@Clarksburg.com
Shit 3D one? I happen to like my "shit 3d one," thank you very much. B-P
kid...@cyberhighway.net
>Well, he said "what really SUCKED about Breathless", he did not say
>"Breathless sucked". I too, found that breathless was a really fine game (i
>played it much longer than AB3DII, to tell the truth), but i think they
>reduced their sales themselves with not making it GFX Board Compatible. There
> are a lot of A3000+GFX Board Systems out... such people could not play
>Breathless... and the Demo Version already SUPPORTED GFX Boards !!! Only the
>full version not !!!
>Well, i now mailed with the Breathless coder, BTW.
>Latest news are :
>1. Breathless 2 is dead :( They do not think the Amiga Market it being worth
>anymore.
>2. I might get the sources of Breathless 1 of him to make a GFX Board
>Conversion. He is not yet completely sure, if he should give out the sources
>(like Team 17 did), but he said he will do this probably.
>Steffen Haeuser
It was a damn shame. I mean, why would you REMOVE work you had already done?
The gfx card support had already been done, was promised when the project was
announced, and failed to show in the final version? My god, why?
kid...@cyberhighway.net
>Steffen Haeuser, while smelling of fish, wrote:
>: The 3D Construction Kit *HAS* GFX Board Support !!! I myself coded it !!!
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>The FreeScape one by Domark?
>--
>Stuart 'Kyzer' Caie, Aberdeen University, Scotland. Email to: ky...@4u.net
>My opinions are not those of Aberdeen University, and I do not speak for or
>on behalf of AUCC.
> ..100% Amiga, forever!.. http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~u13sac/
>--
>Random sig of the day:
>Amiga makes it, well, not necesarily possible, but a lot of fun trying
>anyway.
Erm... No the soon to be released title from Vulcan. Paul Carrington seems to
be quite proud of himself over this one. I hope it makes me as giddy as it does
him. B-)
kid...@cyberhighway.net
> ĸ° stupid...@imamoron.net wrote : ĸī
>Hi!
>>>Yes, but not I'm not quite sure I want to be creating the levels myself.
>>>B-) And besides... It isn't out yet. Don't worry, though... I'll likely buy
>>>it.
>>>
>>>
>> If it doesn't have Graphic card support it will not be worth looking at
>> .....
>The 3D Construction Kit *HAS* GFX Board Support !!! I myself coded it !!!
>(The GFX Board Support, not the 3D Constr. kit...)
>
>Steffen Haeuser
You know, I really could just kiss you. B-) Nothing I love more then games that
support the upgrades I've spent money on. Your work has earned you my undying
gratitude. B-)
Brian White
Nautilus <naut...@geocities.com> writes:
>Bill Gates wrote:
>
>> >>>I want stairs, elevators, balconies, etc. B-)
>> >>3D Games Creator! Yes! that's what you need!
>
>
>The power of AMIGA is in its custom chipset.
>
> Tchau,
>
> Nautilus
> naut...@geocities.com
> http://nautilus.home.ml.org
>
Emmanuel Henn
Steffen`s comment about "Re: Breathless 2 (96, 97, what ever)" was....
SH> >> because *I* know that all Amiga users have CyberGFX-3D-III, 64MB RAM,
SH> >>4 PowerPC's and 8GB hard disk.
SH> > Your definition of `all` needs adjusting...
SH>
SH> Well, i think the originial poster was REALLY a moron... but even if he tries
SH> to make a joke of it, i still believe the standard Amiga these times is :
SH>
SH> 030 or 040
SH> GFX Board
I do doubt that very much.
I think the standard Amiga is still: A1200/030/4MB Fastram.
Then come the A4000 users with gfxcard.
And finally the A1200T-users with gfxcard.
But that`s IMHO.
SH> at least 8 MB RAM
SH>
SH> If you (not Paul adressed, i meant the original poster of the message :) )
SH> do not believe ME, have a look about what ClickBOOM thinks on their
SH> homepage...
I don`t give much on clickBOOMs opinion, anyway.
They`ve done ONE game and everybody seems to think that they`ll
replace T17 :-]
CU L8TER,
Emmanuel
__
###### ####### ##### ## ## ### ###### ###### A1200/060/18MB
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##Cinema-Fanatic
## ## ###### ## #### ####### ## ## ## ##Doing:PHOENIX
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ###### ## ##
###### ####### ##### ## ## ## ## ## ## ###### @HS-HOM.Handshake.de
"Life starts at `040, fun at `060 !"
Adrian
Organisation: Borderline Computers
> Nautilus spake thusly :-
>Bill Gates wrote:
>> >>>I want stairs, elevators, balconies, etc. B-)
>> >>3D Games Creator! Yes! that's what you need!
>> If it doesn't have Graphic card support it will not be worth looking at
>> .....
> Yeah, generic graphic card games... buy a PC or Mac!
> The power of AMIGA is in its custom chipset.
Problem is, the AGA chipset isn't up to the job compared with the new
3D chips. Have you *seen* a Permedia chip rendering fully textured,
multi-lightsourced graphics at 30 frames/sec?
If the Amiga doesn't adopt decent graphics cards, it's gonna get left
waaaaay behind, whither and die.
Me? I'm saving up for a PPC card and Cybergraphics 3D card.
--
| __ __/__ . __ __ | Pope Adrian IV of the Church of The Holy Lungfish,
|(_/(_// / (_// / | Larry the Thrice-blessed. BAAWA ha ha. (a.a. list #0x80)
| | http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/main.html
[ ** Anti-Spam - Remove "XXX" from my address to reply via email ** ]
"Watch out, Judas, careful you don't trip and burst asunder..."
Mark Heath
Nautilus (naut...@geocities.com) wrote:
: Yeah, generic graphic card games... buy a PC or Mac!
: The power of AMIGA is in its custom chipset.
Too bad the Custom chipset is 6-12 years old and really can not compete
with todays "GENERIC" graphics cards... :-( Let alone Specialised
Graphics cards.
--
-- mark heath | base 64 SPAMMED to avoid signature
:wq
Nick
Brian White (cybe...@usa.com) wrote:
: Nautilus <naut...@geocities.com> writes:
: >Bill Gates wrote:
: >
: >> >>>I want stairs, elevators, balconies, etc. B-)
: >> >>3D Games Creator! Yes! that's what you need!
: >
: >> If it doesn't have Graphic card support it will not be worth looking at .....
: >
: >Yeah, generic graphic card games... buy a PC or Mac!
: >The power of AMIGA is in its custom chipset.
: >
: I think it is time for a reality check here Tchau. The Amiga graphcis cards are far superior to the Amigas chipset. I'm sorry but that is reality. When games are made they should support both is the entire point here and not just AGA only which if fact does SUCK!
true enough.... BUT most ppl still have only AGA, and GFX card only games
are even more stoopid than AGA only games.
--
E-Mail: nfra...@public.srce.hr nfra...@zems.fer.hr | Powered by:
ni...@fly.cc.fer.hr |-| A1200
WWW: http://diana.zems.fer.hr/~nfrances |------| Blizzard 1230-IV
CroAminet: ftp://thphys.irb.hr/pub/aminet |---| 2+16 MB RAM : 1.4 GB HD
Johan Forsberg
Mark Heath wrote:
>
> Nautilus (naut...@geocities.com) wrote:
>
> : Yeah, generic graphic card games... buy a PC or Mac!
> : The power of AMIGA is in its custom chipset.
>
> with todays "GENERIC" graphics cards... :-( Let alone Specialised
> Graphics cards.
On an Amiga it can.
As long as you have to shove each frame of gfx over the realatively
slow Zorro buss, its hard to get the 50 fps that even OCS on a
a500 accomplished with ease.
Also, with a little trickery you can construct a HAM8 18 bit screen
that can be scrolled and blitted to in an efficient manner, and
looks almost exactly as 24bit.
This is one of my current programming projects.
The engine will be able to handle smooth scrolling and plenty of
large bobs in HAM8 hires 25 fps. You can also implement 24 bit style
effects like partially transparent bobs, and other nice effects.
This is not possible to do (as smoothly) on a Zorro graphics card.
Of course, you can put all the graphics in the card memory and
use the onboard blitter, but as of now neither cgfx or P97 supports
masked blits using the onboard blitter, which drastically reduces
the kinds of games you can do.
--
<--/---\------76-cols-----------------^-----Your-Name-Here----Something---->
/ Small*<-Perth Make Your Very 4 rows em...@address.here witty some
/ Ascii \ Own Signature File! | Profession Here dead guy
\ Picture / Follow The Instructions v Other Personal Info said here
Adrian
Organisation: Borderline Computers
> Nick spake thusly :-
>Brian White (cybe...@usa.com) wrote:
>: Nautilus <naut...@geocities.com> writes:
>: >Bill Gates wrote:
>: >
>: >> >>>I want stairs, elevators, balconies, etc. B-)
>: >> >>3D Games Creator! Yes! that's what you need!
>: >
>: >> If it doesn't have Graphic card support it will not be worth looking at
>: >> .....
>: >
>: >Yeah, generic graphic card games... buy a PC or Mac!
>: >The power of AMIGA is in its custom chipset.
>: >
>: I think it is time for a reality check here Tchau. The Amiga graphcis cards
>: are far superior to the Amigas chipset. I'm sorry but that is reality. When
>: games are made they should support both is the entire point here and not
>: just AGA only which if fact does SUCK!
>true enough.... BUT most ppl still have only AGA, and GFX card only games
>are even more stoopid than AGA only games.
Yeah, and while we're at it, why didn't we all stick at OS1.3 and the
ECS chipset?
Sarcasm aside, if good games and applications are produced that require
graphics cards, fast CPUs (even PPCs) and heaps of RAM, that can only be
a good thing for the Amiga. People upgrade their machines to use new
software. Downgrading the software to run on ropey old hardrware is a
Bad Thing.
This can be taken too far, as is the case with Intel/Microsoft - every time
MS produce a new version of Word, it requires even faster hardware to run
it and users are stuck in an ever-increasing positive feedback loop.
The Amiga hasn't got to that stage yet, but I for one hope that more
high-end software is written.
When it first came out, the Amiga was a technical marvel (and for some
applications, it still is). But the fact is that without upgraded CPU and
graphics it's going nowhere, and the software developers will drift
away from it until there's nothing left.
Do you *want* to be stuck with slow, low-resolution, low-colour graphics
for ever?
--
| __ __/__ . __ __ | Pope Adrian IV of the Church of The Holy Lungfish,
|(_/(_// / (_// / | Larry the Thrice-blessed. BAAWA ha ha. (a.a. list #0x80)
| | http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/main.html
[ ** Anti-Spam - Remove "XXX" from my address to reply via email ** ]
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NOW WASH YOUR HANDS . . . . . . . . .
Alan L.M. Buxey
On 24 Jun 1997 08:42:37 GMT ,Nick posted the following:
: true enough.... BUT most ppl still have only AGA, and GFX card only games
: are even more stoopid than AGA only games.
no they're not, at least gfx-card only games can run on A1500/A2000 and
A3000 - thought of THAT little problem?
alan
Mika Yrj|l{
Johan Forsberg <d92...@nada.kth.remove.this.se> writes:
>Mark Heath wrote:
>> Too bad the Custom chipset is 6-12 years old and really can not compete
>> with todays "GENERIC" graphics cards... :-( Let alone Specialised
>> Graphics cards.
>On an Amiga it can.
>As long as you have to shove each frame of gfx over the realatively
>slow Zorro buss, its hard to get the 50 fps that even OCS on a
>a500 accomplished with ease.
>Also, with a little trickery you can construct a HAM8 18 bit screen
>that can be scrolled and blitted to in an efficient manner, and
>looks almost exactly as 24bit.
>This is one of my current programming projects.
>The engine will be able to handle smooth scrolling and plenty of
>large bobs in HAM8 hires 25 fps. You can also implement 24 bit style
>effects like partially transparent bobs, and other nice effects.
...but it gets a bit difficult to be as efficient with 3d-stuff as a
proper modern 3d-accelerator could be. (Yes, I know that support for it
isn't currently too hot in GyberGFX)
Mika
--
/-------------------------------------------------------------------------\
I Fantasy, Sci-fi, Computers, Marillion, Oldfield, Vangelis, Clannad, Irc I
I Odd Experiences, Worms, Tuna, Synths. See http://www.lut.fi/~myrjola I
\-------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Martyn Bone
> Well, i think the originial poster was REALLY a moron... but even if he tries
>
> GFX Board
>
This might be the standard for people connected to the net but I would
imagine that a high proportion of users have a pretty much unexpanded
A1200.
& A1200 with graphics board!!!
you need to buy a tower (£125) + Zorro expansion (£175)
and then the graphics board (£250), and i know that I
don't have £550 spare at the moment
--
mar...@brightstar.u-net.com
http://www.brightstar.u-net.com/ *** PGP is here ***
AMIGA A1200/030-50/18Mb/1Gb HD/x2 CD/SVGA PPC603e 200MHz soon
AMIGA RULES - LONG LIVE THE AMIGA - AMIGA, PHONIX ARISING
Robert Fentiman
:> >>>I want stairs, elevators, balconies, etc. B-)
:> >>3D Games Creator! Yes! that's what you need!
:> If it doesn't have Graphic card support it will not be worth looking at .....
: Yeah, generic graphic card games... buy a PC or Mac!
: The power of AMIGA is in its custom chipset.
Spoken by a true person who has not tried a gfx card equiped Ami, in total
ignorance. After adding a gfx card to my system, I enjoyed more power,
more speed, and MUCH more enjoyment.
The way the entire industry is moving these days is away from specific
hardware implementations to implementations that take advantage of certain
hardware if it exists (ie speed improvments, etc) but doesn't limit the
user.
Even Dave Haynie said the gfx chips that are produced these days offer a
better bang/buck than AAA would have offered (and this was said over a
year ago).
AGA is an ok chip set, and can do some nifty things. But to ignore a
significant part of the market that has hardware equal to or greater in
power (note: power, not necessarily saying it can do everything AGA can
do) is idiotic.
--
/ ALSO SPRACH RFENTIMA /Robert Fentiman - University of Minnesota, Duluth \
| Amiga 3000/25/14/1G \rfen...@ub.d.umn.edu orRobert....@umn.edu /
|_MST3K+Starwars+B5 Fan_\______Physics/Geology_Major_-_CS/Math Minor_____/
\____________Pain is the body's way of saying "Don't do that!"__________/
Emmanuel Henn
Nick`s comment about "Re: NO to graphic cards games!" was....
Ni> : I think it is time for a reality check here Tchau. The Amiga graphcis cards are far superior to the Amigas chipset. I'm sorry but that is reality. When games are made they should support both is the entire point here and not just AGA only which if fact does SUCK!
Ni>
Ni> true enough.... BUT most ppl still have only AGA, and GFX card only games
Ni> are even more stoopid than AGA only games.
With the PPC at the horizon, it`s quite obvious that AGA is obsolete, because
it just can not cope with the PPCs horsepower, period.
If You want a cool Amiga for games, You`ll need a gfxcard and PPC, there`s
no other way, and I am happy `bout it.
We have had our little private computer world longer than any other
user using a different system (SNES, PC, MD...), we use AGA now for
five years, and that`s longer than VGA was on PCs.
Now, we need to MOVE on, because both 68k AND AGA are antique.
Sure, pple can play WORMS on a bog-standard 1200,but hey, don`t exspect
much more to come.
The Amiga has the chance to rise from the ashes like a PHOENIX
(hint, hint!) and I am keen to see the future of Amiga, really.
This step we are taking is bigger than any other we`ve taken in the
past.
From 50 Mhz to an outstanding 200 Mhz Risc.
From an average c2p-hardware (CV64) to an outerperforming hardware rendering
several hundreds of thousands of shaded texels (CVPPC) per second.
We can have a system that can cope with any PC-system in that price range,
even beats the crap out of most of them.
What it needs is our support.
CU L8TER,
Emmanuel
__
###### ####### ##### ## ## ### ###### ###### A1200/060/18MB
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##Cinema-Fanatic
## ## ###### ## #### ####### ## ## ## ##Doing:PHOENIX
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ###### ## ##
###### ####### ##### ## ## ## ## ## ## ###### @HS-HOM.Handshake.de
"Verzeihung, aber Du bist wirklich schlecht informiert. Es gibt
richtig gute Software. Sie blinkt nur nicht so grell und
tutet nicht so laut wie Windows-Programme."
(Holger Bettag in Z/R/A/A zum Thema "Software unter Linux")
Gareth Young
Brian White sent him scented letters, she knew exactly what to do.. a Re: NO
to graphic cards games! to fool him, Brian White couldn't have made a worse
move...
> I think it is time for a reality check here Tchau. The Amiga graphcis cards
One of the main reasons people program for machines that have things that most
machines don't currently have (ie GFX cards) is to encourage users to upgrade
their machines. However, it is not feasably possible to upgrade the majority
of Amigas with a GFX card - this is because the majority of Amigas are A1200s.
And you can't upgrade them.
--
_ _
|_|_ |_| Connecting via NETCOM Internet Ltd
_ |_|_ IRC:Dr_NilesC After the neurotic on the sitcom Frasier
|_| _|_| My PGP public key is available upon request.
|_| Gareth Y <gar...@netcomuk.co.uk> - Generally found on Undernet
A horse walks into a bar - the barman asks: "Why the long face?"
USENet Kill file:
ara!m...@ix.netcom.com Also anything with "ARAM!I" in the posting
#?geocities#? Also on e-mail Killfile
#?hotmail#? Also on e-mail Killfile
Gareth Young
Adrian sent him scented letters, she knew exactly what to do.. a Re: NO to
graphic cards games! to fool him, Adrian couldn't have made a worse move...
> Sarcasm aside, if good games and applications are produced that require
> graphics cards, fast CPUs (even PPCs) and heaps of RAM, that can only be
> a good thing for the Amiga.
Not really. I /can't/ upgrade my Amiga any more, that's why. Neither can the
majority of Amiga users, unless they take the time, trouble and money to weld
their A1200s into a hideous tower case with Zorro slots...
> People upgrade their machines to use new
> software. Downgrading the software to run on ropey old hardrware is a
> Bad Thing.
That's true. But we realistically can not make GFX card games only at all.
> Do you *want* to be stuck with slow, low-resolution, low-colour graphics
> for ever?
No, but with my A1200 there's nothing I can do about it.
Thomas Frieden
Johan Forsberg <d92...@nada.kth.remove.this.se> wrote:
> On an Amiga it can.
> As long as you have to shove each frame of gfx over the realatively
> slow Zorro buss, its hard to get the 50 fps that even OCS on a
> a500 accomplished with ease.
loop.
CU,
--
Thomas Frieden o Schlosstrasse 176 o 54293 Trier
Alan L.M. Buxey
On Sun, 22 Jun 1997 14:42:49 -0700 ,Nautilus posted the following:
: Yeah, generic graphic card games... buy a PC or Mac!
: The power of AMIGA is in its custom chipset.
err- only if they redo the whole Amiga chipset again and make it as
wonderful and florious as it used to be - currently a basic S3 SVGA
chipset on the PC blows the Amigas custom set away for a lot of stuff.
If we get some brand new shit hot design, then yes, built in custom
chipset standard will once again be the best
Alan
Colin Ward
Gareth Young <gar...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>> People upgrade their machines to use new
>> software. Downgrading the software to run on ropey old hardrware is a
>> Bad Thing.
>That's true. But we realistically can not make GFX card games only at all.
>> Do you *want* to be stuck with slow, low-resolution, low-colour graphics
>> for ever?
>No, but with my A1200 there's nothing I can do about it.
If you have any money, ie. are not a struggling student :-) then I would
strongly recommend looking around for a second hand A4000. I too was
really annoyed for ages as I had a 1200 and I wanted to expand it, but
really couldn't. Finally I took the plunge and bought a second hand
4000... Now it's like I've got a whole different computer! I've got a
CyberVision64/3D and will soon have a PowerUp card.
I admit that it's painful to have to shell out for a 4000 before you can
even start buying stuff to put in it, but if you can afford it, it's well
worth it!
/----------------------------------------------------------------------\
[Hitman/Code HQ - 6502/68000/80386 & soon A4000/PowerPC ]
[Assembly Lover since 1987! Proud member of Team AMIGA ]
[OS coding/Hardware hitting/Demos/Games/Modules - c64, Amiga & PC ]
[I'm a pogrammar.. I'm a programor... I'm a progemmar... I write code. ]
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Colin Ward
dec...@hs-hom.handshake.de (Emmanuel Henn) wrote:
Well spoken! We also need more positive talk like this, rather than the
continual "The A\Box won't be released,", "Noone will buy it," "The PIOS
one will fail" etc.
We *are* on the virge of something big and new here, regardless of
whether Amiga International pick up the ball. All that is needed is for
people to have a little faith and optimism!
Hans-Joerg Frieden
Johan Forsberg <d92...@nada.kth.remove.this.se> wrote:
> On an Amiga it can.
> As long as you have to shove each frame of gfx over the realatively
> slow Zorro buss, its hard to get the 50 fps that even OCS on a
> a500 accomplished with ease.
without going over the slow Chipram bus interface?
BTW, I have written a small wolfenstein engine that runs at about 40 fps
on my old Picasso and around 70 fps on a CyberVision 64.
> Also, with a little trickery you can construct a HAM8 18 bit screen
> that can be scrolled and blitted to in an efficient manner, and
> looks almost exactly as 24bit.
A little bit of trickery? With no tricks at all a graphics card gives you
24 bits.
> This is one of my current programming projects.
> The engine will be able to handle smooth scrolling and plenty of
> large bobs in HAM8 hires 25 fps. You can also implement 24 bit style
^^^^^^^
> effects like partially transparent bobs, and other nice effects.
I thought that even OCS was capable of 50 fps with everything, with ease,
even on an A500???
> This is not possible to do (as smoothly) on a Zorro graphics card.
> Of course, you can put all the graphics in the card memory and
> use the onboard blitter, but as of now neither cgfx or P97 supports
> masked blits using the onboard blitter, which drastically reduces
> the kinds of games you can do.
Of course, you are speaking about all those Amigas with 020 processors out
there. With them, AGA gives you some advantage since it can do some things
while the processors does some others. Your arguments don't hold true any
longer as soon as a bigger processor is in play (040 or 060). I bet you
haven't seen Duke Nukem 3D on the ShapeShifter, it does around 20 fps on a
640x480 screen... But then, 20 fps aren't 50 fps, as all A500 would play
DN3D on OCS, I guess.
And even shoot'em'ups are possible. See (again on ShapeShifter) Tubular
Worlds. It has perfectly smooth scrolling action, lot's of sprites, and it
runs on 640x480, like almost all macintosh games.
The Days of AGA are over.
Regards, Hans-Joerg.
--
hfri...@uni-trier.de | "Perlious are the devices of an art
Visit our Raytracing page | deeper than we possess ourselves"
www.informatik.uni-trier.de/ | Gandalf the White, The Two Towers
CIP/hfrieden/ |
kid...@cyberhighway.net
>Well, i think the originial poster was REALLY a moron... but even if he tries
> to make a joke of it, i still believe the standard Amiga these times is :
>030 or 040
>GFX Board
>at least 8 MB RAM
>If you (not Paul adressed, i meant the original poster of the message :) )
>do not believe ME, have a look about what ClickBOOM thinks on their
>homepage...
>Steffen Haeuser
Unfortunately there are still a bunch of losers who still have Stock 1200's.
I can't seem to get my friend to upgrade hers to save my life. B-/ Maybe some
of the new stuff that's coming out will change her mind.
Sigh... Now is the time people. Power PC is coming and I'd suggest you jump on
it. The AGA hardware wasn't all that impressive in the first place and aging
rapidly.
kid...@cyberhighway.net
>>The 3D Construction Kit *HAS* GFX Board Support !!! I myself coded it !!!
>>(The GFX Board Support, not the 3D Constr. kit...)
>>
>>Steffen Haeuser
>Steffen - we love ya ;)) Keep up the good work!
>Tim :)
Isn't he a peach... I want to have his children. B-)
Steffen Haeuser
ĸ° nfra...@jagor.srce.hr wrote : ĸī
Hi!
> true enough.... BUT most ppl still have only AGA, and GFX card only games
> are even more stoopid than AGA only games.
And many people also have A3000. They can upgrade to GFX Board, but they can
NOT upgrade to AGA.
I think in the current situation it is best to support both (for example in
using rtgmaster). But usually, AGA fanatics are not interested in facts...
Steffen Haeuser
Steffen Haeuser
ĸ° d92...@nada.kth.remove.this.se wrote : ĸī
Hi!
> On an Amiga it can.
> As long as you have to shove each frame of gfx over the realatively
> slow Zorro buss, its hard to get the 50 fps that even OCS on a
> a500 accomplished with ease.
You are right with Zorro 2. With Zorro 3 you get usually 2x to 3x the speed
than with AGA (on an A4000). Of course, you do not get all the speedup, as the
engine of the game consumes speed, too, and it is the same on AGA and GFX
Board. But, dependent on the game, you get 20-100% speedup with Zorro 3 GFX
Board, compared to AGA.
These are not estimated values, these are FACTS.
Of course, it is possible to code very lame stuff on a GFX Board too (for
example by using slow OS calls like WritePixelArray8). Games like Nemac IV
probably did not do the Amiga a good job, after all.
Steffen Haeuser
Steffen Haeuser
ÿ° kid...@cyberhighway.net wrote : ÿ´
Hi!
> You know, I really could just kiss you. B-) Nothing I love more then games that
> support the upgrades I've spent money on. Your work has earned you my undying
> gratitude. B-)
Well, let us hope that everything works fine. The coder of the 3D Constr. Kit
himself does not own a GFX Board, so the code was only tested once at the
beginning... but i think, it should work :)
Steffen Haeuser
Steffen Haeuser
ÿ° mar...@brightstar.u-net.com wrote : ÿ´
Hi!
> This might be the standard for people connected to the net but I would
> imagine that a high proportion of users have a pretty much unexpanded
> A1200.
I have to admit, i do not know ANYBODY anymore, who owns an unexpanded A1200.
And not that much A1200 anyways... but well, maybe in other countries ?
Steffen Haeuser
Steffen Haeuser
ĸ° gar...@netcomuk.co.uk wrote : ĸī
Hi!
> Not really. I /can't/ upgrade my Amiga any more, that's why. Neither can the
> majority of Amiga users, unless they take the time, trouble and money to weld
> their A1200s into a hideous tower case with Zorro slots...
And the A3000 users cannot upgrade to AGA also...
> That's true. But we realistically can not make GFX card games only at all.
With c2p it is quite easy to do games that run on both... at least, as to 3D
games...
Steffen Haeuser
Steffen Haeuser
ĸ° hfri...@fax.uni-trier.de wrote : ĸī
Hi!
> Johan Forsberg <d92...@nada.kth.remove.this.se> wrote:
>> On an Amiga it can.
>> As long as you have to shove each frame of gfx over the realatively
>> slow Zorro buss, its hard to get the 50 fps that even OCS on a
>> a500 accomplished with ease.
> What are you talking about? Have you found a way to move data to chip ram
> without going over the slow Chipram bus interface?
> BTW, I have written a small wolfenstein engine that runs at about 40 fps
> on my old Picasso and around 70 fps on a CyberVision 64.
To stop that discussion at once :
Maximum Bus Speed
AGA : Max. 7 MB/sec.
Z2 : Max. 3 MB/sec.
Z3 : Most Boards between 10-15 MB/sec., theoretically 50 MB/sec. are possible
If you compare a usual Chunky-Copy loop to a AGA copy-loop (or fast c2p like
CPU3BLIT1) the best for AGA we can reach is about
GFX Board fps = 2.5 x AGA fps (Z3 GFX Board assumed)
At least i did not get better rates. And i tried hard.
It also seems, that the faster the Amiga, the better results the GFX Board
solution gets.
An additional example is the ongoing GFX Board Port of AB3DII. When we compare
the Patched version (not the slow original version) of AB3DII with the c2p
modified to CPU3BLIT1 and the GFX Board Version, the GFX Board version seems
to get about 50% more speed.
>> Also, with a little trickery you can construct a HAM8 18 bit screen
>> that can be scrolled and blitted to in an efficient manner, and
>> looks almost exactly as 24bit.
> A little bit of trickery? With no tricks at all a graphics card gives you
> 24 bits.
And it is faster :)
Steffen Haeuser
Steffen Haeuser
ÿ° naut...@geocities.com wrote : ÿ´
Hi!
> Yeah, generic graphic card games... buy a PC or Mac!
> The power of AMIGA is in its custom chipset.
No, it is its OS.
Steffen Haeuser
Steffen Haeuser
ÿ° kid...@cyberhighway.net wrote : ÿ´
Hi!
> It was a damn shame. I mean, why would you REMOVE work you had already done?
> The gfx card support had already been done, was promised when the project was
> announced, and failed to show in the final version? My god, why?
Because some additional parts of the thing had to be changed then, which where
not in the demo (the terminals, mainly, if i remember right). And he did not
think there would be enough GFX Board People that the extra work would be
worth it. At least, i understood it this way... something like that happened...
Steffen Haeuser
Emmanuel Henn
Hans-Joerg`s comment about "Re: NO to graphic cards games!" was....
HF> Johan Forsberg <d92...@nada.kth.remove.this.se> wrote:
HF> > On an Amiga it can.
HF> > As long as you have to shove each frame of gfx over the realatively
HF> > slow Zorro buss, its hard to get the 50 fps that even OCS on a
HF> > a500 accomplished with ease.
HF> What are you talking about? Have you found a way to move data to chip ram
HF> without going over the slow Chipram bus interface?
HF>
HF> BTW, I have written a small wolfenstein engine that runs at about 40 fps
HF> on my old Picasso and around 70 fps on a CyberVision 64.
I guess Johan spoke about "old-fashioned" actiongames, such
as shoot`m up-games, beat`em ups, jump`n`run...
CU L8TER,
Emmanuel
__
###### ####### ##### ## ## ### ###### ###### A1200/060/18MB
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##Cinema-Fanatic
## ## ###### ## #### ####### ## ## ## ##Doing:PHOENIX
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ###### ## ##
###### ####### ##### ## ## ## ## ## ## ###### @HS-HOM.Handshake.de
"Now, where do we find this...J.F.Sebastian..?"
nr...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
In article <5oqf27$5...@proxy5.proxy.ozemail.net>, co...@leprechaun.com.au (Colin Ward) writes:
> dec...@hs-hom.handshake.de (Emmanuel Henn) wrote:
>>With the PPC at the horizon, it`s quite obvious that AGA is obsolete
[snip]
>>Now, we need to MOVE on, because both 68k AND AGA are antique.
[snip]
>>and I am keen to see the future of Amiga, really.
>>This step we are taking is bigger than any other we`ve taken in the
>>past.
>>We can have a system that can cope with any PC-system in that price range,
>>even beats the crap out of most of them.
>>What it needs is our support.
> Well spoken! We also need more positive talk like this, rather than the
> continual "The A\Box won't be released,", "Noone will buy it," "The PIOS
> one will fail" etc.
> We *are* on the virge of something big and new here, regardless of
> whether Amiga International pick up the ball. All that is needed is for
> people to have a little faith and optimism!
Hear hear!
The A\Box looks like it's gonna be a real killer. And bugger it, even if
it doesn't live up to all of it's claims, it'll still be a huuuuuuuge leap
up from AGA Amiga's. (UMA's a good step above the current state-of-the-art
PC architecture too, dare I say it.)
And if GW2k don't decide to come along for the ride, well screw them.
This is the way the Amiga -needs- to go, and I'm gonna be there too.
Can't go any worse than Apple's decision-making now, can it?
(prophetic last words.) :-)
Nathan
(nr...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz)
>
Johan Forsberg
Steffen Haeuser wrote:
>
> ĸ° hfri...@fax.uni-trier.de wrote : ĸī
>
> Hi!
>
> > Johan Forsberg <d92...@nada.kth.remove.this.se> wrote:
> > What are you talking about? Have you found a way to move data to chip ram
>
>
>
> Maximum Bus Speed
>
> AGA : Max. 7 MB/sec.
> Z2 : Max. 3 MB/sec.
> Z3 : Most Boards between 10-15 MB/sec., theoretically 50 MB/sec. are possible
>
> If you compare a usual Chunky-Copy loop to a AGA copy-loop (or fast c2p like
> CPU3BLIT1) the best for AGA we can reach is about
>
> GFX Board fps = 2.5 x AGA fps (Z3 GFX Board assumed)
I was talking about a scrolly 2d game, not a c2p-based 3d game.
In AGA you don't have to actually move all that much data, or use
the processor much.
Remember also that there are no gfx cards using z3 DMA, which means
that as soon as you start doing anything but just pushing data to
the card, frame rate drops.
I conceed now that it might be possible to make lowres game using
CGFX that performs approximately as well as AGA, or even up to 50%
faster, but this is hardly impressive considering that the gfx cards
are something like a hundred times faster than AGA.
In other words, 99% of the prestanda is gone.
Don't get me wrong, I myself own a CyberVision64, and I would love
to be able to use it more for games. However I feel that there are a
lot of things missing in CGFX, like the ability to do masked blits/
alpha channel blits using the onboard blitter.
Theese missing functions forces you to program your games in a
ugly and inefficient manner, calculating each frame in fast mem
and pushing it over the bus, hardly even using the lightning
fast on board blitter.
If only CGFX could be enhanced to have some support for gaming,
it would be possible to do games perfectly smoothly in 800x600 32
bits, or even more. I hope this will happen, but I'm not exactly
holding my breath...
> >> Also, with a little trickery you can construct a HAM8 18 bit screen
> >> that can be scrolled and blitted to in an efficient manner, and
> >> looks almost exactly as 24bit.
> > A little bit of trickery? With no tricks at all a graphics card gives you
> > 24 bits.
>
> And it is faster :)
Not :-) To quote your own numbers above, gfx board fps=AGA fps*2.5
The AGA 18 bit engine blits and scrolls only 6 bitplanes, but in
hires. In other words you are using 12 bits/lowres pixel.
The gfx card version would have to use 32 bits/lowres pixel (or are
there any cards with real 24 bit modes any more?), 32/12=2.6666,
meaning AGA is 7% faster in this case.
Of course, in reality you would probably use 16 bit mode, which
is only marginally worse than 18, but then again, the AGA version
does NOT use c2p (as in your calculation), and can use smart hardware
scrolling and blitting...
All in all, AGA is probably just a little slower than a graphics
card in this case.
Which really sucks, since the graphics card version *should* be
lightyears ahead. *sigh*.
--
<--/---\------76-cols-----------------^-----Your-Name-Here----Something---->
/ Small*<-Perth Make Your Very 4 rows em...@address.here witty some
/ Ascii \ Own Signature File! | Profession Here dead guy
\ Picture / Follow The Instructions v Other Personal Info said here
Alan L.M. Buxey
On 25 Jun 1997 12:44:40 GMT ,Hans-Joerg Frieden posted the following:
: Johan Forsberg <d92...@nada.kth.remove.this.se> wrote:
: > On an Amiga it can.
: > As long as you have to shove each frame of gfx over the realatively
: > slow Zorro buss, its hard to get the 50 fps that even OCS on a
: > a500 accomplished with ease.
: What are you talking about? Have you found a way to move data to chip ram
: without going over the slow Chipram bus interface?
: BTW, I have written a small wolfenstein engine that runs at about 40 fps
: on my old Picasso and around 70 fps on a CyberVision 64.
i think he's on about 2D sprite based games etc....with custom blitter
work et al......trouble is, the res. of those games isnt that high ;-)
ps whats the engine called? :-)
: longer as soon as a bigger processor is in play (040 or 060). I bet you
: haven't seen Duke Nukem 3D on the ShapeShifter, it does around 20 fps on a
: 640x480 screen... But then, 20 fps aren't 50 fps, as all A500 would play
: DN3D on OCS, I guess.
8-)
alan
Alan L.M. Buxey
On 24 Jun 97 21:58:53 +0000 ,Gareth Young posted the following:
: Not really. I /can't/ upgrade my Amiga any more, that's why. Neither can the
: majority of Amiga users, unless they take the time, trouble and money to weld
: their A1200s into a hideous tower case with Zorro slots...
weld?? Get a MicroniK tower - 150 quid, your A1200 just slides in so
beatifully and you then have a REAL power supply and REAL
expansions....wnat to add 3 IDE harddrives? easy! and you have another 3
drives bays left! and its less than 10% the price of an A4000.
: That's true. But we realistically can not make GFX card games only at all.
correct.....but there again, CyberGfxAGA is coming out so we can have
CyberGFX games only ;-)
: No, but with my A1200 there's nothing I can do about it.
well, you could always get a Graffiti card, but there ISNT that much
support yet - CyberGraffiti anone? ;-)
Alan
Alan L.M. Buxey
On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 06:51:39 GMT ,Colin Ward posted the following:
: If you have any money, ie. are not a struggling student :-) then I would
: strongly recommend looking around for a second hand A4000. I too was
: really annoyed for ages as I had a 1200 and I wanted to expand it, but
: really couldn't. Finally I took the plunge and bought a second hand
: 4000... Now it's like I've got a whole different computer! I've got a
: CyberVision64/3D and will soon have a PowerUp card.
well, on your definition, i am a struggling student ;-) however, i didnt
go out and blow all my cash on an a4k system - i stuck my current A1200
into a MicroniK tower - VERY expandable for a start and now all i have
to do is get myself the ZorroIII daughter board that not only has Video
slot, but also an A4k processor slot - for my CyberStormPPC of course
8-)
alan
Accolyte
> : Not really. I /can't/ upgrade my Amiga any more, that's why. Neither
> : can the majority of Amiga users, unless they take the time, trouble
> : and money to weld their A1200s into a hideous tower case with Zorro
> : slots...
>
> weld?? Get a MicroniK tower - 150 quid, your A1200 just slides in so
> beatifully and you then have a REAL power supply and REAL
> expansions....wnat to add 3 IDE harddrives? easy! and you have another 3
> drives bays left! and its less than 10% the price of an A4000.
Sounds great.. but can I still keep my Amiga keyboard with that tower?
>: That's true. But we realistically can not make GFX card games
>: only at all.
>
> correct.....but there again, CyberGfxAGA is coming out so we can have
> CyberGFX games only ;-)
CyberGFX support can be a good thing, but I'd Very much the AGA
version to be properly written for AGA. (I have serious doubt's
about CyberGfxAGA's ability to make the best use of the chipset)
-- __ ____ __ __ ____
/ "\ /\/\\__"\ / "\ / "\ /\\__"\
Accolyte/Cydonia / / // / // / // / // / // // ' / Packing Class
(Coder) / /\/ > // / // / // / // // / /__ And Kickin'Ass!
\__/ \_/ \__/ \__/ \/\/ \/ \/\/ \/
kid...@cyberhighway.net
>true enough.... BUT most ppl still have only AGA, and GFX card only games
>are even more stoopid than AGA only games.
I don't think ANYONE said anything about GFX card only games. The crying shame
is graphix card support seems so easy and there are people out there more then
happy to code it for the software companies. To leave it out is inexecusable.
Gloom deluxe supports GFX cards, AGA, ECS, etc. Now why the hell can't everyone
do that?
Gareth Young
Colin Ward sent him scented letters, she knew exactly what to do.. a Re: NO to
graphic cards games! to fool him, Colin Ward couldn't have made a worse
move...
> If you have any money, ie. are not a struggling student :-)
Got it in one!
Hans-Joerg Frieden
Emmanuel Henn <dec...@hs-hom.handshake.de> wrote:
> I guess Johan spoke about "old-fashioned" actiongames, such
> as shoot`m up-games, beat`em ups, jump`n`run...
classifies as an old-fashion shoot-em-up, and it was very smooth and it
did work in 640x480...
Hans-Joerg Frieden
Johan Forsberg <d92...@nada.kth.remove.this.se> wrote:
> I was talking about a scrolly 2d game, not a c2p-based 3d game.
> In AGA you don't have to actually move all that much data, or use
> the processor much.
> Remember also that there are no gfx cards using z3 DMA, which means
> that as soon as you start doing anything but just pushing data to
> the card, frame rate drops.
smooth and fast, even in 640x480..
> I conceed now that it might be possible to make lowres game using
> CGFX that performs approximately as well as AGA, or even up to 50%
> faster, but this is hardly impressive considering that the gfx cards
> are something like a hundred times faster than AGA.
> In other words, 99% of the prestanda is gone.
AGA has the big plus of having a "graphics processor" onbaord. The AGA
blitter has lots of functions never seen on GFXboard blitters. Alas, it's
bandwidth is limited...
> Not :-) To quote your own numbers above, gfx board fps=AGA fps*2.5
> The AGA 18 bit engine blits and scrolls only 6 bitplanes, but in
> hires. In other words you are using 12 bits/lowres pixel.
However, you need computing time to get these 12 bits together. You don't
need dirty tricks for that.
> The gfx card version would have to use 32 bits/lowres pixel (or are
> there any cards with real 24 bit modes any more?), 32/12=2.6666,
> meaning AGA is 7% faster in this case.
The Picasso has a BGR mode, i.e. one byte blue, one byte green, one byte
red. However, an ARGB mode has the plus that you can move longwords, which
is much faster than moving words or bytes, as is the case with the BGR
mode of the Picasso...
> Which really sucks, since the graphics card version *should* be
> lightyears ahead. *sigh*.
It took programmers on the PC years to get a descent scrolling... Chunky
modes require other techniques...
Hans-Joerg Frieden
however, since it is far from being complete. It does angular walls,
"pushed-back" doors (hard to explain - like those in Wolfenstein),
floor/ceiling mapping or floor/sky mapping, and depth shading. No sprites
yet... I would have to switch to asm, I guess, to keep the engine fast
enough, and I don't have the nerves to program assembler anymore...
Colin Ward
mag...@birdland.es.bawue.de (Steffen Haeuser) wrote:
>> true enough.... BUT most ppl still have only AGA, and GFX card only games
>> are even more stoopid than AGA only games.
>And many people also have A3000. They can upgrade to GFX Board, but they can
>NOT upgrade to AGA.
>I think in the current situation it is best to support both (for example in
>using rtgmaster). But usually, AGA fanatics are not interested in facts...
What is it with all this hatred towards AGA people? *I* am a proud AGA
fanatic, and I'm also a proud CyberGraphX fanatic. The game I am working
on now will work on CyberGraphX if it is present, and if not will bang the
AGA hardware (and bang it properly, so it doesn't blow up if you've got a
"funny" system - it works perfectly on a 4000/040 system now, even if you
are in a bizarre screenmode like DblPAL).
Not all of us are horrid hardware bangers who don't give a shit about
graphics cards!
Colin Ward
I considered this, but here in Australia we aren't exactly swimming in
Amiga dealers. :-( So for me to get this I would have to hassle
Brisbane's one and only Amiga dealer, who is *very* small, to go and find
out how to get his hands on one. Then I'd have to hassle him to actually
do it. Then I'd have to wait about 3 months while he farted around etc.
In the end, it wasn't worth it - I saw a 4000 going cheap in the paper and
had just got a *shitload* of holiday pay, so I went for it. I then starved
for the next week. :-)
Somehow I don't think that I'm the only one who has put new Amiga
equipment in front of food. :-)
But seriously, the tower 1200 is probably just as good as the 4000. It
just depends on where in the world you are. In some places it is easier
and maybe even cheaper to find yourself a 4000/030. And if you're not
interested in AGA, then you can get yourself a 2000 for about $100 and put
just about every kind of expansion in that... I considered that, but I'm
right into demos as well, and they're all AGA...
Colin Ward
nr...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
>> Well spoken! We also need more positive talk like this, rather than the
>> continual "The A\Box won't be released,", "Noone will buy it," "The PIOS
>> one will fail" etc.
>> We *are* on the virge of something big and new here, regardless of
>> whether Amiga International pick up the ball. All that is needed is for
>> people to have a little faith and optimism!
>Hear hear!
>The A\Box looks like it's gonna be a real killer. And bugger it, even if
>it doesn't live up to all of it's claims, it'll still be a huuuuuuuge leap
>up from AGA Amiga's. (UMA's a good step above the current state-of-the-art
>PC architecture too, dare I say it.)
>And if GW2k don't decide to come along for the ride, well screw them.
>This is the way the Amiga -needs- to go, and I'm gonna be there too.
>Can't go any worse than Apple's decision-making now, can it?
>(prophetic last words.) :-)
Well, this is why I wasn't *really* hanging out to find out who would be
the next owner of the Amiga. I mean, I was hoping for some big company to
come along and buy it and do the right thing with it, but even if *noone*
bought it, there was so much looming on the horizon in terms of
"replacement" Amigas that it probably wouldn't really matter.
I too think that the A\Box is the way to go, and the thing that people
don't realize is that Phase 5 have a well thought out migration path for
Amiga-A\Box. That's why I bought a 4000, because once you put a PPC/060 in
there + the Caipirhana chipset, and install the A\Box's OS on it, you
basically *have* an A\Box!
Colin Ward
mag...@birdland.es.bawue.de (Steffen Haeuser) wrote:
>And the A3000 users cannot upgrade to AGA also...
>> That's true. But we realistically can not make GFX card games only at all.
>With c2p it is quite easy to do games that run on both... at least, as to 3D
>games...
Well, I developed an AGA game library a while back, for scrolly platform
games and shoot 'em ups (my favourites!). So now that I've got my
CyberVision 64/3D I'm going to put CyberGraphX support in it, so if you've
got the CyberGraphX libraries installed, whatever your card, then it will
use them. Otherwise it will hit the AGA hardware, thus keeping graphics
card owners and non graphics card owners happy. Maybe I will put ECS
support in it - it depends on the game...
*BUT* the only problem is that when I first wrote my games library, I had
to do all sorts of things to get the speed out of the machine. So even
with double buffering + another buffer for bobs and some and some not quite
so modularised coding I managed to get about 15 decent sized bobs on screen
with an 8 way scroller at 50 fps. Now when I go coding CyberGraphX stuff
for say, a base 030/25 system this will probably be no problem, but what I
am afraid of is that after I add the layer of abstraction required to
separate the logic code from the hardware specific code, I'll have lost so
much processor time on the AGA systems that I'll only have half the time
left to blit bobs etc. I mean I think that it's fair to write CyberGraphX
games for the 030+ in C, but not 020/AGA games. If the 1200 had an 030/25
as standard then it might be different...
Anyway, I'll soon find out when I get into this project. I just thought
I'd post this to give you something to think about. 3D games are different
because they don't *have* to run at 50 fps to be effective. Scrolly games,
on the other hand, look like shit if they don't run at 50 fps! And man,
you'd shudder if you knew some of the lengths I had to go to to get that
AGA library running at 50 fps on an 020/AGA system! :-(
Brian White
kid...@cyberhighway.net writes:
>>true enough.... BUT most ppl still have only AGA, and GFX card only games
>>are even more stoopid than AGA only games.
>
>is graphix card support seems so easy and there are people out there more then
>happy to code it for the software companies. To leave it out is inexecusable.
>Gloom deluxe supports GFX cards, AGA, ECS, etc. Now why the hell can't everyone
>do that?
>
>
Steffen Haeuser
ĸ° dec...@hs-hom.handshake.de wrote : ĸī
Hi!
> I guess Johan spoke about "old-fashioned" actiongames, such
> as shoot`m up-games, beat`em ups, jump`n`run...
I think it should be possible to do such games on a GFX Board Equipped Amiga
too... there will be some CPU-power needed, too, then, though... of course,
such stuff is easier on AGA...
Steffen Haeuser
Steffen Haeuser
ÿ° kc...@central.susx.ac.uk wrote : ÿ´
Hi!
> : That's true. But we realistically can not make GFX card games only at all.
> correct.....but there again, CyberGfxAGA is coming out so we can have
> CyberGFX games only ;-)
Well, even a CyberGfxAGA won't be able to do Direct Video RAM Access to a
Chunky Buffer, i guess... it simply will implement the high level calls of
CyberGraphX, probably... so AGA-code is still needed...
Steffen Haeuser
Gareth Young
Alan L.M. Buxey sent him scented letters, she knew exactly what to do.. a Re:
NO to graphic cards games! to fool him, Alan L.M. Buxey couldn't have made a
worse move...
> weld?? Get a MicroniK tower - 150 quid, your A1200 just slides in so
> beatifully and you then have a REAL power supply and REAL
> expansions....wnat to add 3 IDE harddrives?
Yes.
> easy!
I don't think stealing money is easy...
Gareth Young
Colin Ward sent him scented letters, she knew exactly what to do.. a Re: YES
to the future of the best computer around ! to fool him, Colin Ward couldn't
have made a worse move...
> I too think that the A\Box is the way to go, and the thing that people
> don't realize is that Phase 5 have a well thought out migration path for
> Amiga-A\Box.
Amiga to A\Box???
This is absurd. Tell me exactly what these two computers have in common apart
from the fact that the former's users are being hijacked by a load of hype
from the latter? They don't even use the same OS!
Emmanuel Henn
kidice`s comment about "Re: NO to graphic cards games!" was....
ke> >true enough.... BUT most ppl still have only AGA, and GFX card only games
ke> >are even more stoopid than AGA only games.
ke>
ke> I don't think ANYONE said anything about GFX card only games. The crying shame
ke> is graphix card support seems so easy and there are people out there more then
ke> happy to code it for the software companies. To leave it out is inexecusable.
ke> Gloom deluxe supports GFX cards, AGA, ECS, etc. Now why the hell can't everyone
ke> do that?
Because.
There are some games that just don`t work with gfxcards support, for example
all horizontal scrolling games (WORMS..) and action games that are
not 3-D (shoot`em ups, beat em ups...).
And if You look around, most new games that BENEFIT from gfxcards also
tend to work with them (Scions, Trapped2, Phoenix...).
So, please don`t complain, gfxcard support isn`t such an old thing,
by the way, gfxcards are NOW becoming popular, due to the possibilities
to build an A1200 into a tower, which enlarges the market.
Patience now, because developers have to develop and a new game doesn`t
pop up just out of thin air.
CU L8TER,
Emmanuel
__
###### ####### ##### ## ## ### ###### ###### A1200/060/18MB
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##Cinema-Fanatic
## ## ###### ## #### ####### ## ## ## ##Doing:PHOENIX
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ###### ## ##
###### ####### ##### ## ## ## ## ## ## ###### @HS-HOM.Handshake.de
"Have You ever "retired" a human by "mistake" ?"
Emmanuel Henn
Hans-Joerg`s comment about "Re: NO to graphic cards games!" was....
HF> > Which really sucks, since the graphics card version *should* be
HF> > lightyears ahead. *sigh*.
HF> It took programmers on the PC years to get a descent scrolling... Chunky
HF> modes require other techniques...
Well, let`s say it became possible since they released the 100 mhz 486 :-/
Who would seriuosly consider making a shoot`em up for 040-Amigas with
graphic card ?
CU L8TER,
Emmanuel
__
###### ####### ##### ## ## ### ###### ###### A1200/060/18MB
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##Cinema-Fanatic
## ## ###### ## #### ####### ## ## ## ##Doing:PHOENIX
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ###### ## ##
###### ####### ##### ## ## ## ## ## ## ###### @HS-HOM.Handshake.de
"Tell me something about...Your mother?"
"My mother ? I`ll tell You about my mother..."
Mattias Karlsson
>Amiga to A\Box???
>This is absurd. Tell me exactly what these two computers have in common
>apart from the fact that the former's users are being hijacked by a load of
>hype from the latter? They don't even use the same OS!
Both have highly overpriced, quickly becoming obsolete chipsets (I mean,
there are already now chips that does 1600MB/sec for a price P5 can only
dream about, for example the RIVA 128 wich is a $30 chip,
URL: http://www.st.com/stonline/prodpres/riva/ ) designed by the same
company that does the rest of the machine.
Anyway, do like myself. Just relax, sit back and watch them have their fun
for a while, knowing that they are doomed to repeat all failures of the amiga
trough history.
fma...@sgn-co.vn.dhl.com
In article <5ov74j$b...@proxy5.proxy.ozemail.net>,
co...@leprechaun.com.au wrote:
>
> nr...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
>
> >> Well spoken! We also need more positive talk like this, rather than the
> >> continual "The A\Box won't be released,", "Noone will buy it," "The PIOS
> >> one will fail" etc.
>
> >> We *are* on the virge of something big and new here, regardless of
> >> whether Amiga International pick up the ball. All that is needed is for
> >> people to have a little faith and optimism!
>
> >Hear hear!
>
> >The A\Box looks like it's gonna be a real killer. And bugger it, even if
> >it doesn't live up to all of it's claims, it'll still be a huuuuuuuge leap
> >up from AGA Amiga's. (UMA's a good step above the current state-of-the-art
> >PC architecture too, dare I say it.)
>
> >And if GW2k don't decide to come along for the ride, well screw them.
> >This is the way the Amiga -needs- to go, and I'm gonna be there too.
> >Can't go any worse than Apple's decision-making now, can it?
> >(prophetic last words.) :-)
>
> Well, this is why I wasn't *really* hanging out to find out who would be
> the next owner of the Amiga. I mean, I was hoping for some big company to
> come along and buy it and do the right thing with it, but even if *noone*
> bought it, there was so much looming on the horizon in terms of
> "replacement" Amigas that it probably wouldn't really matter.
>
> don't realize is that Phase 5 have a well thought out migration path for
> there + the Caipirhana chipset, and install the A\Box's OS on it, you
> basically *have* an A\Box!
>
F A L S E ! ! !
The PowerPC is nothing compared to the A\Box mother board. The PPC on
this card is nothing more than a copro for few tasks. You won't have the
bus and all the components of the real motherboard. PowerUp is only good
for developpers. All sofware running on PowerUp won't run on the A/Box
because the OS remains AmigaOS 68k (WB3.1). Don't expect any
developpement and support after the real PPC machines are released. Don't
fall into this trap. Phase V only needs money. You'll have to spend a lot
to upgrade your 68k Amiga with a PowerUp for nearly nothing. Save your
money and buy the first PPC machine released if you want.
Fabrice
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Kyzer
Hans-Joerg Frieden, while smelling of fish, wrote:
: > This is one of my current programming projects.
: > The engine will be able to handle smooth scrolling and plenty of
: > large bobs in HAM8 hires 25 fps. You can also implement 24 bit style
: ^^^^^^^
: > effects like partially transparent bobs, and other nice effects.
: I thought that even OCS was capable of 50 fps with everything, with ease,
: even on an A500???
Hehe :) For small values of 'everything' :)
--
Stuart 'Kyzer' Caie, Aberdeen University, Scotland. Email to: ky...@4u.net
My opinions are not those of Aberdeen University, and I do not speak for or
on behalf of AUCC.
..100% Amiga, forever!.. http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~u13sac/
--
Random sig of the day:
Packing class and eating pies!
Mika Yrj|l{
Mattias Karlsson <beta...@algonet.se> writes:
>Anyway, do like myself. Just relax, sit back and watch them have their fun
>for a while, knowing that they are doomed to repeat all failures of the amiga
>trough history.
It's not destined to that, although I can't myself to be very optimistic.
But still, 20% chance (number drawn from my internal rnd generator) is >
0%.
Mika
--
/-------------------------------------------------------------------------\
I Fantasy, Sci-fi, Computers, Marillion, Oldfield, Vangelis, Clannad, Irc I
I Odd Experiences, Worms, Tuna, Synths. See http://www.lut.fi/~myrjola I
\-------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Mattias Karlsson
>>Anyway, do like myself. Just relax, sit back and watch them have their fun
>>for a while, knowing that they are doomed to repeat all failures of the
>>amiga trough history.
>It's not destined to that, although I can't myself to be very optimistic.
>But still, 20% chance (number drawn from my internal rnd generator) is >
>0%.
Well, I have to agree that "Doomed" is perhaps a bit to strong wordings. I
can only hope that they strongly forbids things like hw-baning from the
beginning, there is noting that can cripple a new design like
backwards-compability.
Talking about new designs, did you know that we are probobly going to hear
about A/Box 2 in about a year or about 3 months after the A/Box is released?
That is, if they want to have the same progress rate as the rest of the
industry.
Features you can hope on: PPC 740@250-300 MHz, 256 bit bus chip <-> RAM,
66+ MHz PCI bus.
Tim
>Fabrice
What a load of BULLSHIT! :)
Still - nice try. We all can guess were your loyalties lie! In case you
missed things in the past couple of months let me enlighten you - AT are quite
willing to licence OS/Hardware. Both P5 and PIOS will be happy about this
one. Still feel so damn sure that all your PPC software won't run on an
A\Box?
As for your comments on PowerUp - I take it you've used one and therefore are
capable of calling it "nothing more than a copro for a few tasks". I think
you're being very naive - if a "few tasks" includes major applications, most
forthcoming games, many PD utilities *AND* modular parts of the OS -
Datatypes, Commands, Libraries etc.. (which are after all the bits of the OS
doing the bloody donkey work in the first place), well then that's fine by
me! Add PowerMac emulation to that (already tried and tested for 68k
machines) and it's a very nice package thank-you-oh-so-very-much :)
Tim R. Stubbs, BSc (Hons)
Steffen Haeuser
ĸ° co...@leprechaun.com.au schrieb : ĸī
Hi!
>>I think in the current situation it is best to support both (for example in
>>using rtgmaster). But usually, AGA fanatics are not interested in facts...
co> What is it with all this hatred towards AGA people? *I* am a proud AGA
co> fanatic, and I'm also a proud CyberGraphX fanatic. The game I am working
Well, i have no hatred. But it is simply plain silly, all those guys telling
"Graphics Boards are that slow" and all that. They had not even a LOOK at
them, or at some 3D Games running through Shapeshifter, and that sort of
stuff... i think Amiga users should stick together and not flame each other...
but a lot of AGA-only guys do exactly this.
co> on now will work on CyberGraphX if it is present, and if not will bang the
co> AGA hardware (and bang it properly, so it doesn't blow up if you've got a
co> "funny" system - it works perfectly on a 4000/040 system now, even if you
co> are in a bizarre screenmode like DblPAL).
co> Not all of us are horrid hardware bangers who don't give a shit about
co> graphics cards!
Well, a lot of them definitely ARE.
Steffen Haeuser
Emmanuel Henn
fmansat`s comment about "Re: YES to the future of the best computer around !" was....
ft> > I too think that the A\Box is the way to go, and the thing that people
ft> > don't realize is that Phase 5 have a well thought out migration path for
ft> > Amiga-A\Box. That's why I bought a 4000, because once you put a PPC/060 in
ft> > there + the Caipirhana chipset, and install the A\Box's OS on it, you
ft> > basically *have* an A\Box!
ft> >
ft>
ft> F A L S E ! ! !
ft>
ft> The PowerPC is nothing compared to the A\Box mother board. The PPC on
ft> this card is nothing more than a copro for few tasks. You won't have the
ft> bus and all the components of the real motherboard. PowerUp is only good
ft> for developpers. All sofware running on PowerUp won't run on the A/Box
ft> because the OS remains AmigaOS 68k (WB3.1). Don't expect any
ft> developpement and support after the real PPC machines are released. Don't
ft> fall into this trap. Phase V only needs money. You'll have to spend a lot
ft> to upgrade your 68k Amiga with a PowerUp for nearly nothing. Save your
ft> money and buy the first PPC machine released if you want.
That`s a valable point of view.
BUT:
It`s maybe wrong to think tha the PPC-Board offers just the fastest
coprocessor available.
The coming versions of PPaint and Reflections will offer full support
for the PPC, and there`s a new Cybergrafx included I guess, in the PowerUP-
package.
You can`t be sure about the whole thing, but I guess that as a purchaser of PowerUP,
You will be able to use PPC-based programs made for Amiga, which are to
come from variuos frims, like clickBOOM and VULCAN.
CU L8TER,
Emmanuel
__
###### ####### ##### ## ## ### ###### ###### A1200/060/18MB
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##Cinema-Fanatic
## ## ###### ## #### ####### ## ## ## ##Doing:PHOENIX
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ###### ## ##
###### ####### ##### ## ## ## ## ## ## ###### @HS-HOM.Handshake.de
"It`s like ten thousand spoons and all You need is a knife..."
Jonny Johansson
Steffen Haeuser wrote:
> ĸ° co...@leprechaun.com.au schrieb : ĸī
co>> What is it with all this hatred towards AGA people? *I* am a proud AGA
co>> fanatic, and I'm also a proud CyberGraphX fanatic. The game I am working
>Well, i have no hatred. But it is simply plain silly, all those guys telling
>"Graphics Boards are that slow" and all that. They had not even a LOOK at
>them, or at some 3D Games running through Shapeshifter, and that sort of
>stuff... i think Amiga users should stick together and not flame each
>other... but a lot of AGA-only guys do exactly this.
Actually for the time I've been lurking these newsgroups, I have seen few
comments of that sort from AGA-only people, while gfx board owners tend to
yell loud indeed.
I guess that's because these have an investment to "protect".
As for OCS/AGA and just about anything ever constructed, I wish people
would just make note that time has moved on, rather than shouting
that this or that "is crap" or "sucks".
Jonny Johansson
Accolyte
> > > I think in the current situation it is best to support both (for
> > > example in using rtgmaster). But usually, AGA fanatics are not
> > > interested in facts...
> >
> > What is it with all this hatred towards AGA people? *I* am a
> > proud AGA fanatic, and I'm also a proud CyberGraphX fanatic.
> > The game I am working
> Well, i have no hatred. But it is simply plain silly, all those guys
> telling "Graphics Boards are that slow" and all that. They had not
> even a LOOK at them, or at some 3D Games running through
> Shapeshifter, and that sort of stuff... i think Amiga users should
> stick together and not flame each other... but a lot of AGA-only guys
> do exactly this.
Actually I haven't seen *any* AGA-only guys flaming gfx-card
supporters - It's always the other way around, with AGA-supporters
defending themselves.. (and even that is rare to see.) I'm sick
and tired of reading abuse from gfx-card guys.
That's not directed at you BTW - it's gfx-card owners in general.
They should understand that abuse and mindless criticisms (not in the
slightest way constructive, eg: "if any game doesn't support gfx
cards it's shit") will only make programmers LESS likely to add
graphics card support. Who wants to spend days slaving over code
for people who treat you like that?
Get a clue people?!
co>> on now will work on CyberGraphX if it is present, and if not will bang
co>> the AGA hardware (and bang it properly, so it doesn't blow up if you've
co>> got a "funny" system - it works perfectly on a 4000/040 system now, even
co>> if you are in a bizarre screenmode like DblPAL).
co>> Not all of us are horrid hardware bangers who don't give a shit about
co>> graphics cards!
> Well, a lot of them definitely ARE.
There is also a lot of gfx-card coders who don't give a toss
about AGA - it's not fair just to pay out on AGA people.
-- __ ____ __ __ ____
/ "\ /\/\\__"\ / "\ / "\ /\\__"\
Accolyte/Cydonia / / // / // / // / // / // // ' / Packing Class
(Coder) / /\/ > // / // / // / // // / /__ And Kickin'Ass!
\__/ \_/ \__/ \__/ \/\/ \/ \/\/ \/
Alan L.M. Buxey
On 24 Jun 97 01:15:53 +0100 ,Martyn Bone posted the following:
: This might be the standard for people connected to the net but I would
: imagine that a high proportion of users have a pretty much unexpanded
: A1200.
: & A1200 with graphics board!!!
: you need to buy a tower (Ł125) + Zorro expansion (Ł175)
: and then the graphics board (Ł250), and i know that I
: don't have Ł550 spare at the moment
1) read the latest AF survey - they were quite suprised by the high
amount of proper A1200's around ;-)
Look, there hasnt been any new Amiga for over 4 years, therefore,
instead of being able to spend their money, a lot of people have had the
cash lying around to upgrade instead. I never would have imagined my
A1200 to be like it is now - i was getting ready to buy some A1800 if it
came out...it didnt, so now my Amiga is in a MicroniK Concept Tower and
i'm only 200 quid away from a Gfx card - but i wont do that way, i'm
saving for the CyberVisionPPC route as it will be better.
Alan
Steffen Haeuser
ĸ° acco...@wr.com.au schrieb : ĸī
Hi!
ac> Actually I haven't seen *any* AGA-only guys flaming gfx-card
ac> supporters - It's always the other way around, with AGA-supporters
ac> defending themselves.. (and even that is rare to see.) I'm sick
ac> and tired of reading abuse from gfx-card guys.
I saw this a lot already... remember the days when Fabio still read this
newsgroup ? :) Well, and the original mail of this thread is another example...
AGA-supporters defending themselves... well, they say GFX Boards would not be
worth anything for games (what at least for 3D games is definitely wrong) to
defend themselves. I have to say most GFX Board Guys are only defending
themselves...
ac> That's not directed at you BTW - it's gfx-card owners in general.
ac> They should understand that abuse and mindless criticisms (not in the
ac> slightest way constructive, eg: "if any game doesn't support gfx
ac> cards it's shit") will only make programmers LESS likely to add
Well, this sort of stuff i did never write... and well... i *am* supporting
AGA, after all...
Steffen Haeuser
Alan L.M. Buxey
On 29 Jun 97 00:24:53 +0100 ,Jonny Johansson posted the following:
: Actually for the time I've been lurking these newsgroups, I have seen few
: comments of that sort from AGA-only people, while gfx board owners tend to
: yell loud indeed.
: I guess that's because these have an investment to "protect".
no, not protect, but to promote! its VERY annoying to see everyone
complain abotu how there isnt his game or that game" available and about
how "developers are leaving" and when you push them on their harware
configs they admit that they're happy using 1991 technology!
....i think its more like gfx-card owners are trying to steer the rest
of the Amiga community to the future.
PS the most expensice thing about gfx-cards ISNT the actual card. its a
decent 17" monitor to go with it! 8-)
Alan
Brian White
I have a gfx-card on a non-AGA computer, and what I see is a bunch of AGA fanatics saying..screw the graphics board people. The plain and simple fact is that any new games should support them both, as several excellent games in the past have, like NemacIV, Gloom, Gloom Deluxe, etc. It is a shame that some of the other games like Breathless, and AB3D, and AB3DTKG did not support graphic boards, They should have, there is NO EXCUSE. Any game should support both, and even like NemacIV, and the Glooms they should try to support ECS if possible.
>
Hans Guijt
Steffen Haeuser (mag...@birdland.es.bawue.de) wrote:
>I saw this a lot already... remember the days when Fabio still read this
>newsgroup ? :)
Aaah, *those* were the days... ;-)
Hans