SVGA or not.
Fabio Bizzetti
In-Reply-To: <1996040921...@nome.no>
(from Erlend Pettersen <Erlend.P...@fix.no>)
(at 10 Apr 1996 21:41:46 GMT)
To: Erlend.P...@fix.no
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 00:16:43
Organization: None
Hi Erlend Pettersen, you wrote:
> Sorry, but I haven't write access in comp.sys.amiga.games, so I'll post this
> message to you in e-mail instead.. I think this is important.
ok. I'll post it in Usenet, to make it public, so we'll work out your posting
limitation (btw: why? mailbomb your provider if it's their lack).
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >> >Anyway, the Project Walker Amiga is an excellent low-end computer IMHO.
> >>yes, still slow chipmem though...
> >Yes, but I am scared of all this "panic" that we see nowadays in Amiga users.
> >PC had Doom, and everyone in the Amiga hated any excelled 2D game; it had to
> >be Doom or nothing.
>
> I'd like to say a few things....
:) listening with attention
> What's so special about 3D-games? I'm tired of it! Let's see some great 2D game
> like Turrican 2, Populous, Syndicate, Project X, Street Fighter 2 and all those
> other classics.
I agree with you, although I like both 2D and 3D (as you too I think).
Anyway there's no competition in 2D between PC and AGA-Amiga, so I would like
to push towards the 2D in this period, instead of trying to do 3D when it's
not the case (generically. Leave out StarFighter and VirtualRally from this
comment please ;)). The AGA chipset can produce 2D games that no PC is able to
perform, it just needs to be exploited today as OCS has been some years ago
with the great arcades and platforms that we knew.
> I'm tired of 3D!!!
I can believe! It's released as if it was shit: anytime, everywhere. ;-(
The worst thing is that Amiga's "3D" is straight converted from PC's 3D games.
> Where has all the good games gone? Everybody makes 3D-games, or they have gone
> to other platforms.
Worse, it seems that there's no imagination anymore.
Just play with JamesPond#? (I love them), Deluxe Galaga, ProjectX, Turrican 2,
Prince Of Persia, Another World, IK+, many are old games but still entertain me
much more than Breathless or Gloom. I think it has nothing to do with 3D or 2D
(i.e. AB3D is cool too), but I also recall that my favourite "Doom" game is
Shamus, a 8K game for Vic20. It was "air view", 2D, but I still play (after
years) it more than a lot of Amiga games. What I hope is that we dont lose the
creativity that the Amiga has known in the past, and just drool behind PC
conversions. It would be more than a pity.. dont you think?
It's the *fucking* capitalist mentality:
<< a thing is not cool if it has depth, it's cool if it is full of money >>
in this case "full of money" means rich of colors or polygons, or (worse) just
simply being a product from who leads the *market* (PC).
It'll happen that Bill Gates will say (about a CRAP game) "you dont have it?
you suck!" and a lot of people will get huge complexes if they dont have it.
Today, everything that comes out from a PC is considered better, just because
PC is only high-end and thus has MIPs.. a lame way to consider a whole computer
superior to all the others..
How many new 3D Amiga games use the copper anymore? "It's useless".. yeah,
because you just convert pEEcEE games. StarFighter and VirtualRally use many
copper tricks to produce a display that helps a lot the 3D engine, so dont
bother saying that the copper is useless... just waste some time to program
it as it has been done in the past, and forget about PC for a moment, you'll
learn it when/if you'll code for it.
> >PC has the *crap* (relatively to 1996 technology) SVGA chips, and you all
> >want SVGA on Amiga.
>
> I do agree with you. SVGA is crap, and it's slow.
Yeah, it's damn SLOW. People think that "fast" means 82Hz vertical refresh.
SVGA+ is the CGA/EGA or our years.
I recall how much cool EGA seemed to me in 1984, and how amazing the 8086 8Mhz..
But I can't say that it was the best video solution available, it was the
worst of its cathegory (16bit personal computers).
I still prefer the 1985 Amiga chipset rather than the CGA of 1996 (read: SVGA+),
if I want a better WorkBench I buy a GfxBoard, but I dont bother about games
and demos, where a ZorroIII board is still much worse than a cleverly programmed
AGA routine.
I bet that AGA sucks *if* you just emulate a VGA board (read: c2p).
Try to emulate AGA on SVGA++, and check which really sucks.
The PC has invaded the Amiga, cloning users and developers, that really prefer
the PC and try everything (in their point of view) to emulate PC's on Amiga.
Isn't it simpler to just buy a PC for this people?
> >You'll buy SVGA cards, then you'll discover that (besides static images) you
> >got a worse system, because your 68030 can't move anything on the screen.
>
> Even a Pentium is having problems, (I know that, I had a Pentium) so SVGA and
> chunky-graphics won't help the Amiga.
Many 3D games I've seen around for Amiga are sadly simply PC routines converted
into 680x0, running into a lame SVGA emulator (c2p); we all know how slow is
this.
> We need some originality, something new that makes people return to the Amiga.
> Something that makes it original. It was originality that made many buy Amiga's
> before.
Yeah.. many Amiga users would buy a PC if they could, so they just bother
asking PC straight conversions untill they can buy a true PC.
> >If you wanna listen me, I've much to say about it, to avoid the sad end that
> >is in front of all the Amiga game users.
>
> There won't be any sad end if the development is changed, and the development
> get concentrated on something new and original.
It's strange that the Amiga is famous to have appassionate users and developers,
and now we get only 1/20 of original and nice games, while the rest is only a
trial (full of complexes) to live in the shadow of PC, enjoying being much more
crap, but at least "similar" to the big brother..
I say.. fuck the PC off, also IF this would mean to give up some 3D methods.
> There's not much point in emulating the PC like many are trying to do. I don't
> want my Amiga to turn into a PC. I actually sold my PC not many days ago,
> because I got tired of that machine.
It's just a piece of shit. It's strange that so many Amiga users untill
yesterday thought so, and now they're trying to emulate the PC as much as
possible. I can't neither see a COOL Amiga demo since months (or more); they
all get docs from PC sites and convert these fucking routines.
The Amiga was the king of demos, where all the new effects where created, now
many Amiga demo coders just accept to be ruled (and leaded) by PC demo coders,
instead of setting the standard. Why has it to be as PC coders want?
Demo never meant anything else than cool effects, whatever they are.
They dont have to be PC's Comanche, they dont have to be PC's Quake, they dont
have to be PC's Descent. They've to be cool and expecially original effects.
What is REALLY original in Descent more than in Doom? "rotate more"..WOW!!! :->
What made me much angry about some emails I got about the AgaEXTENDER is that
some people had a so much open mind to understand that it was only a SVGA
style chunky adaptor.. while its real power is completely another, both for
2D and 3D effects/routines, fastram->chipram gigabytes/sec or not..
Today nearly everyone (nope.. fortunately) orbits around crap PC technology and
compares everything with it. We had this also in A500 times.. you recall how
crap were our games, with no blitter/copper/custom chips usage because they
were converted directly from Atari ST? How crap were OutRun, Rolling Thunder,
PacLand? Instead:
How many of you recall when PacMania was released, and that the developers
(the best around) said they would have pushed to the limit any computer version
coding specifically for each of them.. Then the Amiga version was exactly as
the coin op, the PC one had NO SCROLL, the AtariST sucked hard.
If we didn't have those developers, PacMania on Amiga would be crap as many
other games. Too lucky it isn't, and that it's so cool to play it also today.
> So, _please_, Amiga software and games-developers out there: Do something
> original like you did in the old days.
Or just gather some money and buy a PC, they'll not repent if they have that
mentality. Nothing bad in this.. but go away from the Amiga forever.
> -Erlend Pettersen- Using Thor on his plain A1200. :)
>
>
Hadet.
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Fabio "Maverick" Bizzetti - bizz...@mbox.vol.it - Maverick* at IRC |
| The maker of "CyberMan" and "Virtual Karting" |
| working on "VirtualRally" & "StarFighter" |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Juergen Rally Fischer
Fabio Bizzetti (bizz...@mbox.vol.it) wrote:
: > >it had to
: > >be Doom or nothing.
because doom is cool. I always liked games with good gfx engines from
beining (i.e. 8bit 2D), so I like tmap games.
: comment please ;)). The AGA chipset can produce 2D games that no
: PC is able to
A 2d game with both technical intersting fx and nice gameplay/idea
maybe really could start revival.
maybe with modern components, zoomed or tmaped bobs.
: The worst thing is that Amiga's "3D" is straight converted from PC's 3D
: games.
The worst thing is that this is _not_ done! if they had ported
doom (and not sucking up the c2p part) everything would have been
happy. even increasing turboboard market ;)
: Worse, it seems that there's no imagination anymore.
You're stuck much more in development when doing 3d stuff.
those old atari 2600 games, 8k code or so, now they had time
to think about the game itself ;)
: How many new 3D Amiga games use the copper anymore? "It's useless".. yeah,
for doom (sorry ;) copper could overtake floorshading.
non shaded map is 70% faster vs look-up-shaded mapping.
(a tricky clone would let you select the "need only 11 cycles but
need 64k for a 32x32 texture" fake mapper for the most used floortexture.
short, AGA could maybe compensate the quite slow bandwidth with the
tricks, at least up to 030.
: > I do agree with you. SVGA is crap, and it's slow.
no need for it in games, but good for running a hires wb.
: if I want a better WorkBench I buy a GfxBoard, but I dont bother about games
: and demos, where a ZorroIII board is still much worse than a cleverly
: programmed AGA routine.
depends on the demo ;) already read about the 24bit emu on AGA ?
: the PC and try everything (in their point of view) to emulate PC's on Amiga.
: Isn't it simpler to just buy a PC for this people?
no! I wanna doom on my ami :)
: Many 3D games I've seen around for Amiga are sadly simply PC routines
: converted
: into 680x0, running into a lame SVGA emulator (c2p); we all know how slow is
: this.
You don't believe in direct planar mapping, do you ? ;)
Well, wallmapping indeed can be done fast with cpu setting some pixels
and blitter eor-filling it (see wolf part in Roots/Sanity). Well, the
walltexture must have some qualities, best is not too much colorchange
vertical, and if color changes the colornumber is to have little bits
changed vs prev number. i.e 001 -> 011 -> 010 -> 110 -> 111 -> 101 ...
and you can't draw a wall over another. z-buffered wolf only, don't ask
me how to insert monsters.
no way of planar mapping.
: > We need some originality, something new that makes people return to the
: > Amiga.
: > Something that makes it original. It was originality that made many buy
: > Amiga's before.
No. they just wanted smooth scroll shoot games like they want smoth zoom
3d games today. I had no idea about the tricky amiga concept, I bought
it for gaming. then for hacking.
: Yeah.. many Amiga users would buy a PC if they could, so they just bother
: asking PC straight conversions untill they can buy a true PC.
do you know abother kind of conversion ? ;)
again, if there only were conversions. use 2x1 (won't look more
blocky than 13h on megamonitor ;) and add a cheap 030. voila.
: > There's not much point in emulating the PC like many are trying to do.
well 3d games != PC. there are playstations or whatever.
so 3d gaming is 3dgaming. and i wanna do / code it on Ami.
: > I don't
: > want my Amiga to turn into a PC. I actually sold my PC not many days ago,
me not, too. but if we're not given aga+, well I can imagine running
chunky stuff on a card. not much difference to running chunky stuff on AGA+.
: possible. I can't neither see a COOL Amiga demo since months (or more); they
: all get docs from PC sites and convert these fucking routines.
because it's a challenge. chunky provides lots of new fancy fx.
after having done lots of planar. I'd like to do some stuff like
in videos. well, seen the demo "cccp" ? (back from watching it :)
it combines both planar and chunky stuff, lots of paralax and
rotzoom, gouraud.
: many Amiga demo coders just accept to be ruled (and leaded) by PC demo
: coders,
: instead of setting the standard. Why has it to be as PC coders want?
well, flatshaded -> gouraud -> maped -> gouraudmaped.
I like it and care sh** about "what PC coders want".
: Demo never meant anything else than cool effects, whatever they are.
true.
: What is REALLY original in Descent more than in Doom? "rotate more"..WOW!!! :->
well, seen from tech side its a fast new 3d engine with free directional
move and nice (faked for speed) shading routines. And it looks nice.
: What made me much angry about some emails I got about the AgaEXTENDER is that
: 2D and 3D effects/routines, fastram->chipram gigabytes/sec or not..
3D ? how ?
well, what about the extender & tasking. can you switch to extended screen
and back to wb ?
well, I know you don't like it, but what about having a chunky os screen
so that clones that run bad c2p (too much :\) can do writepixelarray8()
like on gfx-card (sorry :) but would be just an advantage).
: were converted directly from Atari ST? How crap were OutRun, Rolling Thunder,
well, they ran 7.09/8 times as fast as the ST version while today
they run 0.1 as fast on vanilla A1200 ;)
: If we didn't have those developers, PacMania on Amiga would be crap as many
: other games. Too lucky it isn't, and that it's so cool to play it also today.
with killaga ? ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
fisc...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Juergen "Rally" Fischer) =:)
Chris
In article <4lpril$s...@sunsystem5.informatik.tu-muenchen.de>,
fisc...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE says...
>Fabio Bizzetti (bizz...@mbox.vol.it) wrote:
>: Worse, it seems that there's no imagination anymore.
>You're stuck much more in development when doing 3d stuff.
>those old atari 2600 games, 8k code or so, now they had time
>to think about the game itself ;)
Seen Boulderdash 3D? That's very original (though you wouldn`t think so for
the title). It also plays like MAD!
>: How many new 3D Amiga games use the copper anymore? "It's useless".. yeah,
>for doom (sorry ;) copper could overtake floorshading.
Why? It's good for blocky (2*2) chunky screens...... Which works very well
for providing 3D on low-end systems like an A1200 or A1200 + Fast ram.
I might mention Boulderdash 3D again :^)
>: > I don't
>: > want my Amiga to turn into a PC. I actually sold my PC not many days ago,
Wow! You're one of the few people who has done so.
>: possible. I can't neither see a COOL Amiga demo since months (or more);
they
>: all get docs from PC sites and convert these fucking routines.
>because it's a challenge. chunky provides lots of new fancy fx.
>after having done lots of planar. I'd like to do some stuff like
>in videos. well, seen the demo "cccp" ? (back from watching it :)
>it combines both planar and chunky stuff, lots of paralax and
>rotzoom, gouraud.
So Tint is a pile of crap then? 3D stuff can be just as interesting to watch
as 2D stuff :)
--
From Christopher Handley
Email: ela9...@sheffield.ac.uk
-------------------------------------------------------sig v2.11 A--------
//Amiga A1200/`030/40MHz/4Mb Fast ram | "Amiga - Back to KickAss!" ;)
\\/ + PowerStation (SCSI 540Mb Hd + |AB3D II, Virtual Rally, Justice,
2.4 speed CD drive + SyQuest EZ135) |Star Fighter, Xtreme Racing, ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Boescke
Reply to Re: SVGA or not. / 26.04.1996
by fisc...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Juergen Rally Fischer)
JF> Fabio Bizzetti (bizz...@mbox.vol.it) wrote:
JF>
JF> : > >it had to
JF> : > >be Doom or nothing.
JF> because doom is cool. I always liked games with good gfx engines from
JF> beining (i.e. 8bit 2D), so I like tmap games.
JF>
JF> : comment please ;)). The AGA chipset can produce 2D games that no
JF> : PC is able to
Examples please.. We are living in 1996 and they already did parallax-
scrolling in PC 2D-games. The only advantage the amiga has is faster
scrolling. But a processor-bob in pc is many times faster than a bob
on amiga.
JF> A 2d game with both technical intersting fx and nice gameplay/idea
JF> maybe really could start revival.
JF> maybe with modern components, zoomed or tmaped bobs.
Yep ! I want a 2D-shoot`em up like R-Type.. ;)
JF> : The worst thing is that Amiga's "3D" is straight converted from PC's 3D
JF> : games.
JF> The worst thing is that this is _not_ done! if they had ported
JF> doom (and not sucking up the c2p part) everything would have been
JF> happy. even increasing turboboard market ;)
Maybe ID-soft will give awy their doom-sources one day ?? ;)
JF> : How many new 3D Amiga games use the copper anymore? "It's useless".. yeah,
JF> for doom (sorry ;) copper could overtake floorshading.
JF> non shaded map is 70% faster vs look-up-shaded mapping.
JF> (a tricky clone would let you select the "need only 11 cycles but
JF> need 64k for a 32x32 texture" fake mapper for the most used floortexture.
JF>
JF> short, AGA could maybe compensate the quite slow bandwidth with the
JF> tricks, at least up to 030.
JF> : > I do agree with you. SVGA is crap, and it's slow.
JF> no need for it in games, but good for running a hires wb.
Do you really think a PCI SVGA-card with 30-40 mb/s and TRIO 64
(just an example, because people use to think, that the cybervision 64
is superior to most pc-gfx boards) is slow ?
JF> : Many 3D games I've seen around for Amiga are sadly simply PC routines
JF> : converted
JF> : into 680x0, running into a lame SVGA emulator (c2p); we all know how slow is
JF> : this.
JF> You don't believe in direct planar mapping, do you ? ;)
Please stop this !!!!!! A planar Texturemapper will NEVER be faster than
a Chunky one. Why ? OK:
planar: chunky:
source: 1 read per pixel 1 read per pixel equal
pixelproc. several bit-op. none
write 1 long, per plane and one for 1-4 pixels
32 pixels. Cached, fastmem
NON-CACHED
SLOW CHIPMEM
Drawing a small traingle to a planar screen will of course be faster
than drawing it to a chunky screen + C2P.
Forget optimizing for 020, no fastmem.
C2P is not slow. Just take a look at the Bump + Phong cube in our
demo "The Gate". The FX is running in 1-2 Frames on 30/50.. C2P
is in 64 colors and takes about 280 Rasterlines (256x256) on my
68030 , 28 Mhz.
JF> : many Amiga demo coders just accept to be ruled (and leaded) by PC demo
JF> : coders,
JF> : instead of setting the standard. Why has it to be as PC coders want?
Well do you know only ONE amiga-impossible-fx , which has not been
released ? Do you know , why Chaos isn`t making demos anymore ? He
said, that he didn`t have an idea for amiga FX till almost a year.
JF> well, flatshaded -> gouraud -> maped -> gouraudmaped.
JF> I like it and care sh** about "what PC coders want".
hehe..
JF> : Demo never meant anything else than cool effects, whatever they are.
JF> true.
JF>
JF> : What is REALLY original in Descent more than in Doom? "rotate more"..WOW!!! :->
Comparing Descent to Doom is like comparing Gloom to AB3D II..
JF> : What made me much angry about some emails I got about the AgaEXTENDER is that
JF>
JF> : 2D and 3D effects/routines, fastram->chipram gigabytes/sec or not..
JF> 3D ? how ?
JF> well, what about the extender & tasking. can you switch to extended screen
JF> and back to wb ?
JF> well, I know you don't like it, but what about having a chunky os screen
JF> so that clones that run bad c2p (too much :\) can do writepixelarray8()
JF> like on gfx-card (sorry :) but would be just an advantage).
JF>
JF> : were converted directly from Atari ST? How crap were OutRun, Rolling Thunder,
JF> well, they ran 7.09/8 times as fast as the ST version while today
JF> they run 0.1 as fast on vanilla A1200 ;)
JF>
JF> : If we didn't have those developers, PacMania on Amiga would be crap as many
JF> : other games. Too lucky it isn't, and that it's so cool to play it also today.
JF> with killaga ? ;)
JF>
JF> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
JF> fisc...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Juergen "Rally" Fischer) =:)
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| - AZ...@PEOPLE-S.people.de - Tim Boescke - AZURE /atw.bzr |
+---------------------------------<AMIGA,PC,C64,PLUS/4,VCS2600>------+
Marc Forrester
fisc...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Juergen "Rally" Fischer) wrote:
>A 2d game with both technical intersting fx and nice gameplay/idea
>maybe really could start revival.
>maybe with modern components, zoomed or tmaped bobs.
Er. What's a texture mapped bob? :)
>: Worse, it seems that there's no imagination anymore.
>You're stuck much more in development when doing 3d stuff.
>those old atari 2600 games, 8k code or so, now they had time
>to think about the game itself ;)
Which is not to say that they actually -did-, of course.
There's always been fast buck crap thrown out by software houses,
there always will be. The problem is we seem to have the same amount
of raw games crafting talent as ever, spaced out by a lot more
hollywood film style pap generators.
Although not so on the Amiga, since only the craftsmen are staying..
H.D.C. SYSOP
Tim Boescke (az...@people-s.people.de) wrote:
: C2P is not slow. Just take a look at the Bump + Phong cube in our
: demo "The Gate". The FX is running in 1-2 Frames on 30/50.. C2P
: is in 64 colors and takes about 280 Rasterlines (256x256) on my
: 68030 , 28 Mhz.
64 colors? It looks a way better than many 256 color cubes I've ever seen.
How many colors those silky-smooth morphing toruses have?
And how come the demo looks like it is going at 1 frame all the time on my
33mhz 040? I guess you have invented something really new when it comes to
morphing 3D objects! :)
: Well do you know only ONE amiga-impossible-fx , which has not been
: released ? Do you know , why Chaos isn`t making demos anymore ? He
: said, that he didn`t have an idea for amiga FX till almost a year.
If you're looking for Amiga-impossible effects which you wan't to do with
Amiga look for Silicon Graphics running the latest 'demo'.
SG people stole Amigas official icon, King Tut's death mask and made some nice
effects with it. They somehow 3D-ized the image and then they just dragged
one pixel from the image and all surrounding pixels got 3D affected
(they were following that chosen pixel anywhere) - it looked
like a sharp needle was trying to penetrate the mask. When you released
your chosen pixel it started slowly going back to its original
position - one could pick several pixels one after one and there was no
slowdown - it looked really weird!
Then there was a 3x3x3 cube matrix rotating and every face of each cube had
its own realtime videosource running... not to mention that in the end the
matrix were over 25 cubes wide in every direction.
Maybe PPC604 Amiga will handle these new effects at some resolution?
Tuomas
HAAVARD JAKOBSEN
> >: How many new 3D Amiga games use the copper anymore? "It's useless".. yeah,
> >for doom (sorry ;) copper could overtake floorshading.
>
> for providing 3D on low-end systems like an A1200 or A1200 + Fast ram.
> I might mention Boulderdash 3D again :^)
>
> >: > want my Amiga to turn into a PC. I actually sold my PC not many days ago,
>
>
> as 2D stuff :)
I think the point is: there ARE thing that can be done on a PC fast that
my
Amiga won't do. This is because of AGA not beeing able to do what a
S-VGA
can do. Not saying AGA is crap, but I want a texturemapped flightsim on
my
Amiga (like EF 2000). Maybe it is possible to do this, but it's not
done...
Also, if the amiga had a chunky 24 bit mode, how much easier would it be
to
convert games to this??
Juergen Rally Fischer
Chris (ELA9...@shef.ac.uk) wrote:
: fisc...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE says...
: >for doom (sorry ;) copper could overtake floorshading.
: Why? It's good for blocky (2*2) chunky screens...... Which works very well
no. copper is not used for getting chunky any more.
I meant what I said: use non-shading floormapper (lot quicker) and
shade it with copper. more doom-speed due to copper.
: From Christopher Handley
: Email: ela9...@sheffield.ac.uk
Juergen Rally Fischer
Tim Boescke (az...@people-s.people.de) wrote:
: by fisc...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Juergen Rally Fischer)
: scrolling. But a processor-bob in pc is many times faster than a bob
: on amiga.
sad but true. you should make heavy use of hw sprites to show
something impressing. kind of 100 sprites or so ;) like they do
on C64.
: Maybe ID-soft will give awy their doom-sources one day ?? ;)
Never.
: JF> no need for it in games, but good for running a hires wb.
: Do you really think a PCI SVGA-card with 30-40 mb/s and TRIO 64
: (just an example, because people use to think, that the cybervision 64
: is superior to most pc-gfx boards) is slow ?
I just think running a doomclone it doesn't make much difference
to AGA unless you run a 060.
: JF> You don't believe in direct planar mapping, do you ? ;)
: Please stop this !!!!!! A planar Texturemapper will NEVER be faster than
: a Chunky one. Why ? OK:
I know, this was a ";)" style question to the other poster.
: planar: chunky:
: source: 1 read per pixel 1 read per pixel equal
a real planar mapper would also do multiple read/pix on source ;)
: pixelproc. several bit-op. none
: write 1 long, per plane and one for 1-4 pixels
: 32 pixels. Cached, fastmem
: NON-CACHED
: SLOW CHIPMEM
No. no one tells you can't planarmap to fastmem.
it's just that the copy will take same time like c2p!
: Well do you know only ONE amiga-impossible-fx , which has not been
: released ? Do you know , why Chaos isn`t making demos anymore ? He
yes. Amiga doom.
: said, that he didn`t have an idea for amiga FX till almost a year.
Sanity kind of gave up imho. The c2p crap is imho no reason to
not develop the new chunky stuff for Ami.
: Comparing Descent to Doom is like comparing Gloom to AB3D II..
well, descent is different chunky engine while AB3D also includes
a different screenmode engine (i.e. linear c2p).
So doom or descent is not much difference when you think about
the topic AGA speed vs. gfx-card speed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aki Laukkanen
Chris (ELA9...@shef.ac.uk) wrote:
: Why? It's good for blocky (2*2) chunky screens...... Which works very well
: I might mention Boulderdash 3D again :^)
Which is 3x3 btw and copperscreens are obsolete. They are slower than current
c2p routines.
--
Daeron
Chris Colman,Microstructural Physics,Cavendish Laboratory,Tel.
In article s...@sunsystem5.informatik.tu-muenchen.de, fisc...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Juergen "Rally" Fischer) writes:
>Fabio Bizzetti (bizz...@mbox.vol.it) wrote:
>: Many 3D games I've seen around for Amiga are sadly simply PC routines
>: converted
>: into 680x0, running into a lame SVGA emulator (c2p); we all know how slow is
>: this.
>You don't believe in direct planar mapping, do you ? ;)
>
>Well, wallmapping indeed can be done fast with cpu setting some pixels
>and blitter eor-filling it (see wolf part in Roots/Sanity). Well, the
>walltexture must have some qualities, best is not too much colorchange
>vertical, and if color changes the colornumber is to have little bits
>changed vs prev number. i.e 001 -> 011 -> 010 -> 110 -> 111 -> 101 ...
>and you can't draw a wall over another. z-buffered wolf only, don't ask
>me how to insert monsters.
>
>
> fisc...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Juergen "Rally" Fischer) =:)
I was writing a cool depth shaded maze game a while ago - perhaps I'll finish it some
day;)
Basically the screen was a load of 2 pixel wide vertical strips in different
colours - a sort of 1D copperscreen really. Then I traced the maze as usual
but instead of rendering a column, I merely shaded the vertical line by setting
its colour value according to depth. Then a sprite mask (flipped top and bottom)
can be used to give the 'tops' and 'bottoms' of the walls. This is VERY fast on
stock 1200 and very atmospheric. The sprite mask was made by setting a single
pixel for each column and then blit filling. Piece of piss ;D
Chris
cp...@mp-s.phy.cam.ac.uk
(IRC: Findus)
D.J.Davies
ELA9...@shef.ac.uk writes:
> In article <4lpril$s...@sunsystem5.informatik.tu-muenchen.de>,
> fisc...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE says...
> >Fabio Bizzetti (bizz...@mbox.vol.it) wrote:
>
> >You're stuck much more in development when doing 3d stuff.
> >those old atari 2600 games, 8k code or so, now they had time
> >to think about the game itself ;)
>
> the title). It also plays like MAD!
>
>
> for providing 3D on low-end systems like an A1200 or A1200 + Fast ram.
> I might mention Boulderdash 3D again :^)
>
> >: > want my Amiga to turn into a PC. I actually sold my PC not many days ago,
>
> Wow! You're one of the few people who has done so.
Well, that's what I did, I sold my 486, Win95 machine. Because
it was much slower than my Amiga (1200+030/50) and , I could'nt
find the same calibur of applications I use daily.
Not that it's pure clock speed was lacking (the PC that is),
but I could just get much more done, in less time on the Amiga.
The grass is always greener, then you realise it's just another
shade.
>
>
> >: possible. I can't neither see a COOL Amiga demo since months (or more);
> they
> >: all get docs from PC sites and convert these fucking routines.
> >because it's a challenge. chunky provides lots of new fancy fx.
> >after having done lots of planar. I'd like to do some stuff like
> >in videos. well, seen the demo "cccp" ? (back from watching it :)
> >it combines both planar and chunky stuff, lots of paralax and
> >rotzoom, gouraud.
>
> So Tint is a pile of crap then? 3D stuff can be just as interesting to watch
> as 2D stuff :)
>
> --
> From Christopher Handley
> Email: ela9...@sheffield.ac.uk
> -------------------------------------------------------sig v2.11 A--------
> //Amiga A1200/`030/40MHz/4Mb Fast ram | "Amiga - Back to KickAss!" ;)
> \\/ + PowerStation (SCSI 540Mb Hd + |AB3D II, Virtual Rally, Justice,
> 2.4 speed CD drive + SyQuest EZ135) |Star Fighter, Xtreme Racing, ...
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
____ __ ____ ____ ____ _ _ ____ __ _ _ ____ ____ ___
( _ \ /__\ ( _ \( _ \( ___)( \( ) ( _ \ /__\( \/ )(_ _)( ___)/ __)
)(_) )/(__)\ ) / ) / )__) ) ( )(_) )/(__)\\ / _)(_ )__) \__ \
(____/(__)(__)(_)\_)(_)\_)(____)(_)\_) (____/(__)(__)\/ (____)(____)(___/
I.T. Technician, School of Education - Exeter University /\/\/\/\/\/\///OO,
M Papachristos
HAAVARD JAKOBSEN wrote:
>
> Lovely demo!! Anyone got that Ham8 c2p thing?? I want it!
>
> I think the point is: there ARE thing that can be done on a PC fast that my
> Amiga won't do. This is because of AGA not beeing able to do what a S-VGA
> can do. Not saying AGA is crap, but I want a texturemapped flightsim on my
> Amiga (like EF 2000). Maybe it is possible to do this, but it's not done...
>
> Also, if the amiga had a chunky 24 bit mode, how much easier would it be to
> convert games to this??
I WANT TEKKEN 2 FOR MY AMIGA!!! Is THAT possible??? Possibly. Besides,
what's wrong with having SPRITES instead of thousands of polygons?
Moutos (just a funny nickname)
"And may the AmigaGuide you!"
Paul Dossett
Tim Boescke (az...@people-s.people.de) said:
>Reply to Re: SVGA or not. / 26.04.1996
>by fisc...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Juergen Rally Fischer)
JF>> short, AGA could maybe compensate the quite slow bandwidth with the
JF>> tricks, at least up to 030.
JF>> : > I do agree with you. SVGA is crap, and it's slow.
JF>> no need for it in games, but good for running a hires wb.
> Do you really think a PCI SVGA-card with 30-40 mb/s and TRIO 64
> (just an example, because people use to think, that the cybervision 64
> is superior to most pc-gfx boards) is slow ?
The latest Cirrus Logic SVGA card reportedly transfers data internally at *500
Mb/sec*!! Kind of puts AGA's ~7Mb/sec (best case scenario) into perspective,
doesn't it!
JF>> : What is REALLY original in Descent more than in Doom? "rotate
JF>> : more"..WOW!!! :->
> Comparing Descent to Doom is like comparing Gloom to AB3D II..
True, it's pretty much real 3D as I understand..
Duke Nukem 3D looks bloody good on a Pentium 120, too!
--
Paul Dossett | EpiphoneYamahaPearlPaiste | Amiga 2000/040/17/365/ZIP/3.1__
-------------| Amiga owner since 1988! | Amiga CD32/020/10/200/3.1 __///
Melbourne OZ | astr...@netspace.net.au | 1976 Toyota Corolla 1.2 \XX/
| ObWebSite : http://netspace.net.au/~astroboy/
HAAVARD JAKOBSEN
You only have 8 sprites from the beginning (I know you can mess around
to show
more.. (c64 tecnique)). I'd have 100 Tmapped polygons rather the 100
sprites
anytime rather then 100 sprites and coppereffects and blitter...
barnhoorn@nlev00
In article <1303.6695...@netspace.net.au>, astr...@netspace.net.au (Paul Dossett) writes:
>
>The latest Cirrus Logic SVGA card reportedly transfers data internally at *500
>Mb/sec*!! Kind of puts AGA's ~7Mb/sec (best case scenario) into perspective,
>doesn't it!
>
I agree... the fact that I've never seen a smooth scrolling text on
a PC with a SVGA lots-of-Mb/sec puts the AGA or Amiga into perspective!!
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jaco Barnhoorn bar...@xs4all.nl
Software Test Engineer barnhoorn%nle...@btmv56.se.bel.alcatel.be
Alcatel Telecom Systems
Rijswijk, The Netherlands
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Amsel
In article: <4ma802$g...@btmpjg.god.bel.alcatel.be> barnhoorn@nlev00 ()
writes:
>
>
> In article <1303.6695...@netspace.net.au>,
astr...@netspace.net.au (Paul Dossett) writes:
> >
> >The latest Cirrus Logic SVGA card reportedly transfers data
internally at *500
> >Mb/sec*!! Kind of puts AGA's ~7Mb/sec (best case scenario) into
perspective,
> >doesn't it!
> >
> I agree... the fact that I've never seen a smooth scrolling text on
> a PC with a SVGA lots-of-Mb/sec puts the AGA or Amiga into
perspective!!
You obviously haven`t looked very far. I have seen smooth 320x400
scrolling on a low-end 486. PCs do have some form of VGA hardware
scrolling, its just not very good and useless when it comes to dual
playfields (all processor based).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Alex Amsel : Silltunna Software Lead Programmer : Black Magic |
| XTremeRacing 1x1 TMapping and Stunning Gameplay on AGA Amigas |
| Al...@teeth.demon.co.uk | Steve Bull is Back | *PWEIPWEIPWEI* |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Kaulfuss
M Papachristos (se...@dmu.ac.uk) wrote:
: I WANT TEKKEN 2 FOR MY AMIGA!!! Is THAT possible??? Possibly. Besides,
: what's wrong with having SPRITES instead of thousands of polygons?
Polygons look nicer when they're animated smoothly, you only need to specify key
frames and the computer does the rest. You can easily change or add stuff to it
if need be, unlike sprites which are a bit of a pain in the bum to change and
that, and you need to draw every frame. And I should know! Urban Massacre is
killing me! (see sig) ;))
--
,----------------------------.---------------------------------------------.
| Philip Kaulfuss | ph...@boehme.demon.co.uk |
:----------------------------:---------------------------------------------:
|PhilK in UnderNet #AmigaCafe|Graphics artist for the game 'Urban Massacre'|
`----------------------------^---------------------------------------------'
Stephan Schaem
barnhoorn@nlev00 wrote:
: In article <1303.6695...@netspace.net.au>, astr...@netspace.net.au (Paul Dossett) writes:
: >
: >The latest Cirrus Logic SVGA card reportedly transfers data internally at *500
: >Mb/sec*!! Kind of puts AGA's ~7Mb/sec (best case scenario) into perspective,
: >doesn't it!
: >
: I agree... the fact that I've never seen a smooth scrolling text on
: a PC with a SVGA lots-of-Mb/sec puts the AGA or Amiga into perspective!!
YACAU...
Its not because you never seen it thats it not there. AGA cannot compete
with 'yesterday' PC video card for smoothly scrolling text...
Stephan
HAAVARD JAKOBSEN
barnhoorn@nlev00 wrote:
>
> In article <1303.6695...@netspace.net.au>, astr...@netspace.net.au (Paul Dossett) writes:
> >
> >The latest Cirrus Logic SVGA card reportedly transfers data internally at *500
> >Mb/sec*!! Kind of puts AGA's ~7Mb/sec (best case scenario) into perspective,
> >doesn't it!
> >
> I agree... the fact that I've never seen a smooth scrolling text on
> a PC with a SVGA lots-of-Mb/sec puts the AGA or Amiga into perspective!!
That is just windooze lame coing.
It is no problem to scroll on the PC, needs some more thinking and don't
work
when win95 tries to do some stuff, but it is possible. You can even move
the startpoint of the window with one reg.
Accolyte
> barnhoorn@nlev00 wrote:
>: In article <1303.6695...@netspace.net.au>, astr...@netspace.net.au
>: (Paul Dossett) writes:
>: >
>: >The latest Cirrus Logic SVGA card reportedly transfers data internally at
>: >*500 Mb/sec*!! Kind of puts AGA's ~7Mb/sec (best case scenario) into
>: >perspective, doesn't it!
>: >
>: I agree... the fact that I've never seen a smooth scrolling text on
>: a PC with a SVGA lots-of-Mb/sec puts the AGA or Amiga into perspective!!
>
> Its not because you never seen it thats it not there. AGA cannot compete
> with 'yesterday' PC video card for smoothly scrolling text...
That's complete bullshit.. You expect us to believe there's some aspect of
smoothly *scrolling text* that Amigas can't handle?!? :)
Fabio Bizzetti
>In article <1303.6695...@netspace.net.au>, astr...@netspace.net.au
>(Paul Dossett) writes:
>>
>>The latest Cirrus Logic SVGA card reportedly transfers data internally at
>>*500 Mb/sec*!! Kind of puts AGA's ~7Mb/sec (best case scenario) into
>>perspective, doesn't it!
some idiots measure video boards on Mb/sec like Trucks on Mph.
>I agree... the fact that I've never seen a smooth scrolling text on
>a PC with a SVGA lots-of-Mb/sec puts the AGA or Amiga into perspective!!
:D
Fabio Bizzetti
>> barnhoorn@nlev00 wrote:
>>: In article <1303.6695...@netspace.net.au>, astr...@netspace.net.au
>>: (Paul Dossett) writes:
>>: >
>>: >The latest Cirrus Logic SVGA card reportedly transfers data internally at
>>: >*500 Mb/sec*!! Kind of puts AGA's ~7Mb/sec (best case scenario) into
>>: >perspective, doesn't it!
>>: >
>>: I agree... the fact that I've never seen a smooth scrolling text on
>>: a PC with a SVGA lots-of-Mb/sec puts the AGA or Amiga into perspective!!
>>
>> Its not because you never seen it thats it not there. AGA cannot compete
>> with 'yesterday' PC video card for smoothly scrolling text...
>That's complete bullshit.. You expect us to believe there's some aspect of
>smoothly *scrolling text* that Amigas can't handle?!? :)
Why dont we just ban PC users from Amiga newsgroups?
I am sick of "Amiga" people saying that the Amiga sucks and the PC hardware,
PC architecture, PC philosophy, PC manufacteurs, PC software companies all
rule, "besides that they dont have AmigaOS".
Buy a PC and wait for the AmigaOS release (then compare it to a really serious
OS's like WindowsNT or Linux).
The AmigaOS would have been nothing outside the Amiga, and this won't change
in the future.
Fabio Bizzetti
>> >The latest Cirrus Logic SVGA card reportedly transfers data internally at
>> >*500 Mb/sec*!! Kind of puts AGA's ~7Mb/sec (best case scenario) into
>> >perspective, doesn't it!
>> >
>> I agree... the fact that I've never seen a smooth scrolling text on
>> a PC with a SVGA lots-of-Mb/sec puts the AGA or Amiga into perspective!!
>That is just windooze lame coing.
>It is no problem to scroll on the PC, needs some more thinking and don't
>work
>when win95 tries to do some stuff, but it is possible. You can even move
>the startpoint of the window with one reg.
<< So what do we wait to buy a PC and fuck the Amiga off? >>
Dont quote me.
Stephan Schaem
Fabio Bizzetti (bizz...@mbox.vol.it) wrote:
: >In article <1303.6695...@netspace.net.au>, astr...@netspace.net.au
: >(Paul Dossett) writes:
: >>
: >>The latest Cirrus Logic SVGA card reportedly transfers data internally at
: >>*500 Mb/sec*!! Kind of puts AGA's ~7Mb/sec (best case scenario) into
: >>perspective, doesn't it!
: some idiots measure video boards on Mb/sec like Trucks on Mph.
Bandwidth as ALOT to do with the video card capabilities.
: >I agree... the fact that I've never seen a smooth scrolling text on
: >a PC with a SVGA lots-of-Mb/sec puts the AGA or Amiga into perspective!!
: :D
Some people dont see to good :)
Stephan
Tim Boescke
Reply to Re: SVGA or not. / 27.04.1996
by tp...@bsd.rotol.fi (H.D.C. SYSOP)
HS> Tim Boescke (az...@people-s.people.de) wrote:
HS>
HS>
HS> : C2P is not slow. Just take a look at the Bump + Phong cube in our
HS> : demo "The Gate". The FX is running in 1-2 Frames on 30/50.. C2P
HS> : is in 64 colors and takes about 280 Rasterlines (256x256) on my
HS> : 68030 , 28 Mhz.
HS>
HS> 64 colors? It looks a way better than many 256 color cubes I've ever seen.
Thank you ! :) But how may colored bump map-cubes have you ever seen on
Amiga ? I guess none ;) Most people do some crappy faked bumpmapping
with wrong light etc.
HS> How many colors those silky-smooth morphing toruses have?
The whole demo is in 64 colors. Except for the two pictures.
HS> And how come the demo looks like it is going at 1 frame all the time on my
HS> 33mhz 040? I guess you have invented something really new when it comes to
HS> morphing 3D objects! :)
On 33 Mhz 40 the most effects should run in 2-3 Frames. May look the
same as one frame motion.. ;)
HS> : Well do you know only ONE amiga-impossible-fx , which has not been
HS> : released ? Do you know , why Chaos isn`t making demos anymore ? He
HS> : said, that he didn`t have an idea for amiga FX till almost a year.
Well as stated in the other posting, I meant effects, which can only be
done on amiga using several hardware-tricks. As for example the 1x1
pixel zoomrotator in "roots"
HS> If you're looking for Amiga-impossible effects which you wan't to do with
HS> Amiga look for Silicon Graphics running the latest 'demo'.
HS>
HS> SG people stole Amigas official icon, King Tut's death mask and made some nice
HS> effects with it. They somehow 3D-ized the image and then they just dragged
HS> one pixel from the image and all surrounding pixels got 3D affected
HS> (they were following that chosen pixel anywhere) - it looked
HS> like a sharp needle was trying to penetrate the mask. When you released
HS> your chosen pixel it started slowly going back to its original
HS> position - one could pick several pixels one after one and there was no
HS> slowdown - it looked really weird!
HS>
HS> Then there was a 3x3x3 cube matrix rotating and every face of each cube had
HS> its own realtime videosource running... not to mention that in the end the
HS> matrix were over 25 cubes wide in every direction.
HS>
HS> Maybe PPC604 Amiga will handle these new effects at some resolution?
hehe.. PPC is not _that_ fast ;) too bad.
Tim Boescke
Reply to Re: SVGA or not. / 28.04.1996JF> Tim Boescke (az...@people-s.people.de) wrote:
JF>
JF> : by fisc...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Juergen Rally Fischer)
JF>
JF> : scrolling. But a processor-bob in pc is many times faster than a bob
JF> : on amiga.
JF> sad but true. you should make heavy use of hw sprites to show
JF> something impressing. kind of 100 sprites or so ;) like they do
JF> on C64.
Very impressing. But of no use for games etc.
JF> : JF> no need for it in games, but good for running a hires wb.
JF>
JF> : Do you really think a PCI SVGA-card with 30-40 mb/s and TRIO 64
JF> : (just an example, because people use to think, that the cybervision 64
JF> : is superior to most pc-gfx boards) is slow ?
JF>
JF> I just think running a doomclone it doesn't make much difference
JF> to AGA unless you run a 060.
JF>
JF> : JF> You don't believe in direct planar mapping, do you ? ;)
JF>
JF> : Please stop this !!!!!! A planar Texturemapper will NEVER be faster than
JF> : a Chunky one. Why ? OK:
JF>
JF> I know, this was a ";)" style question to the other poster.
Yep ;) Indeed hoped so. This answer was for Fabio Bizetti, who seems
to believe, that planar "well.. non-academic" mappers are faster than
chunky ones.
JF>
JF> : planar: chunky:
JF>
JF> : source: 1 read per pixel 1 read per pixel equal
JF> a real planar mapper would also do multiple read/pix on source ;)
But that will get REALLY slow ;)
JF> : pixelproc. several bit-op. none
JF> : write 1 long, per plane and one for 1-4 pixels
JF> : 32 pixels. Cached, fastmem
JF> : NON-CACHED
JF> : SLOW CHIPMEM
JF> No. no one tells you can't planarmap to fastmem.
JF> it's just that the copy will take same time like c2p!
But mapping directly to chipmem would sometimes give you an advantage
over bad programmed chunky mapping (slow c2p) mapping planar to fastmem
wouldn`t give you _any_ advantage ;)
JF>
JF> : Well do you know only ONE amiga-impossible-fx , which has not been
JF> : released ? Do you know , why Chaos isn`t making demos anymore ? He
I meant effects, which seem to be impossible on amiga, but can be
done in some way using hardware-tricks. As for example the
1x1 pixel zoomrotator in "Roots" or the zoomer as in "optimum fuckup"
JF> yes. Amiga doom.
That is sad, but true.
Marc Forrester
bizz...@mbox.vol.it (Fabio Bizzetti) wrote:
>Buy a PC and wait for the AmigaOS release (then compare it to a really
>serious OS's like WindowsNT or Linux).
>The AmigaOS would have been nothing outside the Amiga,
>and this won't change in the future.
What is it, exactly, that AmigaOS lacks? Firmware Task Priority
Monitoring is the only thing missing that I'm aware of.
HAAVARD JAKOBSEN
Accolyte wrote:
>
> > barnhoorn@nlev00 wrote:
>
> >: In article <1303.6695...@netspace.net.au>, astr...@netspace.net.au
> >: (Paul Dossett) writes:
> >: >
> >: >The latest Cirrus Logic SVGA card reportedly transfers data internally at
> >: >*500 Mb/sec*!! Kind of puts AGA's ~7Mb/sec (best case scenario) into
> >: >perspective, doesn't it!
> >: >
> >: a PC with a SVGA lots-of-Mb/sec puts the AGA or Amiga into perspective!!
> >
> > with 'yesterday' PC video card for smoothly scrolling text...
>
> That's complete bullshit.. You expect us to believe there's some aspect of
> smoothly *scrolling text* that Amigas can't handle?!? :)
try parralax scrolling in 256 colors or more on the amiga :-p (with like
5 layers or something....) Can be quite Cpu intencsive on an amiga....
HAAVARD JAKOBSEN
Fabio Bizzetti wrote:
>
> >> >The latest Cirrus Logic SVGA card reportedly transfers data internally at
> >> >*500 Mb/sec*!! Kind of puts AGA's ~7Mb/sec (best case scenario) into
> >> >perspective, doesn't it!
> >> >
> >> I agree... the fact that I've never seen a smooth scrolling text on
> >> a PC with a SVGA lots-of-Mb/sec puts the AGA or Amiga into perspective!!
>
> >It is no problem to scroll on the PC, needs some more thinking and don't
> >work
> >when win95 tries to do some stuff, but it is possible. You can even move
> >the startpoint of the window with one reg.
24 bit chunky mode, try that on my dear aga...
> << So what do we wait to buy a PC and fuck the Amiga off? >>
> Dont quote me.
SHIT!!! EVERYBODY MISSES THE POINT!!
It's not that SVGA is 'great', it's NOT!!! The point is you can do
much of the same as on the amiga AND there are some things that are
easier
to do on the SVGA (in mode 13h or chunky mode...) I don't want a PC,
I want an Amiga that can do this and more FAST!!! I'll stick with my
amiga
'till it burns out, but it is frustrating when Software come out for PC
and not my beloved amiga. I quite fancy texturemapping and my thrusted
amiga1200 with a 68060 engine can actually handle some quite nice
tricks, but I still want something that the SVGA has.
Also, how much easier would it be to convert software to the amiga
platfrom if
it had a good 24bit chunky mode???? Just wondering...
Accolyte
>>> Its not because you never seen it thats it not there. AGA cannot
>>> compete with 'yesterday' PC video card for smoothly scrolling text...
>>
>> That's complete bullshit.. You expect us to believe there's some aspect
>> of smoothly *scrolling text* that Amigas can't handle?!? :)
>
> I am sick of "Amiga" people saying that the Amiga sucks and the PC
> hardware, PC architecture, PC philosophy, PC manufacteurs, PC software
> wait for the AmigaOS release (then compare it to a really serious OS's
> like WindowsNT or Linux). The AmigaOS would have been nothing outside
> the Amiga, and this won't change in the future.
I agree.. and good idea! Now if there was only a way to enforce such a
ban.. :)
BTW, I fully support the AGA Extender, sounds excellent. Hope we see
something from it, even if I have to build one myself.. :)
-- __ ____ __ __ ____
/ "\ /\/\\__"\ / "\ / "\ /\\__"\
Accolyte/Cydonia / / // / // / // / // / // // ' / Packing Class
(Coder) / /\/ > // / // / // / // // / /__ And Kickin'Arse
\__/ \_/ \__/ \__/ \/\/ \/ \/\/ \/
Alex Amsel
In article: <4mlgc4$m...@infoserv.aber.ac.uk> Marc Forrester
<me...@aber.ac.uk> writes:
>
> bizz...@mbox.vol.it (Fabio Bizzetti) wrote:
> >Buy a PC and wait for the AmigaOS release (then compare it to a
really
> >serious OS's like WindowsNT or Linux).
> >The AmigaOS would have been nothing outside the Amiga,
> >and this won't change in the future.
>
> Monitoring is the only thing missing that I'm aware of.
Decent memory protection and related stuff/decent network support, but
most of all, it lacks major backing and major software. OS2 was a far
better OS than Win95 and even with the backing of IBM that failed.
AmigaDOS wouldn`t stand a hope in hell in the real world these days, and
thats the sad truth of it, HOWEVER good it is.
Accolyte
>> >: In article <1303.6695...@netspace.net.au>,
>> >: astr...@netspace.net.au
>> >: (Paul Dossett) writes:
>> >: >
>> >: >at
>> >: >*500 Mb/sec*!! Kind of puts AGA's ~7Mb/sec (best case scenario) into
>> >: >perspective, doesn't it!
>> >: >
>> >: I agree... the fact that I've never seen a smooth scrolling text on
>> >: a PC with a SVGA lots-of-Mb/sec puts the AGA or Amiga into perspective!!
>> >
>> > with 'yesterday' PC video card for smoothly scrolling text...
>>
>> smoothly *scrolling text* that Amigas can't handle?!? :)
>
> 5 layers or something....) Can be quite Cpu intencsive on an amiga....
Just as difficult with peecees. More so in fact, because planar graphics
and scroll registers can still be useful, and you get a free extra layer
with sprites. And you can scroll different vertical portions of the screen
at different speeds with the copper. For free. And you can scroll at 1280
pixel precision even if it's only hi-res. (And besides, if you're allowed
a pentium, we're allowed an 060/50 :p )
-- __ ____ __ __ ____
/ "\ /\/\\__"\ / "\ / "\ /\\__"\
Accolyte/Cydonia / / // / // / // / // / // // ' / Packing Class
(Coder) / /\/ > // / // / // / // // / /__ And Kickin'Arse!
Wessel Dankers
Accolyte <acco...@wr.com.au> wrote:
> pixel precision even if it's only hi-res. (And besides, if you're allowed
> a pentium, we're allowed an 060/50 :p )
No we're not. Not when a 060 Amiga costs >2 times as much as a Pentium 100.
--
Wessel Dankers
"Nusuth."
Pacarana
>>In article <1303.6695...@netspace.net.au>, astr...@netspace.net.au
>>(Paul Dossett) writes:
>>>
>>>The latest Cirrus Logic SVGA card reportedly transfers data internally at
>>>*500 Mb/sec*!! Kind of puts AGA's ~7Mb/sec (best case scenario) into
>>>perspective, doesn't it!
>>a PC with a SVGA lots-of-Mb/sec puts the AGA or Amiga into perspective!!
M2 claims something like 540MB/sec, plus more custom effects I'm sure,
never mind the 3D part.
Fabio Bizzetti
>> >> >The latest Cirrus Logic SVGA card reportedly transfers data internally
>> >> >at
>> >> >*500 Mb/sec*!! Kind of puts AGA's ~7Mb/sec (best case scenario) into
>> >> >perspective, doesn't it!
>> >> >
>> >> I agree... the fact that I've never seen a smooth scrolling text on
>> >> a PC with a SVGA lots-of-Mb/sec puts the AGA or Amiga into perspective!!
>>
>> >That is just windooze lame coing.
>> >It is no problem to scroll on the PC, needs some more thinking and don't
>> >work
>> >when win95 tries to do some stuff, but it is possible. You can even move
>> >the startpoint of the window with one reg.
>For one thing you could also do Cpu intensive parralax scrolling in
>24 bit chunky mode, try that on my dear aga...
Many months ago I made (for a demo never finished) an effect that on a
UNEXPANDED A1200 (I should repeat: UNEXPANDED A1200.. but perhaps it's not
clear enough (like VK vs XTR..), not on a 68060 Amiga, but on a
UNEXPANDED A1200 with no faster CPU than the 14Mhz 68020 nor FastRam ..
I hope it's clear what's a UNEXPANDED A1200) this effect performs 2 playfields
of ~4000 colours each, the 2 playfields are completely independent each other
(thus scrollable) and there's a 24bit crossfading (transparency among images)
between the 2 playfields, all runs 50fps 1x1 fullscreen on an UNEXPANDED A1200.
Now I wanna see you really do it on a PC below the fastest Pentium and SVGA+++,
that costs still a lot more than an unexpanded A1200, and in my effect /
AGA trick the CPU is free to do whatever it wants, unlike in the PC case.
So if I hear again that SVGA is better I mailbomb this newsgroup with the
Aga.guide, so finally some people learn AGA programming.
This effect (and others) has been sent to VIScorp.
I can repeat it thousands times, PC sucks, SVGA sucks because IT'S A PIECE OF
PC's, and Amiga rules; it's the only computer that after 10 years of complete
lack of serious evolution, is still great.
>> << So what do we wait to buy a PC and fuck the Amiga off? >>
>
>> Dont quote me.
>SHIT!!! EVERYBODY MISSES THE POINT!!
Sure?
>It's not that SVGA is 'great', it's NOT!!! The point is you can do
>much of the same as on the amiga AND there are some things that are
>easier to do on the SVGA (in mode 13h or chunky mode...) I don't want a PC,
So "chunky mode" = "SVGA"???? =))
What was AAA, a SVGA chip? :D
>I want an Amiga that can do this and more FAST!!!
This is ABSOLUTELY WRONG, an Amiga+SVGA is NOT faster than a PC+SVGA, I would
rather say the opposite since PC's CPU are even much faster than Amigas too.
>I'll stick with my amiga
>'till it burns out, but it is frustrating when Software come out for PC
>and not my beloved amiga.
And why do you think this happens?
Why many developers / software houses will not go to the VIScorp/Amiga DevCon?
Because there's no market, and this is mostly a fault of Commodore and Escom
marketing work, not about the machines sold, but because nobody trusts the
Amiga market.
The Amiga has really the very last chance with VIScorp, and if they miss it
then there will be really nothing to do anymore. The Amiga has a shitty image
at the moment, I image magazines talking about the Archimedes but not
considering a 68060 Amiga as anything better than a dead toy.
> I quite fancy texturemapping and my thrusted
>amiga1200 with a 68060 engine can actually handle some quite nice
>tricks, but I still want something that the SVGA has.
So it's a Pentium 200Mhz and SVGA what you want, and you still dont know. :(
Again, the SVGA chip is fucking slow, it's the Pentium that makes it fast.
I wanna add something for the people that scream anytime a new SVGA board
comes out and supports 500Mb/sec, that when you dont access 128bits at once
with burst modes and all, meaning whenever you do SOMETHING REAL (like
texturemapping, parallax scrolling, and all) your amazing bandwidth becomes
a very normal one, in case of random access bytes it goes from 500Mb/sec to
15Mb/sec in the best case, that becomes the half considering the CPU has
also to load something (textures, etc..) and even less when there're many
playfields to combine, so stop drooling at meaningless numbers; also "MIPS"
mean much more than those Mb/sec of bandwidth that still make PC Worms suck
compared to the cheap-AMIGA500 version.
Here a lot of people want and want a PC, but can't admit this to themselves..
I really dont see anything bad in admitting what one really wants, it's not
that I ever said that "PC sucks" only because I heard other people saying it.
For my needs, the PC sucks, but I understand that many people want software
and games, so in this case the PC doesn't suck for sure.
What sucks is the people that wanna transform the Amiga into a PC.
>Also, how much easier would it be to convert software to the amiga
>platfrom if it had a good 24bit chunky mode???? Just wondering...
Just wondering.. I DONT WANT FUCKING CONVERSIONS / CLONES, they must convert
Amiga software if they want the coolest one.
I dont want the hassle to convert games to Amiga, I rather buy a console or PC
in this case playing the original.
The Amiga had original games untill it has been leaded/managed by real Amiga
engineers and managers.
THE AMIGA IS AN AMIGA.
And I am fucking sick of this "SVGA or not" thread, I would change it in
"Amiga or PC".
Fabio Bizzetti
>> >: >The latest Cirrus Logic SVGA card reportedly transfers data internally
>> >: >at
>> >: >*500 Mb/sec*!! Kind of puts AGA's ~7Mb/sec (best case scenario) into
>> >: >perspective, doesn't it!
>> >: >
>> >: I agree... the fact that I've never seen a smooth scrolling text on
>> >: a PC with a SVGA lots-of-Mb/sec puts the AGA or Amiga into perspective!!
>> >
>> > Its not because you never seen it thats it not there. AGA cannot compete
>> > with 'yesterday' PC video card for smoothly scrolling text...
>>
>> That's complete bullshit.. You expect us to believe there's some aspect of
>> smoothly *scrolling text* that Amigas can't handle?!? :)
>try parralax scrolling in 256 colors or more on the amiga :-p (with like
>5 layers or something....) Can be quite Cpu intencsive on an amiga....
That's why we need more parallax support in the new AMIGA chipsets, certainly
not a crap standard mem->rgb chip and a 600Mhz CPU with 5ns local RAM.
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Fabio "Maverick" Bizzetti - bizz...@mbox.vol.it - Maverick* at IRC |
| The maker of "CyberMan" and "Virtual Karting" |
| working on "VirtualRally" & "StarFighter" |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------/
HAAVARD JAKOBSEN
> >> > Its not because you never seen it thats it not there. AGA cannot compete
> >> > with 'yesterday' PC video card for smoothly scrolling text...
> >>
> >> That's complete bullshit.. You expect us to believe there's some aspect of
> >> smoothly *scrolling text* that Amigas can't handle?!? :)
> >
> > try parralax scrolling in 256 colors or more on the amiga :-p (with like
> > 5 layers or something....) Can be quite Cpu intencsive on an amiga....
>
> and scroll registers can still be useful, and you get a free extra layer
> with sprites. And you can scroll different vertical portions of the screen
> at different speeds with the copper. For free. And you can scroll at 1280
> a pentium, we're allowed an 060/50 :p )
Once again, read the above!!! make a parralax scroller on the amiga with
24bit color (or 256 color for that matter) That scrolls in ALL
directions...
I want to see this (never seen it on a pEEcEE either, but it's possible
there, although slow.)
HAAVARD JAKOBSEN
Wessel Dankers wrote:
>
> Accolyte <acco...@wr.com.au> wrote:
>
> > pixel precision even if it's only hi-res. (And besides, if you're allowed
> > a pentium, we're allowed an 060/50 :p )
>
I paid about 1300UKP for my 1200 with 68060.... ;-)
Stephan Schaem
HAAVARD JAKOBSEN (haa_...@gih.no) wrote:
: > >> > Its not because you never seen it thats it not there. AGA cannot compete
: > >> > with 'yesterday' PC video card for smoothly scrolling text...
: > >>
: > >> That's complete bullshit.. You expect us to believe there's some aspect of
: > >> smoothly *scrolling text* that Amigas can't handle?!? :)
: > >
: > > try parralax scrolling in 256 colors or more on the amiga :-p (with like
: > > 5 layers or something....) Can be quite Cpu intencsive on an amiga....
: >
: > Just as difficult with peecees. More so in fact, because planar graphics
: > and scroll registers can still be useful, and you get a free extra layer
: > with sprites. And you can scroll different vertical portions of the screen
: > at different speeds with the copper. For free. And you can scroll at 1280
: > a pentium, we're allowed an 060/50 :p )
: Once again, read the above!!! make a parralax scroller on the amiga with
: 24bit color (or 256 color for that matter) That scrolls in ALL
: directions...
: I want to see this (never seen it on a pEEcEE either, but it's possible
: there, although slow.)
Multiple 16bit layer at 640x480 scroll at 60fps.
With mmx new pentium machine should get interesting
mixing modes in 24bit...
Stephan
Fabio Bizzetti
>Wessel Dankers wrote:
>>
>> Accolyte <acco...@wr.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> > pixel precision even if it's only hi-res. (And besides, if you're allowed
>> > a pentium, we're allowed an 060/50 :p )
>>
>> No we're not. Not when a 060 Amiga costs >2 times as much as a Pentium 100.
>I paid about 1300UKP for my 1200 with 68060.... ;-)
There's to add that today a Pentium 166Mhz is practically standard for games,
while also a "slow" 50Mhz 68060 is not standard _indeed_.
The today's Amiga standard after a lot of efforts is the 40Mhz/50Mhz 68030,
with only 4Mb FastRam (so no huge look-up tables "a la Descent"), thus it
needs to be programmed carefully, to exploit its good RAM access speed rather
than the poor raw computing power.
Anyway I am satisfied with a 50Mhz 68030 power for games.
Stefan Boberg
bizz...@mbox.vol.it (Fabio Bizzetti) wrote:
>Again, the SVGA chip is fucking slow, it's the Pentium that makes it fast.
Uhmm... Come again? I've got a fairly slow (by PC standards) P90 on
my desk, and the CPU->video memory bandwidth is around 48MB/sec (and
the Blitter bandwidth is about the same). This is with a dirt cheap
Trio64 accelerator. With large polygons, I can easily texture map 200
frames/sec with my P90 at 320x240x16bit. How is that 'fucking slow'?
And how does the Pentium 'make it fast'? The bandwidth would be the
same with any CPU.
>I wanna add something for the people that scream anytime a new SVGA board
>comes out and supports 500Mb/sec, that when you dont access 128bits at once
>with burst modes and all, meaning whenever you do SOMETHING REAL (like
>texturemapping, parallax scrolling, and all) your amazing bandwidth becomes
>a very normal one, in case of random access bytes it goes from 500Mb/sec to
>15Mb/sec in the best case.
Bollocks. Real-life benchmarks prove you wrong, Fabio.
>mean much more than those Mb/sec of bandwidth that still make PC Worms suck
>compared to the cheap-AMIGA500 version.
Uh... Where's the scaling in the A500 version? Where's the
four-field parallax? Where's the framerate independence? Where's the
networking? Where are the 256 colors?
The PC version could scroll just as smoothly as the Amiga version,
but the programmers made a decision to make it look different. That
doesn't necessarily the game better, but neither does scrolling
smoothly.
>Just wondering.. I DONT WANT FUCKING CONVERSIONS / CLONES, they must convert
>Amiga software if they want the coolest one.
Uhm. Like what? Quake? Oh, sorry.
>The Amiga had original games untill it has been leaded/managed by real Amiga
>engineers and managers.
Parse error.
===============================================================
Stefan Boberg bob...@team17.com
HAAVARD JAKOBSEN
Fabio Bizzetti wrote:
>
>
> Many months ago I made (for a demo never finished) an effect that on a
> UNEXPANDED A1200 (I should repeat: UNEXPANDED A1200.. but perhaps it's not
> clear enough (like VK vs XTR..), not on a 68060 Amiga, but on a
> UNEXPANDED A1200 with no faster CPU than the 14Mhz 68020 nor FastRam ..
> I hope it's clear what's a UNEXPANDED A1200) this effect performs 2 playfields
> of ~4000 colours each, the 2 playfields are completely independent each other
> (thus scrollable) and there's a 24bit crossfading (transparency among images)
> between the 2 playfields, all runs 50fps 1x1 fullscreen on an UNEXPANDED A1200.
Or with 3 or 4 or five playfields???
> Now I wanna see you really do it on a PC below the fastest Pentium and SVGA+++,
> that costs still a lot more than an unexpanded A1200, and in my effect /
> AGA trick the CPU is free to do whatever it wants, unlike in the PC case.
> So if I hear again that SVGA is better I mailbomb this newsgroup with the
> Aga.guide, so finally some people learn AGA programming.
>
> This effect (and others) has been sent to VIScorp.
>
> I can repeat it thousands times, PC sucks, SVGA sucks because IT'S A PIECE OF
> PC's, and Amiga rules; it's the only computer that after 10 years of complete
> lack of serious evolution, is still great.
> >SHIT!!! EVERYBODY MISSES THE POINT!!
>
> Sure?
>
> >It's not that SVGA is 'great', it's NOT!!! The point is you can do
> >much of the same as on the amiga AND there are some things that are
> >easier to do on the SVGA (in mode 13h or chunky mode...) I don't want a PC,
>
> So "chunky mode" = "SVGA"???? =))
> What was AAA, a SVGA chip? :D
No, I DON'T WANT SVGA, I WANT A FAST CHUNKY MODE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >I want an Amiga that can do this and more FAST!!!
>
> This is ABSOLUTELY WRONG, an Amiga+SVGA is NOT faster than a PC+SVGA, I would
> rather say the opposite since PC's CPU are even much faster than Amigas too.
> So it's a Pentium 200Mhz and SVGA what you want, and you still dont know. :(
No, I'd want an amiga with a slow cpu and slow gfx NOT!!!
I want an amiga with fast gourgous gfx and fast CPU at a *reasonable*
price..
> Again, the SVGA chip is fucking slow, it's the Pentium that makes it fast.
Not my point, the point is chunky mode.....
(large snip)
> What sucks is the people that wanna transform the Amiga into a PC.
NO!!! You missed the my point totally.... I want a screen on my amiga
with
24 bit color... If it scrolls is NOT important... I don't want to put a
SVGA card on my amiga, I want a new chipset that have a chunky mode and
more good effects...
> >Also, how much easier would it be to convert software to the amiga
> >platfrom if it had a good 24bit chunky mode???? Just wondering...
>
> Just wondering.. I DONT WANT FUCKING CONVERSIONS / CLONES, they must convert
> Amiga software if they want the coolest one.
> I dont want the hassle to convert games to Amiga, I rather buy a console or PC
> in this case playing the original.
> The Amiga had original games untill it has been leaded/managed by real Amiga
> engineers and managers.
If Netscape was to be converted from Hp-unix to amiga (yes, there are
other machines out there than PC's) and it was coded in C, where would
the
hassle be???? gfx or the rest of the code
Stephan Schaem
Fabio Bizzetti (bizz...@mbox.vol.it) wrote:
: So if I hear again that SVGA is better I mailbomb this newsgroup with the
: Aga.guide, so finally some people learn AGA programming.
Whats the big deal about SVGA? AGA is bad for aplication, and games. for
both you can find better chipset.
So mailbomb or whatever, but AGA is old hat, underpowered.
: I can repeat it thousands times, PC sucks, SVGA sucks because IT'S A PIECE OF
: PC's, and Amiga rules; it's the only computer that after 10 years of complete
: lack of serious evolution, is still great.
So its a good point to have a totaly stagnating computer?
: Again, the SVGA chip is fucking slow, it's the Pentium that makes it fast.
I really wish you would look around before saying things like that...
SVGA is 'history'! its maybe used as compatibility for the card, but do you
want to compare blitter operation at 60hz in 640x480 8bit on AGA VS a
storm2? or in 1600x1280 double buffer 24bit?(Bad sarcasm ;)
: I wanna add something for the people that scream anytime a new SVGA board
: comes out and supports 500Mb/sec, that when you dont access 128bits at once
: with burst modes and all, meaning whenever you do SOMETHING REAL (like
: texturemapping, parallax scrolling, and all) your amazing bandwidth becomes
: a very normal one, in case of random access bytes it goes from 500Mb/sec to
: 15Mb/sec in the best case, that becomes the half considering the CPU has
: also to load something (textures, etc..) and even less when there're many
: playfields to combine, so stop drooling at meaningless numbers; also "MIPS"
: mean much more than those Mb/sec of bandwidth that still make PC Worms suck
: compared to the cheap-AMIGA500 version.
I dont see why you try to find those lame excuses... PC HW is years ahead
in performance.
: Here a lot of people want and want a PC, but can't admit this to themselves..
: I really dont see anything bad in admitting what one really wants, it's not
: that I ever said that "PC sucks" only because I heard other people saying it.
: For my needs, the PC sucks, but I understand that many people want software
: and games, so in this case the PC doesn't suck for sure.
For some demo FX, or some type of game? thats your use?
Get a Snes dev system.... You can probably do ever more hacking around.
: What sucks is the people that wanna transform the Amiga into a PC.
The amiga HW as nothing major anymore...
: And I am fucking sick of this "SVGA or not" thread, I would change it in
: "Amiga or PC".
I vote PC... :) Lets go this way... VIScorp make the OS source public
and let the people decide... improve the sources, optimize them in 680x0
or port it to the PC world.
You are welcome to buy Walker at ~1500$? and run the super powerfull AGA
with a 030? while I would get a 16meg PCI scsi2 100mhz 586 500meg with
64bit blitter etc very expandable Amiga box for ~500$.
Stephan
Lars Haugseth
[ Fabio Bizzetti ]
> That's why we need more parallax support in the new AMIGA chipsets,
> certainly not a crap standard mem->rgb chip and a 600Mhz CPU with
> 5ns local RAM.
Oh yes, the latter would certainly do the trick.
--
Lars Haugseth <lar...@ifi.uio.no>
Stephan Schaem
Lars Haugseth (lar...@gymir.ifi.uio.no) wrote:
: [ Fabio Bizzetti ]
: > That's why we need more parallax support in the new AMIGA chipsets,
: > certainly not a crap standard mem->rgb chip and a 600Mhz CPU with
: > 5ns local RAM.
: Oh yes, the latter would certainly do the trick.
and probably be thousand of $ cheaper :)
Stephan
William Howald
On Fri, 10 May 1996, HAAVARD JAKOBSEN wrote:
> Fabio Bizzetti wrote:
> > Many months ago I made (for a demo never finished) an effect that on a
> > UNEXPANDED A1200 (I should repeat: UNEXPANDED A1200.. but perhaps it's not
> > clear enough (like VK vs XTR..), not on a 68060 Amiga, but on a
> > UNEXPANDED A1200 with no faster CPU than the 14Mhz 68020 nor FastRam ..
> > I hope it's clear what's a UNEXPANDED A1200) this effect performs 2 playfields
> > of ~4000 colours each, the 2 playfields are completely independent each other
> > (thus scrollable) and there's a 24bit crossfading (transparency among images)
> > between the 2 playfields, all runs 50fps 1x1 fullscreen on an UNEXPANDED A1200.
> > Now I wanna see you really do it on a PC below the fastest Pentium and SVGA+++,
> > that costs still a lot more than an unexpanded A1200, and in my effect /
> > AGA trick the CPU is free to do whatever it wants, unlike in the PC case.
> > So if I hear again that SVGA is better I mailbomb this newsgroup with the
> > Aga.guide, so finally some people learn AGA programming.
I ALWAYS LAUGH when a screen saver jerks and flickers ONE line of text
around the screen on a pentium, or the mouse pointer flickers when over
things moving on the screen...
> >
> > This effect (and others) has been sent to VIScorp.
This effect should be supported in hardware directly(If the code is small)
Hardware supported scaling/rotation would be nice too(just look what the
Super NES(BOO!) can do in mode 7...with a less than 2Mhz clock!?!?!?
> >
"From here, we can only rise"
Aaron Howald
Nicolas POMAREDE
Stefan Boberg wrote:
>
> bizz...@mbox.vol.it (Fabio Bizzetti) wrote:
>
> >Again, the SVGA chip is fucking slow, it's the Pentium that makes it fast.
>
> my desk, and the CPU->video memory bandwidth is around 48MB/sec (and
> the Blitter bandwidth is about the same). This is with a dirt cheap
> Trio64 accelerator. With large polygons, I can easily texture map 200
> frames/sec with my P90 at 320x240x16bit. How is that 'fucking slow'?
> And how does the Pentium 'make it fast'? The bandwidth would be the
> same with any CPU.
I think this is the whole problem with Fabio arguments ; is point of
view seems to be:
- Pentium is slow down by the "crappy" SVGA cards.
My point (and those of other pro-PCI SVGA cards) would be:
- Pentium is not powerful enough to cope with the power of the best
GFX cards. YES, I really think that Intel chip are not powerful
compared to other chips and that they are the weakest part of the
PC-GFX card combo.
Needing a fast CPU doesn't mean the gfx card is crap, it just mean that
it has a great potential that only skilled programmer will cope with.
Really, I think that the Intel CPU is the guilty one in this "blame the
SVGA" thread, not the card itself...
----------------
Nicolas Pomarede
e-mail: poma...@isty-info.uvsq.fr
HAAVARD JAKOBSEN
Fabio Bizzetti wrote:
>
> >Wessel Dankers wrote:
> >>
> >> Accolyte <acco...@wr.com.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> > pixel precision even if it's only hi-res. (And besides, if you're allowed
> >> > a pentium, we're allowed an 060/50 :p )
> >>
> >> No we're not. Not when a 060 Amiga costs >2 times as much as a Pentium 100.
>
> >I paid about 1300UKP for my 1200 with 68060.... ;-)
>
> There's to add that today a Pentium 166Mhz is practically standard for games,
> while also a "slow" 50Mhz 68060 is not standard _indeed_.
Eh, WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU LIVE???? THE STANDARD HERE IS MAX P90,
IF SO HIGH....
> The today's Amiga standard after a lot of efforts is the 40Mhz/50Mhz 68030,
> with only 4Mb FastRam (so no huge look-up tables "a la Descent"), thus it
> needs to be programmed carefully, to exploit its good RAM access speed rather
> than the poor raw computing power.
>
> Anyway I am satisfied with a 50Mhz 68030 power for games.
And I'm not with my 060.... hum....
Marc Forrester
ssc...@teleport.com (Stephan Schaem) wrote:
>: I can repeat it thousands times, PC sucks, SVGA sucks because IT'S A
>: PIECE OF PC's, and Amiga rules; it's the only computer that after 10
>: years of complete lack of serious evolution, is still great.
>
No, it's a good point to have a computer that, after ten years of
stagnation, is still great.
Marc Forrester
>Wessel Dankers wrote:
>> Accolyte <acco...@wr.com.au> wrote:
>> > pixel precision even if it's only hi-res. (And besides, if you're
>> > allowed a pentium, we're allowed an 060/50 :p )
>>
>> No we're not.
>> Not when a 060 Amiga costs >2 times as much as a Pentium 100.
Where do people get their figures?
A1200 - #250
Decent HD - #250
68060 Processor - #600
SIMMS - #100
I make that ~#1200, which is entirely comparable.
Okay, with the IBM you get a CDROM, and a halfway decent monitor
and power speakers, but I know which one I'm working towards..
Stephan Schaem
Marc Forrester (me...@aber.ac.uk) wrote:
You forgot that the A1200 is big keyboard case, no expansion bus, no
decent gfx (very slow 16bit blitter, almost no bandwdith, no real
time true color modes, etc..), slow parallel and serial ports, ect..
Is the drive an IDE drive, or the 600$ include a scsi interface?
A similare system is around 500$ last time I check in the PC world.
One can only wish that the amiga OS is finaly made portable...
Stephan
Juergen Rally Fischer
HAAVARD JAKOBSEN (haa_...@gih.no) wrote:
: Fabio Bizzetti wrote:
: >
: >
: > Many months ago I made (for a demo never finished) an effect that on a
: > UNEXPANDED A1200 (I should repeat: UNEXPANDED A1200.. but perhaps it's not
: > clear enough (like VK vs XTR..), not on a 68060 Amiga, but on a
;) never seen it, what are the tech specs for VR ?
speedy floor, ghost mode, that's what XTR got and imho can't be suceeded
much.
: > UNEXPANDED A1200 with no faster CPU than the 14Mhz 68020 nor FastRam ..
It is clear now ;)
: > I hope it's clear what's a UNEXPANDED A1200) this effect
: > performs 2 playfields
: > of ~4000 colours each, the 2 playfields are completely
: > independent each other
: > (thus scrollable) and there's a 24bit crossfading
: > (transparency among images)
well nice special demo. if your 4000 colors means reloading the 16 colors
permanentely, well I had that idea in a500 times for a colorfull 2d scroll
game :)
hmm you tell crossfading + cpu idle. can't be the big copl I mentioned
above, it just can be color0 rainbow thingy that makes the 4000 colors.
good demo, no use for any game I can think of, imho.
: Can U do this without the crossfading?
anything that can crossfade can do without crossfade, just set
crossfading speed to 0 ;)
: > between the 2 playfields, all runs 50fps 1x1 fullscreen
: > on an UNEXPANDED A1200.
that's clear, no cpu action -> no difference with fastmem.
: Or with 3 or 4 or five playfields???
well, if you wanna have 4 256 color playfields youu nead a
fast cpu doing bytethings on fastmem and then c2p. I know
fabio will flame me, but that's a typical mode 13h effect ;)
BTW fabio what about adding mode 7 style to agaextender.
SNES can't doom because it only got 1 floor, if you manage to
get your multiwindow to multifloor you got AGAdescent on
unexpanded A1200 ;) well some fastmem for z-calc would be helpful.
: > Now I wanna see you really do it on a PC below the fastest Pentium and SVGA+++,
well, I wanna see how you do 4 playfields a 256 cols compared to a 486.
I'm not peecee sucker but I don't want to hide from facts.
any chance for the extender beeing built ?
: > This effect (and others) has been sent to VIScorp.
well, they won't be interested I'm afraid.
: > So "chunky mode" = "SVGA"???? =))
: > What was AAA, a SVGA chip? :D
what about blitterscreen ;)
: No, I DON'T WANT SVGA, I WANT A FAST CHUNKY MODE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
for doing what ?
let me tell you that for current clones AGA bandwidth is fully
sufficient up to 040/25. if you have a look at how much time
clones need per single pixel you'll notice that a gfx-card will
give almost no speedup.
: > >I want an Amiga that can do this and more FAST!!!
I'd rather want software that uses current hardware properly.
:
: > Again, the SVGA chip is fucking slow, it's the Pentium that makes it fast.
: Not my point, the point is chunky mode.....
c2p is for free in clones....
: > Just wondering.. I DONT WANT FUCKING CONVERSIONS / CLONES,
: > they must convert
: > Amiga software if they want the coolest one.
I wonder what you want anyway. I want games. I want 3d games.
nothinh against colorful 2d games, though.
: > I dont want the hassle to convert games to Amiga, I rather buy a console or PC
: > in this case playing the original.
And I want _additional_ 3d style games with free c2p and maybe
some more optimisations you wouldn't take the time to do for 586.
: If Netscape was to be converted from Hp-unix to amiga (yes, there are
: other machines out there than PC's) and it was coded in C, where would
: the
: hassle be???? gfx or the rest of the code
well, it depends how it is written.
if scrolling is done with chunky dump, you would change that to
OS-scrolling (which would use planar on AGA).
the rest (button stuff) is no prob with writepixelarray8.
not much work so far (for the gfx-part).
fine would be scrolling virtual screen, if I remember right
you got panel on top, and a square area to be scrolled beyond,
so just use a vport.
gadged slider could be done as sprites, voila 50hz netscape.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
fisc...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Juergen "Rally" Fischer) =:)
Fabio Bizzetti
>: > That's why we need more parallax support in the new AMIGA chipsets,
>: > certainly not a crap standard mem->rgb chip and a 600Mhz CPU with
>: > 5ns local RAM.
>: Oh yes, the latter would certainly do the trick.
> and probably be thousand of $ cheaper :)
> Stephan
That's why the 3DO uses your PC's SVGA chips.
That's why the 3DO/M2 uses your PC's SVGA chips.
That's why the PlayStation uses your PC's SVGA chips.
That's why the Saturn uses your PC's SVGA chips.
That's why the Nintendo64 uses your PC's SVGA chips.
If you want a business computer for your databases, then buy a PC or a Mac
and dont bother tha Amiga..
If only Jay Miner could hear you.. he would bring you where he is now.
Alex Amsel
In article: <815.6703...@mbox.vol.it> bizz...@mbox.vol.it (Fabio
Bizzetti) writes:
> There's to add that today a Pentium 166Mhz is practically standard for
games,
> while also a "slow" 50Mhz 68060 is not standard _indeed_.
Not really, but a P90+ equipped with 16megs ram and Win95 is the
low-end for the future games. I can tell you that 90% of software
companies are only doing Win95 stuff, and in the US they will hardly
even accept ANY DOS games to publish. All the new games fro about 6
months+ will be Win95 supporting, though some may work under DOS as
well.
> The today's Amiga standard after a lot of efforts is the 40Mhz/50Mhz
68030,
> with only 4Mb FastRam (so no huge look-up tables "a la Descent"), thus
>it
Not quite true. You still have to make it work on a base memory Amiga,
and many magazines will review it as such. Until the Amiga is sold with
an 030-040+ then it won`t be standard :(
Also, I don`t think Descent uses large look-up tables. The tables on the
PS-X version are in fact very small indeed. I think the 1/Z table is the
largest, and it isn`t that big at all.
Alex Amsel
In article: <319490...@isty-info.uvsq.fr> Nicolas POMAREDE
<poma...@isty-info.uvsq.fr> writes:
> I think this is the whole problem with Fabio arguments ; is point of
> view seems to be:
> - Pentium is slow down by the "crappy" SVGA cards.
>
> My point (and those of other pro-PCI SVGA cards) would be:
> - Pentium is not powerful enough to cope with the power of the best
> GFX cards. YES, I really think that Intel chip are not powerful
> compared to other chips and that they are the weakest part of the
> PC-GFX card combo.
I think some stuff needs clearing up here.
1 - Most Pentiums are faster than an 060, and getting faster. They are
also the PC standard now.
2 - What do you mean by SVGA? Do you mean chunky modes & fast ram
access? If so, then all gfx is down to the processor, with of course,
some down to the ram speed/bandwidth. The processor, which is far faster
that other CISC cpus, has to handle everything else. An 060 + SVGA card
Amiga still is not faster than a low-end Pentium with SVGA. But 68k code
in general is better, so you would get some speed increase there from
better code. Not enough though, at least considering how much the PC
gets faster every year.
3 - Win95 equipped PCs now make use of any extras in the Gfx card, like
the blitter and so on. PC owners have a huge choice of cards. Amiga
owners don`t, and don`t have new cards coming out all the time. Even if
the Amiga could use any SVGA card there would still be the problem of
new drivers for them since hardly any companies will do Amiga ones.
So, to make things clear, for another 12 months or so (until a 3d gfx
card standard even starts to set in) its the PC processor that does
almost all the work. And PC processors are much faster than any Amiga
ones, even allowing for the simpler code the 68k can produce if done
correctly. Also, PC compilers are so much better at optimising (Watcom
for example, and MicroSoft`s own is good as well).
Alex Amsel
In article: <4n2apl$6...@infoserv.aber.ac.uk> Marc Forrester
> Where do people get their figures?
>
> A1200 - #250
> Decent HD - #250
> 68060 Processor - #600
> SIMMS - #100
>
> I make that ~#1200, which is entirely comparable.
> Okay, with the IBM you get a CDROM, and a halfway decent monitor
> and power speakers, but I know which one I'm working towards..
A1200 = (in UKP) #399, not 250.
Decent HD - going for the 3.5" - #150 will get an 800meg one at least,
and you don`t need more on the Amiga
SIMMS - the Amiga needs no more than 4 megs extra in most cases, maybe
8megs extra. The PC now needs 16 megs for Win95, and its not so good
with that!
Monitor - HUGE problem. PC - included on the prices. Amiga - decent
monitor is >250 UKP I think.
CDROM - PC - incredibly cheap, usually included as are better soundcards
than what the Amiga has. Amiga - again a problem as you have to get the
interface and all that crap.
Expandability - the A1200 isn`t easily expandable any further. PCs are.
A4k is too expensive.
Web stuff - I wouldn`t touch an Amiga with no gfx card for WWW stuff,
for software reasons, but mostly hardware reasons.
Compatibility - the PC is compatible with everyone else, the Amiga is on
its own. Amiga freaks - fine, the general public - no use. Same goes for
software and all that stuff.
This is just a quick unbiast comparison of a few things. No flames
please!
Stephan Schaem
Fabio Bizzetti (bizz...@mbox.vol.it) wrote:
: >: > That's why we need more parallax support in the new AMIGA chipsets,
: >: > certainly not a crap standard mem->rgb chip and a 600Mhz CPU with
: >: > 5ns local RAM.
: >: Oh yes, the latter would certainly do the trick.
: > and probably be thousand of $ cheaper :)
: > Stephan
: That's why the 3DO uses your PC's SVGA chips.
: That's why the 3DO/M2 uses your PC's SVGA chips.
: That's why the PlayStation uses your PC's SVGA chips.
: That's why the Saturn uses your PC's SVGA chips.
: That's why the Nintendo64 uses your PC's SVGA chips.
AGA is many fold worse in competing with those then 'svga'...
Like where is AGA Z buffer support? where are the complex rendering
primitive like gouraud shading? Upcoming card will include M2 function
and more for maybe 70$ a chipset. But you see those are design for
real work. 1280x1024 double buffer does cost money. But you can still
find exelent card for ~150$ with 2meg VS 8meg.
Wanna play games? get one of the above, and defenetly not an amiga.
But I say it again... this new game oriented amiga would probably be a
few time more expansive then this 600mhz CPU with 5ns memory thingy you
described :)
: If you want a business computer for your databases, then buy a PC or a Mac
: and dont bother tha Amiga..
: If only Jay Miner could hear you.. he would bring you where he is now.
If you want a hi performance computer for very cheap, get a PC. I dont
see any reason to get a mac, they sux at simply everything.
Somebody that would get an amiga today to play games is totaly insane,
or to buy as a poweruser home computer is insane.
Well, If Jay Miner could see the state of the amiga now... sad
BTW, I really think that what you want is program a console. not an
amiga.... and with your liking of HW baging and no OS interation I
suggest you move to the SNES... good luck
Stephan
Marc Forrester
ssc...@teleport.com (Stephan Schaem) wrote:
>: >> No we're not.
>: >> Not when a 060 Amiga costs >2 times as much as a Pentium 100.
>
>: Decent HD - #250
>: 68060 Processor - #600
>: SIMMS - #100
>
>: I make that ~#1200, which is entirely comparable.
>
Okay, anyone got the figures for the hardware fix for this?
> no decent gfx (very slow 16bit blitter, almost no bandwdith,
You exaggerate, I think. They could be a lot faster,
but they are neither very slow, nor zero bandwidth.
I'll leave Fabio to discuss the exact specs..
> no real time true color modes, etc..),
True. What do you use realtime true colour for?
> slow parallel and serial ports, ect..
Can't comment on that.
But either expand the etc's, or leave them out.
> Is the drive an IDE drive, or the 600$ include a scsi interface?
You usually get a SCSI on '060 boards, yes.
I'm working in Sterling, BTW.
> A similare system is around 500$ last time I check in the PC world.
And which system is that, precisely?
> One can only wish that the amiga OS is finaly made portable...
Well, that would be nice, but there's always Linux..
Still, if the Hoover lives up to its design ethos,
and later models follow suit, it won't figure.
Marc Forrester
Alex Amsel <Al...@teeth.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> A1200 - #250
>> Decent HD - #250
>> 68060 Processor - #600
>> SIMMS - #100
>>
>> I make that ~#1200, which is entirely comparable.
>
Well, if you're foolish enough to buy an Escom one, okay.. :>
But -mine- was #280, and that's with an 85M IDE.
Is that #399 for the HD model?
>Decent HD - going for the 3.5" - #150 will get an 800meg one at least,
>and you don`t need more on the Amiga
:) You're telling me you can have -enough- HD space?
Well, I did overestimate there. Include a Squirrel, then.
>SIMMS - the Amiga needs no more than 4 megs extra in most cases, maybe
>8megs extra. The PC now needs 16 megs for Win95, and its not so good
>with that!
:> I actually have no idea what a good price for a 4M SIMM is..
(Although -I- won't be comfortable till I have at least eight)
>Monitor - HUGE problem. PC - included on the prices. Amiga - decent
>monitor is >250 UKP I think.
Of course, it's an Amiga luxury, and an IBM necessity..
You can get a pretty good telly for #250, and you can
use it to watch Red Dwarf, too.
>CDROM - PC - incredibly cheap, usually included as are better soundcards
>than what the Amiga has. Amiga - again a problem as you have to get the
>interface and all that crap.
Won't they run through that Squirrel?
>Expandability - the A1200 isn`t easily expandable any further. PCs are.
>A4k is too expensive.
Yes, it's no business machine..
What does getting one of those A1200 towers achieve?
>Web stuff - I wouldn`t touch an Amiga with no gfx card for WWW stuff,
>for software reasons, but mostly hardware reasons.
Hmm. Well, I would, just as soon as IBrowse arrives.
256 colours strikes me as an acceptable compromise.
>Compatibility - the PC is compatible with everyone else,
Well, yes. Because they all have PC's too. Iffy point.
>the Amiga is on its own.
Apart from ShapeShifter and PC-Task, anyway. And CrossDOS.
In fact, it's the most multilingual platform I know.
>Amiga freaks - fine, the general public - no use.
Well, half of them would be Amiga freaks too,
if only they had a chance to learn..
>Same goes for software and all that stuff.
Er. I can't run M$windows applications. Woe, woe.. :>
>This is just a quick unbiast comparison of a few things.
>No flames please!
Good luck.. :7
Iain Lambert
Hi
A couple of points:
A 4 meg SIMM is currently 37 UKP +vat, delivery; i.e. about 50 UKP.
Last time I ran Descent on a friends PC, it made a 14 Meg swapfile on the HD.
Some large lookup table!
Apparently, you can just plug in an IDE CR-ROM drive to your 1200, if your
power supply can take it (use atapi.device on aminet), and if it can't, then
a PC case (they have to be useful for something) is only about 30 UKP.
Iain Lambert
Stephan Schaem
Marc Forrester (me...@aber.ac.uk) wrote:
: ssc...@teleport.com (Stephan Schaem) wrote:
: >: >> No we're not.
: >: >> Not when a 060 Amiga costs >2 times as much as a Pentium 100.
: >
: >: Decent HD - #250
: >: 68060 Processor - #600
: >: SIMMS - #100
: >
: >: I make that ~#1200, which is entirely comparable.
: > You forgot that the A1200 is big keyboard case, no expansion bus,
: Okay, anyone got the figures for the hardware fix for this?
The price above is already 2x as expansive as a pentium class PC...
(~x4? if its pounds)
: > no decent gfx (very slow 16bit blitter, almost no bandwdith,
: You exaggerate, I think. They could be a lot faster,
: but they are neither very slow, nor zero bandwidth.
: I'll leave Fabio to discuss the exact specs..
How many KB sec can the blitter move in 640x480 60hz 8bit?
: > no real time true color modes, etc..),
: True. What do you use realtime true colour for?
gfx work, rendering (realtime), the WWW look better >256 colors.
: > slow parallel and serial ports, ect..
: Can't comment on that.
: But either expand the etc's, or leave them out.
True... but that add to the cost.
: > Is the drive an IDE drive, or the 600$ include a scsi interface?
: You usually get a SCSI on '060 boards, yes.
: I'm working in Sterling, BTW.
I really think the amiga OS can only benefit from running on Today
PC HW.
: > A similare system is around 500$ last time I check in the PC world.
: And which system is that, precisely?
In parts, you build is yourself :) 100mhz 586, PCI, 8meg, 500meg, ...
: > One can only wish that the amiga OS is finaly made portable...
: Well, that would be nice, but there's always Linux..
: Still, if the Hoover lives up to its design ethos,
: and later models follow suit, it won't figure.
linux as bigger requirment then the amiga os, I think you could get more
(maybe the most) out of a PC using the style amiga os.
Stephan
Alex Amsel
In article: <4n53gj$j...@infoserv.aber.ac.uk> Marc Forrester
<me...@aber.ac.uk> writes:
> Well, if you're foolish enough to buy an Escom one, okay.. :>
> But -mine- was #280, and that's with an 85M IDE.
> Is that #399 for the HD model?
No! The Escom ones were 399 without an HD. fuuuuuuuuuurk
> >Decent HD - going for the 3.5" - #150 will get an 800meg one at
least,
> >and you don`t need more on the Amiga
>
> :) You're telling me you can have -enough- HD space?
> Well, I did overestimate there. Include a Squirrel, then.
Fair enough :) Well, I`m on a 240HD and its still surviving with large
amounts of gfx and source. Though I admit an 800 meg one would make
things easier. I`m having to delete things every now and again now :(
> >SIMMS - the Amiga needs no more than 4 megs extra in most cases,
maybe
> >8megs extra. The PC now needs 16 megs for Win95, and its not so good
> >with that!
>
> :> I actually have no idea what a good price for a 4M SIMM is..
> (Although -I- won't be comfortable till I have at least eight)
It keeps changing at the moment.
> >Monitor - HUGE problem. PC - included on the prices. Amiga - decent
> >monitor is >250 UKP I think.
>
> Of course, it's an Amiga luxury, and an IBM necessity..
> You can get a pretty good telly for #250, and you can
> use it to watch Red Dwarf, too.
Errrr. Yeah!
> What does getting one of those A1200 towers achieve?
Well, it costs too much and looks pretty ;)
> >Web stuff - I wouldn`t touch an Amiga with no gfx card for WWW stuff,
> >for software reasons, but mostly hardware reasons.
>
> Hmm. Well, I would, just as soon as IBrowse arrives.
> 256 colours strikes me as an acceptable compromise.
sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow
> Er. I can't run M$windows applications. Woe, woe.. :>
I have to. aaaaaaaaaaaargh! And I just learned loads about the various
intricacies of SVGA registers. Even more aaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh! Come back
AGA - all is forgiven!! Well, not quite all.
Fabio Bizzetti
>>>> Its not because you never seen it thats it not there. AGA cannot
>>>> compete with 'yesterday' PC video card for smoothly scrolling text...
>>>
>>> [acco...@wr.com.au]
>>> That's complete bullshit.. You expect us to believe there's some aspect
>>> of smoothly *scrolling text* that Amigas can't handle?!? :)
>>
>> Why dont we just ban PC users from Amiga newsgroups?
>> I am sick of "Amiga" people saying that the Amiga sucks and the PC
>> hardware, PC architecture, PC philosophy, PC manufacteurs, PC software
>> companies all rule, "besides that they dont have AmigaOS". Buy a PC and
>> wait for the AmigaOS release (then compare it to a really serious OS's
>> like WindowsNT or Linux). The AmigaOS would have been nothing outside
>> the Amiga, and this won't change in the future.
>I agree.. and good idea! Now if there was only a way to enforce such a
>ban.. :)
>BTW, I fully support the AGA Extender, sounds excellent. Hope we see
>something from it, even if I have to build one myself.. :)
Thanks mate. 8)
Well, VIScorp's chief of hardware engineers (Steve Kreckman), the chief of
software engineers (Carl Sassenrath) and others gave very positive replyes,
Kreckman and his engineers are analyzing the big doc and the schematics.
The chance is v.good (and VIScorp has the money and R&D power to do it), but
these decisions are never fast (the deal to buy AT is not yet finalized, due
to checks about everything, as is normal when one spends 40 millions US$ to
buy a company).
I'll keep you informed anytime I can.
>-- __ ____ __ __ ____
> / "\ /\/\\__"\ / "\ / "\ /\\__"\
> Accolyte/Cydonia / / // / // / // / // / // // ' / Packing Class
> (Coder) / /\/ > // / // / // / // // / /__ And Kickin'Arse
> \__/ \_/ \__/ \__/ \/\/ \/ \/\/ \/
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Fabio "Maverick" Bizzetti - bizz...@mbox.vol.it - Maverick* at IRC |
| The maker of "CyberMan" and "Virtual Karting" |
| working on "VirtualRally" & "StarFighter" |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Defender
Stephan Schaem (ssc...@teleport.com) wrote:
: Marc Forrester (me...@aber.ac.uk) wrote:
: You forgot that the A1200 is big keyboard case, no expansion bus, no
: decent gfx (very slow 16bit blitter, almost no bandwdith, no real
: time true color modes, etc..), slow parallel and serial ports, ect..
hahaha.....so you now have been beaten on that argument, shown to be wrong
AGAIN and now you start looking at ergonomics. I suppose you are one of those
4 eyed spotty fraternity that loves microsoft and worships UNCLE Bill.
Tell me, do you ever back off at all?
AGA has got a 32 bit bandwidth. The parrallel speed still is not really
utilised to the full by most hadrware. True Colour modes on my friends
P166 with Diamond Edge 4MB Vram board still suck badly for the amount of
power supposedly at its disposal, want to know how much he spent?
: Is the drive an IDE drive, or the 600$ include a scsi interface?
:
: A similare system is around 500$ last time I check in the PC world.
Sorry, I thought you said in your own little world, check your prices again.
: One can only wish that the amiga OS is finaly made portable...
Why downgrade it to a machine that can't handle it. You really flatter
yourself by thinking that anyone would care for the PC enough to port the
best OS on a home computer.
--
Andrew H.
'It did not matter as I believed that I was right and the world was wrong,
I believed I was the divine messenger, I believed that I was....'
- Sebastian (Comes the Inquisitor)
____
A1200 - 030 / / / INSANE SOFTWARE(C) 1995
28Mhz ____/ / / web page: http://yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au/~s9507564
2C+4F \ \/\/ / My New Address! he...@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au
Ami \/\/\/ Programmer of: Screech Demo 100%, Sol-1 20% (Strategy Game)
Screech AGA Demo 80%, Naixalag 80%, Kombat + 100%
Marc Forrester
Alex Amsel <Al...@teeth.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Is that #399 for the HD model?
>No! The Escom ones were 399 without an HD. fuuuuuuuuuurk
Erm. Right. Any projected prices for the Hoover yet?
>> What does getting one of those A1200 towers achieve?
>
>Well, it costs too much and looks pretty ;)
I'm getting the impression that the A1200 is electronically
incapable of using more than one trapdoor card at a time?
How does one combine a GFX card and a new processor?
>> >Web stuff - I wouldn`t touch an Amiga with no gfx card for WWW stuff,
>> >for software reasons, but mostly hardware reasons.
>>
>> Hmm. Well, I would, just as soon as IBrowse arrives.
>> 256 colours strikes me as an acceptable compromise.
>
>sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow
Technically, yes, but it's a hell of a lot faster than my
internet link is likely to be for the forseeable future, so.. :7
Marc Forrester
ssc...@teleport.com (Stephan Schaem) wrote:
> I really think the amiga OS can only benefit from running on
> Today PC HW.
It would be a good thing, but it's probably better to design a
new Amiga OS supporting PowerPC architechture than it is to try
to wedge Amiga OS onto a Pentium IBM. Certainly, there's rather
more people working on the former than there are the latter..
>: > A similare system is around 500$ last time I check in the PC world.
>: And which system is that, precisely?
>
> In parts, you build is yourself :) 100mhz 586, PCI, 8meg, 500meg, ...
If you can really put together a P100 system for ~#300,
I`m emigrating tomorrow.. What do the above cost per module?
Defender
Stephan Schaem (ssc...@teleport.com) wrote:
: : > certainly not a crap standard mem->rgb chip and a 600Mhz CPU with
: : > 5ns local RAM.
:
: : Oh yes, the latter would certainly do the trick.
:
: and probably be thousand of $ cheaper :)
Do you make a habit of talking out your arse all the time? After reading some
of your rather outlandish claims I really am getting sick of it. The
biggest joke is that you quote prices for this ultra powerful PC hardware
that in fact costs alot more than you say. I checked the prices in many
catalogues and you really are dreaming. If you continue this dumb thread then
I will just crosspost this to comp.sys.amiga.advocacy, enjoy the mail bombs!
Johan R=?iso-8859-1?Q?=F6nnblom
> > >> No we're not. Not when a 060 Amiga costs >2 times as much as a Penti=
um 100.
> > >I paid about 1300UKP for my 1200 with 68060.... ;-)
games,
> > while also a "slow" 50Mhz 68060 is not standard _indeed_.
Well, if P166 is standard for games, then PC < 2*('060 Amiga)=3DFALSE !
You have to think about the lastability of the product too. How many months=
old is
the P166? If it is to be considered as standard now, I'd say in a years tim=
e it must
be hopelessly outdated, you will have to buy something new. And the Amiga? =
Well,
quite a few of the original A1000 are still around, with some accelerator t=
hey are
perfectly usable too..
/Johan R=F6nnblom, Team Amiga
Accolyte
>> [Fabio Bizzetti]
>> Many months ago I made (for a demo never finished) an effect that on a
>> UNEXPANDED A1200 (I should repeat: UNEXPANDED A1200.. but perhaps it's not
>> A1200 with no faster CPU than the 14Mhz 68020 nor FastRam .. I hope it's
>> clear what's a UNEXPANDED A1200) this effect performs 2 playfields of ~4000
>> colours each, the 2 playfields are completely independent each other
>> (thus scrollable) and there's a 24bit crossfading (transparency among
>> images)
>
huh? Why would you want LESS features in an effect? Of *course* it could be
done without cross-fading - if you *wanted* it that way.
>> >It's not that SVGA is 'great', it's NOT!!! The point is you can do
>> >much of the same as on the amiga AND there are some things that are
>> >easier to do on the SVGA (in mode 13h or chunky mode...) I don't want a
>> >PC,
>>
>> So "chunky mode" = "SVGA"???? =))
>> What was AAA, a SVGA chip? :D
>
> No, I DON'T WANT SVGA, I WANT A FAST CHUNKY MODE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At the expense of everything that's great about Amiga-style chipsets??
I want a better chipset, fuck svga.. and I'm sure as hell not cheering
for a compromise (ie: better we take svga than....) because people say
it isn't possible.
>> >I want an Amiga that can do this and more FAST!!!
>>
>> This is ABSOLUTELY WRONG, an Amiga+SVGA is NOT faster than a PC+SVGA, I
>> would rather say the opposite since PC's CPU are even much faster than
>> Amigas too. So it's a Pentium 200Mhz and SVGA what you want, and you still
>> dont know. :(
>
> No, I'd want an amiga with a slow cpu and slow gfx NOT!!!
> I want an amiga with fast gourgous gfx and fast CPU at a *reasonable*
> price..
Good pricing comes AFTER people start buying something. *I* will support
nice NEW Amiga. Remember when CD-ROM drives first came out for computers?
The players were ridiculously expensive, but people bought them because
they were _better_ than disk drives. Look at their prices today.
What would have happened if they originally aimed to market cd-rom drives
for half they price they initially chose. What would we end up with?
A shitload of cd-rom drives with a pitiful standard. Okay, that's probably
not true - newer types of cd-rom drive would eventuate, but with computers
it's different; backwards compatibility issues keeps the standards with us
for years to come. Please don't try to cripple a new Amiga before it starts.
>> Again, the SVGA chip is fucking slow, it's the Pentium that makes it fast.
> Not my point, the point is chunky mode.....
>
> (large snip)
>> What sucks is the people that wanna transform the Amiga into a PC.
> NO!!! You missed the my point totally.... I want a screen on my amiga
> with
> 24 bit color... If it scrolls is NOT important... I don't want to put a
> SVGA card on my amiga, I want a new chipset that have a chunky mode and
> more good effects...
Good, I concur, but with one big exception; scrolling IS important - to me!
..and to countless other sensible ( ;) ) Amiga users out there. Think past
your doom clones, *please*... A new (yes, fast), chipset with chunky AND
planar modes should easily be able to scroll seamlessly. Hardware tricks
are the key; you can't beat them for speed.
-- __ ____ __ __ ____
/ "\ /\/\\__"\ / "\ / "\ /\\__"\
Accolyte/Cydonia / / // / // / // / // / // // ' / Packing Class
(Coder) / /\/ > // / // / // / // // / /__ And Kickin'Arse!
HAAVARD JAKOBSEN
> : >: >> No we're not.
> : >: >> Not when a 060 Amiga costs >2 times as much as a Pentium 100.
> : >
> : >: A1200 - #250
> : >: Decent HD - #250
> : >: 68060 Processor - #600
> : >: SIMMS - #100
> : >
> : >: I make that ~#1200, which is entirely comparable.
> : >
>
>
> The price above is already 2x as expansive as a pentium class PC...
> (~x4? if its pounds)
Where the hell is that??? I can't get a pentium faster then
P75/90 for that price here in Norway (that is including monitor tho')
And the rest of the hardware ('cept the prosessor) would be crap...
HAAVARD JAKOBSEN
Marc Forrester wrote:
> > no real time true color modes, etc..),
>
> True. What do you use realtime true colour for?
Games.... Texturemapping or multimedia games (or apps..)
> > slow parallel and serial ports, ect..
>
> Can't comment on that.
> But either expand the etc's, or leave them out.
I'd say that the PC I've tested on NEVER have been able to
take the max settings on Twin (for serial passing of files
beetween PC and Amiga) Why?? dunno... Maybe it's just
coz it's easier to pass files on serial beetween amigas
then from a PC to an amiga (oh, it's fun to use the PC
as a filesystem too...)
HAAVARD JAKOBSEN
Juergen Rally Fischer wrote:
>
> HAAVARD JAKOBSEN (haa_...@gih.no) wrote:
> : Fabio Bizzetti wrote:
>
> : > between the 2 playfields, all runs 50fps 1x1 fullscreen
> : > on an UNEXPANDED A1200.
> that's clear, no cpu action -> no difference with fastmem.
>
> : Or with 3 or 4 or five playfields???
> I'm not peecee sucker but I don't want to hide from facts.
> any chance for the extender beeing built ?
on an amiga for it.. (just an idea...)
> : > This effect (and others) has been sent to VIScorp.
> well, they won't be interested I'm afraid.
>
> : > So "chunky mode" = "SVGA"???? =))
> : > What was AAA, a SVGA chip? :D
> what about blitterscreen ;)
>
> : No, I DON'T WANT SVGA, I WANT A FAST CHUNKY MODE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> for doing what ?
Texturemapped games, gfx applications(look nicer than tmapgames too)
Net software (yes there are alot of colors out there that i don't
see on my amiga...) Just greater looks on everything
> let me tell you that for current clones AGA bandwidth is fully
> sufficient up to 040/25. if you have a look at how much time
> clones need per single pixel you'll notice that a gfx-card will
> give almost no speedup.
Oh, and in truecolor too??
> : > >I want an Amiga that can do this and more FAST!!!
> I'd rather want software that uses current hardware properly.
Why not have a better machine coz you love yours too much???
I'd like to see all effect on an amiga used as on the c64(I still have
mine :) ,
but I rather fancy a faster maschine, so MY code is fast too ;-)
(I have a 060 and it rocks, even with my code....)
> : > Again, the SVGA chip is fucking slow, it's the Pentium that makes it fast.
> : Not my point, the point is chunky mode.....
> c2p is for free in clones....
Not for free, just free on 040 and above (merging while
copying to bpls)(I might be slightly wrong here... (sigh...))
> : > Amiga software if they want the coolest one.
>
> I wonder what you want anyway. I want games. I want 3d games.
> nothinh against colorful 2d games, though.
Gameplay is THE key, but 3d games are cool too
> : If Netscape was to be converted from Hp-unix to amiga
(snip)
> well, it depends how it is written.
> if scrolling is done with chunky dump, you would change that to
> OS-scrolling (which would use planar on AGA).
> the rest (button stuff) is no prob with writepixelarray8.
And use datatypes for the gfx which is truecolor and get nocolor on your
screen...
HAAVARD JAKOBSEN
Accolyte wrote:
>
> >> [Fabio Bizzetti]
>>> this effect performs 2 playfields of ~4000
> >> colours each, the 2 playfields are completely independent each other
> >> (thus scrollable) and there's a 24bit crossfading (transparency among
> >> images)
> > Can U do this without the crossfading?
>
> huh? Why would you want LESS features in an effect? Of *course* it could be
> done without cross-fading - if you *wanted* it that way.
using stuff make transparent stuff('crossfading') That's why I asked..
> > No, I DON'T WANT SVGA, I WANT A FAST CHUNKY MODE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> At the expense of everything that's great about Amiga-style chipsets??
No, but I don't see the importance of many of the features in aga
compared to a chunkymode. I want it all, but if I can't have
good scrolling I'd settle for a chunkymode...
> I want a better chipset, fuck svga.. and I'm sure as hell not cheering
> for a compromise (ie: better we take svga than....) because people say
> it isn't possible.
I don't want a compromises, unless it's a chip(or some which makes it
aga and
give it a chunkymode (which I call a compromise as it doesn't involve
developing new chips)
> > No, I'd want an amiga with a slow cpu and slow gfx NOT!!!
> > I want an amiga with fast gourgous gfx and fast CPU at a *reasonable*
> > price..
> Good pricing comes AFTER people start buying something. *I* will support
> nice NEW Amiga. Remember when CD-ROM drives first came out for computers?
> The players were ridiculously expensive, but people bought them because
> they were _better_ than disk drives. Look at their prices today.
This is true, that's why it seems like AT is moveing towards of the
shelves part (as not only machines/drives get cheaper as many people buy
them,
but Cpus/gfxchips and so on...)
> >> Again, the SVGA chip is fucking slow, it's the Pentium that makes it fast.
> > Not my point, the point is chunky mode.....
> >
> > (large snip)
> >> What sucks is the people that wanna transform the Amiga into a PC.
>
> > NO!!! You missed the my point totally.... I want a screen on my amiga
> > with
> > 24 bit color... If it scrolls is NOT important... I don't want to put a
> > SVGA card on my amiga, I want a new chipset that have a chunky mode and
> > more good effects...
>
> Good, I concur, but with one big exception; scrolling IS important - to me!
> ..and to countless other sensible ( ;) ) Amiga users out there. Think past
> your doom clones, *please*... A new (yes, fast), chipset with chunky AND
> planar modes should easily be able to scroll seamlessly. Hardware tricks
> are the key; you can't beat them for speed.
No, but with the power of a PPC cpu, it could also be nice on (urk)Svga,
even if I'd rather have something better...(like a coprosser that
does all of this and leave the cpu alone...)
If I wanted a PC I would have bought one a year ago (when I did buy my
A1200, finally upgrading from my A500), as I have spent more on my amiga
the a pentium 200mhz would cost.
(A1200 with 420mb ide,ScsiII, 16mb fast, monitor, HD diskdrive, a tower
with ZorroII board (that I can't use, as it don't work with my) blizzard
1260)
Still, there are stuff that DO look better on an PC screen nowadays, and
I
want it on my amiga.
Stephan Schaem
Defender (he...@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au) wrote:
: Stephan Schaem (ssc...@teleport.com) wrote:
: : Lars Haugseth (lar...@gymir.ifi.uio.no) wrote:
: :
: : : [ Fabio Bizzetti ]
: :
: : : > That's why we need more parallax support in the new AMIGA chipsets,
: : : > certainly not a crap standard mem->rgb chip and a 600Mhz CPU with
: : : > 5ns local RAM.
: :
: : : Oh yes, the latter would certainly do the trick.
: :
: : and probably be thousand of $ cheaper :)
: Do you make a habit of talking out your arse all the time? After reading some
: of your rather outlandish claims I really am getting sick of it. The
: biggest joke is that you quote prices for this ultra powerful PC hardware
: that in fact costs alot more than you say. I checked the prices in many
: catalogues and you really are dreaming. If you continue this dumb thread then
: I will just crosspost this to comp.sys.amiga.advocacy, enjoy the mail bombs!
Humm 100mhz 586 ~100$, 8meg ~80$, case+keyboard+mouse+floppy ~100$,
500meg HD <100$, 64bit video card ~100$, MB ~100$. So around 500$ is
defently possible.
I never said a 600mhz machine (non that I know off) is priced at ~500$.
What I said is that when a new amiga comes out with that new chipset
it would probably be more expansive then the 600mhz PC Fabio is putting
down.
Stephan
Christer Bjarnemo
On 12-Maj-96 14:54:07, Alex Amsel wrote about Re: SVGA or not..
>I can tell you that 90% of software
>companies are only doing Win95 stuff, and in the US they will hardly
>even accept ANY DOS games to publish. All the new games fro about 6
>months+ will be Win95 supporting, though some may work under DOS as
>well.
I can tell you that all PC gamers i know aren't happy about this at all,
and i suffer with them! :-)
--
..Christer...@mailbox.swipnet.se
--
Christer Bjarnemo
On 12-Maj-96 15:56:08, Alex Amsel wrote about Re: SVGA or not..
>SIMMS - the Amiga needs no more than 4 megs extra in most cases, maybe
>8megs extra.
I found out that NemacIV works fine with VMM (virtual memory) with no
speed problems at all... Well, except for one case.
I have a program that turns the hd off after a few minutes of inactivity, and
when VMM decided to swap a few bytes, it had to wait three seconds for the hd
to spin up.
But Nemac didn't wait, and neither did the enemies :-)
(because the game uses the clock to calculate the same speed on all cpu's)
Three seconds is quite long time when you are surrounded with enemies! :-)
> The PC now needs 16 megs for Win95, and its not so good
>with that!
Well, Win95 is a black hole (or in my opinion - Brown) :-)
>CDROM - PC - incredibly cheap, usually included as are better soundcards
>than what the Amiga has. Amiga - again a problem as you have to get the
>interface and all that crap.
Well, buy an old (and VERY CHEAP) C64 5.25" drive and put the CD drive
in there.. Then get a 2.5" -> 3.5" cable; and there you go...
>Expandability - the A1200 isn`t easily expandable any further. PCs are.
But neither are minitowers (who wants them anyway??)
There is often just *ONE* slot free, and the A1200 have two of them! :-)
>Web stuff - I wouldn`t touch an Amiga with no gfx card for WWW stuff,
>for software reasons, but mostly hardware reasons.
Well, Voyager is quite nice.. I feel that the 28k8 is the bottleneck here...
>Compatibility - the PC is compatible with everyone else, the Amiga is on
>its own.
I think it's the other way around.. PC's are only compatible with PC's, but
Amigas often have to be more open minded (to survive)...
For example, *all* AmigaWeb browsers handles *13* different pictureformats
(datatypes) on my machine.. Netscape handles *3* or something like that...
>This is just a quick unbiast comparison of a few things. No flames
>please!
Oh... Sorry! :)
--
..Christer...@mailbox.swipnet.se
--
Mika Yrj|l{
bizz...@mbox.vol.it (Fabio Bizzetti) writes:
>That's why the 3DO uses your PC's SVGA chips.
>That's why the 3DO/M2 uses your PC's SVGA chips.
>That's why the PlayStation uses your PC's SVGA chips.
>That's why the Saturn uses your PC's SVGA chips.
>That's why the Nintendo64 uses your PC's SVGA chips.
Currently the graphics chips in those machines are generally better than
on PC graphics cards, but the problem is that the situation is probably
different after a year. Those engineers who designed those custom chips
have to keep *very* busy indeed, if they intend to keep the pace with the
3rd party gfx card designers... I don't say it is impossible, but it
isn't certainly easy...
>If you want a business computer for your databases, then buy a PC or a Mac
>and dont bother tha Amiga..
>If only Jay Miner could hear you.. he would bring you where he is now.
I'd want Amiga to be all-around machne, not a gaming machine, business
machine or scientific workstation. I'd want it to be all of those.
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
\-------------------------------------------------------------------------/
HAAVARD JAKOBSEN
Alex Amsel wrote:
>
> In article: <319490...@isty-info.uvsq.fr> Nicolas POMAREDE
> <poma...@isty-info.uvsq.fr> writes:
>
> > I think this is the whole problem with Fabio arguments ; is point of
> > view seems to be:
> > - Pentium is slow down by the "crappy" SVGA cards.
> >
> > My point (and those of other pro-PCI SVGA cards) would be:
> > - Pentium is not powerful enough to cope with the power of the best
> > GFX cards. YES, I really think that Intel chip are not powerful
> > compared to other chips and that they are the weakest part of the
> > PC-GFX card combo.
coprossesor)....
> I think some stuff needs clearing up here.
>
> 1 - Most Pentiums are faster than an 060, and getting faster. They are
> also the PC standard now.
This is a problem...
> 3 - Win95 equipped PCs now make use of any extras in the Gfx card, like
> the blitter and so on. PC owners have a huge choice of cards. Amiga
> owners don`t, and don`t have new cards coming out all the time. Even if
> the Amiga could use any SVGA card there would still be the problem of
> new drivers for them since hardly any companies will do Amiga ones.
So why is updating of windows95 windows slower then on my amiga in
256 color????
Stephan Schaem
: : You forgot that the A1200 is big keyboard case, no expansion bus, no
: : decent gfx (very slow 16bit blitter, almost no bandwdith, no real
: : time true color modes, etc..), slow parallel and serial ports, ect..
: hahaha.....so you now have been beaten on that argument, shown to be wrong
: AGAIN and now you start looking at ergonomics. I suppose you are one of those
: 4 eyed spotty fraternity that loves microsoft and worships UNCLE Bill.
: Tell me, do you ever back off at all?
Ergonomics? nha... just where do you put your expansion cards? PCMIA ? :)
I would have mentioned it if the a1200 was a portable computer.. but its
not... Do you know why the A4000 do not come in a keyboard case like the
C64?
: AGA has got a 32 bit bandwidth. The parrallel speed still is not really
: utilised to the full by most hadrware. True Colour modes on my friends
: P166 with Diamond Edge 4MB Vram board still suck badly for the amount of
: power supposedly at its disposal, want to know how much he spent?
Its 32bit only from the video fectch side... 16bit blitter, 16bit
copper, 16bit audio/floppy dma.
Dont you love to have parallel device almost shutdown multitasking when
you work with them? if not its slow...
Dunno about how he spent his money... but my 24bit desktop is many , many
fold faster then even a 1bit 640x200 WB on my amiga A3000. And hundreds
of time faster in 16color
: : Is the drive an IDE drive, or the 600$ include a scsi interface?
: :
: : A similare system is around 500$ last time I check in the PC world.
: Sorry, I thought you said in your own little world, check your prices again.
Checked... ~500$
: : One can only wish that the amiga OS is finaly made portable...
: Why downgrade it to a machine that can't handle it. You really flatter
: yourself by thinking that anyone would care for the PC enough to port the
: best OS on a home computer.
... come on, do you really beleive that? 1) best OS? for some home
computing maybe, 2) downgrade from a A500 to an Indy or BeBox, or PCI
Pentium? You are toaly out of it
Stephan
Stephan Schaem
HAAVARD JAKOBSEN (haa_...@gih.no) wrote:
: > : >: >> No we're not.
: > : >: >> Not when a 060 Amiga costs >2 times as much as a Pentium 100.
: > : >
: > : >: A1200 - #250
: > : >: Decent HD - #250
: > : >: 68060 Processor - #600
: > : >: SIMMS - #100
: > : >
: > : >: I make that ~#1200, which is entirely comparable.
: > : >
: > : Okay, anyone got the figures for the hardware fix for this?
: >
: > The price above is already 2x as expansive as a pentium class PC...
: > (~x4? if its pounds)
: Where the hell is that??? I can't get a pentium faster then
: P75/90 for that price here in Norway (that is including monitor tho')
: And the rest of the hardware ('cept the prosessor) would be crap...
I didn't say it was an intel 586 :) A cyrix 100mhz 586 is ~50$, they are
in the P90 class tho. I'm unsure but I think P75 price droped under 100$
now?
Stephan
Juergen Rally Fischer
HAAVARD JAKOBSEN (haa_...@gih.no) wrote:
: (A1200 with 420mb ide,ScsiII, 16mb fast, monitor, HD diskdrive, a tower
: with ZorroII board (that I can't use, as it don't work with my) blizzard
: 1260)
: Still, there are stuff that DO look better on an PC screen nowadays, and
: I
: want it on my amiga.
why you whine for a chunky mode ?
with a 1260 you would render in fastmem anyway, and then the
c2p will be as fast as copy. so what ?
just do what they do on PC, bandwidth will break it a bit
but the c2p is no problem.
(BTW most current doom clones would increase only a tiny little bit
in speed on a ultra-superbus-SVGA).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
fisc...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Juergen "Rally" Fischer) =:)
Fabio Bizzetti
>Fabio Bizzetti wrote:
>>
>> >Wessel Dankers wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Accolyte <acco...@wr.com.au> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > pixel precision even if it's only hi-res. (And besides, if you're
>> >> > allowed a pentium, we're allowed an 060/50 :p )
>> >>
>> >> No we're not. Not when a 060 Amiga costs >2 times as much as a Pentium
>> >> 100.
>>
>> >I paid about 1300UKP for my 1200 with 68060.... ;-)
>>
>> There's to add that today a Pentium 166Mhz is practically standard for
>> games, while also a "slow" 50Mhz 68060 is not standard _indeed_.
>Eh, WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU LIVE???? THE STANDARD HERE IS MAX P90,
>IF SO HIGH....
Come on.. ;-) The games like F1GP-2 & Co. dont promise to run good on a P90,
wheter it's diffused or not, they run smooth on faster Pentiums.
<< There's to add that today a Pentium 166Mhz is practically standard for games >>
That's what I said and meant ;)
>> The today's Amiga standard after a lot of efforts is the 40Mhz/50Mhz 68030,
>> with only 4Mb FastRam (so no huge look-up tables "a la Descent"), thus it
>> needs to be programmed carefully, to exploit its good RAM access speed
>> rather than the poor raw computing power.
>>
>> Anyway I am satisfied with a 50Mhz 68030 power for games.
>And I'm not with my 060.... hum....
The problem is the software, not (our) Blizzard1260.
Hans Henrik Happe
Stephan Schaem ( ssc...@teleport.com ) wrote:
> I vote PC... :) Lets go this way... VIScorp make the OS source public
> and let the people decide... improve the sources, optimize them in 680x0
> or port it to the PC world.
> You are welcome to buy Walker at ~1500$? and run the super powerfull AGA
> with a 030? while I would get a 16meg PCI scsi2 100mhz 586 500meg with
> 64bit blitter etc very expandable Amiga box for ~500$.
I put one together for a friend and installed Windows95 (the one with all the
support... the reason for buying a Wintel) on it, and then home to my Amiga
Morden
Stefan Boberg said:
: >mean much more than those Mb/sec of bandwidth that still make PC Worms suck
: >compared to the cheap-AMIGA500 version.
: Uh... Where's the scaling in the A500 version? Where's the
: four-field parallax? Where's the framerate independence? Where's the
: networking? Where are the 256 colors?
God, and this came from someone at Team 17 "We're not interested in making
games that look good on your computer, just that play damn well" ...
Scaling is bullsh*t anyway, even PC owners I know hate it, 4 field
parallax, er ... count again both versions have WAY more than four fields.
Framerate independence ... that must be why PC worms has that funny feel
of "skipping frames" to me ... that *hinders* the enjoyment of the game,
not the gameplay. Networking isn't our problem, it's yours. And you're
seriously asking an A500 for 256 colours to help the GAMEPLAY?
Methinks humble Mr Boberg has spent too long near a PC and thinks that
graphics == gameplay.
--
Jason Murray - http://yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au/~jasmur/ - Worm on. - G66Z9 -
"Yeah, whadda you want? I got a station to run!!" - Sparky the Computer__
Babylon 5: "Here they come." All this time, where have you been? __///
Our last, best hope for peace. `----> I have *always* been here. \XX/7R
Paul Dossett
Defender (he...@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au) said:
>: You forgot that the A1200 is big keyboard case, no expansion bus, no
>: decent gfx (very slow 16bit blitter, almost no bandwdith, no real
>: time true color modes, etc..), slow parallel and serial ports, ect..
>AGA has got a 32 bit bandwidth. The parrallel speed still is not really
>utilised to the full by most hadrware. True Colour modes on my friends
>P166 with Diamond Edge 4MB Vram board still suck badly for the amount of
>power supposedly at its disposal, want to know how much he spent?
The AGA blitter is 16 bit, and the bandwidth is a joke compared to any decent PC
card.
What motherboard does your friend use?
>: One can only wish that the amiga OS is finaly made portable...
>Why downgrade it to a machine that can't handle it. You really flatter
>yourself by thinking that anyone would care for the PC enough to port the
>best OS on a home computer.
The hardware can *easily* handle it. It's Windoze that holds PCs back. I'd
dearly love to be able to buy a standard PClone and run all my Amiga apps on it.
--
Paul Dossett | EpiphoneYamahaPearlPaiste | Amiga 2000/040/17/365/ZIP/3.1__
-------------| Amiga owner since 1988! | Amiga CD32/020/10/200/3.1 __///
Melbourne OZ | astr...@netspace.net.au | 1976 Toyota Corolla 1.2 \XX/
| ObWebSite : http://netspace.net.au/~astroboy/
Paul Dossett
Marc Forrester (me...@aber.ac.uk) said:
>ssc...@teleport.com (Stephan Schaem) wrote:
>>: >> No we're not.
>>: >> Not when a 060 Amiga costs >2 times as much as a Pentium 100.
>>
>>: Decent HD - #250
>>: 68060 Processor - #600
>>: SIMMS - #100
>>
>>: I make that ~#1200, which is entirely comparable.
>>
>Okay, anyone got the figures for the hardware fix for this?
500 pounds for a Zorro II box. That brings the total for you so far to ~#1700.
I could buy a reasonable Pentium PC (say 100Mhz) for around #600 in Australia.
Your basic problem is that Europe seems to have the most expensive PCs in the
world, deluding you into thinking they're expensive everywhere else. I wish the
Amiga was competitive in other parts of the world, but they simply aren't even
close.
>> no decent gfx (very slow 16bit blitter, almost no bandwdith,
>You exaggerate, I think. They could be a lot faster,
>but they are neither very slow, nor zero bandwidth.
>I'll leave Fabio to discuss the exact specs..
AGA resolutions are *extremely* slow. 8-bit colour is unusable for useful (high
resolution) work. Fabio can discuss as much as he wants. At work I use P90s
with screens set to 1280x1024. This is *impossible* to do with a 1200, barring
a graphics card and ugly Zorro box solution.
>> no real time true color modes, etc..),
>True. What do you use realtime true colour for?
Desktop video and animation construction, DTP, some stupid PC games. Oh, and
pose value. You're arguing against something simply because you can't have it,
I fear.
>> slow parallel and serial ports, ect..
>Can't comment on that.
>But either expand the etc's, or leave them out.
The Amiga can't handle the parallel version of the Iomega ZIP, for example. The
standard PC serial port has a 16550 UART, with a 16 byte buffer, as opposed to
the 1 byte buffer on the Amiga - allowing far higher speeds. The etcetera might
have something to do with having multiple serial ports, or built-in ethernet
capabilities, neither of which any standard Amiga can boast.
>> Is the drive an IDE drive, or the 600$ include a scsi interface?
>You usually get a SCSI on '060 boards, yes.
>I'm working in Sterling, BTW.
You don't get a SCSI interface with any '060 board as standard. Add another
#90.
>> A similare system is around 500$ last time I check in the PC world.
>And which system is that, precisely?
A basic Pentium 75 clone. 8Mb RAM, monitor, 850Mb HD, twin floppies. Generally
you don't get a CD-ROM for that kind of money, but who knows in America.
>> One can only wish that the amiga OS is finaly made portable...
>Well, that would be nice, but there's always Linux..
>Still, if the Hoover lives up to its design ethos,
>and later models follow suit, it won't figure.
Linux isn't AmigaOS by any definition.
Paul Dossett
Marc Forrester (me...@aber.ac.uk) said:
>>SIMMS - the Amiga needs no more than 4 megs extra in most cases, maybe
>>8megs extra. The PC now needs 16 megs for Win95, and its not so good
>>with that!
>:> I actually have no idea what a good price for a 4M SIMM is..
>(Although -I- won't be comfortable till I have at least eight)
My next SIMM will be a 32Mb one - they're getting insanely cheap.
>>Monitor - HUGE problem. PC - included on the prices. Amiga - decent
>>monitor is >250 UKP I think.
>Of course, it's an Amiga luxury, and an IBM necessity..
>You can get a pretty good telly for #250, and you can
>use it to watch Red Dwarf, too.
Christ, somebody still advocating the use of a TELEVISION with an Amiga? My
God.... I just got back from work complaining about the stingy management
buying cheap Taiwanese 17" monitors! Think of your eyes; they DON'T handle
staring at a TV for hours each day well at all. Just say no to televisions.
My next monitor will probably be a nice NEC or Sony, something really high-
quality. My vision is bad enough after 6 years of doing just what you
suggest.
>>CDROM - PC - incredibly cheap, usually included as are better soundcards
>>than what the Amiga has. Amiga - again a problem as you have to get the
>>interface and all that crap.
>Won't they run through that Squirrel?
Yes, but you need a box and power supply, plus they take up more space on your
desk and add hassle.
>>Expandability - the A1200 isn`t easily expandable any further. PCs are.
>>A4k is too expensive.
>Yes, it's no business machine..
>What does getting one of those A1200 towers achieve?
More mess on your desk. Basically you have an AGA A2000 (16 bit Zorro II bus
only). They're *very* expensive for what they offer, unfortunately.
>>Web stuff - I wouldn`t touch an Amiga with no gfx card for WWW stuff,
>>for software reasons, but mostly hardware reasons.
>Hmm. Well, I would, just as soon as IBrowse arrives.
>256 colours strikes me as an acceptable compromise.
You haven't used 16/24-bit colour, have you? :)
>>Compatibility - the PC is compatible with everyone else,
>Well, yes. Because they all have PC's too. Iffy point.
Not for Joe Public. I couldn't sell an Amiga to anybody I know, simply
because it won't run the big names.
>>the Amiga is on its own.
>Apart from ShapeShifter and PC-Task, anyway. And CrossDOS.
>In fact, it's the most multilingual platform I know.
You're advocating buying a machine to run substandard emulations of other,
cheaper machines. Why not just buy a PC/Mac if that's your objective?
>>Amiga freaks - fine, the general public - no use.
>Well, half of them would be Amiga freaks too,
>if only they had a chance to learn..
Hmm.. possibly. I do believe that an 030 powered Amiga would be more than
sufficient for 80% of home users. People are just brainwashed into thinking
they need 300Mhz, 16Mb RAM, hex-speed CD drives, etc. The same 80% of people
only run games and do simply word-processing/net access.
>>Same goes for software and all that stuff.
>Er. I can't run M$windows applications. Woe, woe.. :>
Haha.. :)
>>This is just a quick unbiast comparison of a few things.
>>No flames please!
>Good luck.. :7
No flames from me. Alex is shooting truth straight from the hip... pow!
--
Paul Dossett | EpiphoneYamahaPearlPaiste | Amiga 2000/040/17/365/ZIP/3.1__
-------------| Amiga owner since 1988! | Amiga CD32/020/10/200/3.1 __///
Melbourne OZ | astr...@netspace.net.au | 1976 Toyota Corolla 1.2 \XX/
| ObWebSite : http://netspace.net.au/~astroboy/
Disclaimer: You get what you pay for.
Paul Dossett
Fabio Bizzetti (bizz...@mbox.vol.it) said:
>>: Oh yes, the latter would certainly do the trick.
>> and probably be thousand of $ cheaper :)
>That's why the 3DO uses your PC's SVGA chips.
Dead system.
>That's why the 3DO/M2 uses your PC's SVGA chips.
Dead system.
>That's why the PlayStation uses your PC's SVGA chips.
Shortlived system.
>That's why the Saturn uses your PC's SVGA chips.
Mostly dead system.
>That's why the Nintendo64 uses your PC's SVGA chips.
Unreleased system.
>If you want a business computer for your databases, then buy a PC or a Mac
>and dont bother tha Amiga..
>If only Jay Miner could hear you.. he would bring you where he is now.
People such as I are arguing against you for one simply reason. We don't give a
flying f**k about the hardware we use. We simply want superb software and a
sturdy, reliable, configurable OS. The Amiga is simply falling behind for us.
Go on, tell me to buy a PC with shite Windoze and abuse me again. I can take
it. Of course, you'd be missing the point. I'd have the superb software, but a
terrible OS.
Stefan Boberg
s950...@minyos.its.rmit.EDU.AU (Morden) wrote:
>Stefan Boberg said:
>: >mean much more than those Mb/sec of bandwidth that still make PC Worms suck
>: >compared to the cheap-AMIGA500 version.
>: Uh... Where's the scaling in the A500 version? Where's the
>: four-field parallax? Where's the framerate independence? Where's the
>: networking? Where are the 256 colors?
>God, and this came from someone at Team 17 "We're not interested in making
>games that look good on your computer, just that play damn well" ...
This is exactly what I said about one sentence later, wasn't it?
Something along the lines of "that doesn't necessarily make it a
better game".
>Scaling is bullsh*t anyway, even PC owners I know hate it, 4 field
>parallax, er ... count again both versions have WAY more than four fields.
On one scanline? I don't think so. I had close insight into the
PC/Mac/PSX/Saturn/Jaguar porting work (done by two friends of mine),
so I have a clue or two about the differences.
>Framerate independence ... that must be why PC worms has that funny feel
>of "skipping frames" to me ... that *hinders* the enjoyment of the game,
>not the gameplay.
Yes. Possibly so, but it is a requirement for a PC game. The game
must run on any machine - slow or fast.
>Networking isn't our problem, it's yours.
Uh?
>And you're
>seriously asking an A500 for 256 colours to help the GAMEPLAY?
No. Just pointing out some of the differences, so you could possibly
realize that the PC does more than the Amiga version.
>Methinks humble Mr Boberg has spent too long near a PC and thinks that
>graphics == gameplay.
It does not == gameplay, but it does help, and it definitely doesn't
hurt. But you're right - I'm put off by poor graphics.
>Jason Murray - http://yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au/~jasmur/ - Worm on. - G66Z9 -
===============================================================
Stefan Boberg bob...@team17.com
Alex Amsel
In article: <4nc0dj$5...@aggedor.rmit.EDU.AU>
s950...@minyos.its.rmit.EDU.AU (Morden) writes:
> Methinks humble Mr Boberg has spent too long near a PC and thinks that
> graphics == gameplay.
No, but graphics helps sell a game a hell of a lot, or do you not know
of some of the troubles they had with a certain version of Worms because
of the gfx?
Put it this way, if you spend lots of money developing a game, chances
are that if it has good gfx etc you will get more magazine coverage,
more sales, and so on. And many of the games are good these days, better
than 12 months ago (though there is still a lot of shit around).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Alex Amsel : Silltunna Software Lead Programmer : Black Magic |
| XTremeRacing 1x1 TMapping and Stunning Gameplay on AGA Amigas |
| Al...@teeth.demon.co.uk | Steve Bull is Back | *PWEIPWEIPWEI* |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Forrester
astr...@netspace.net.au (Paul Dossett) wrote:
>>> You forgot that the A1200 is big keyboard case, no expansion bus,
>>Okay, anyone got the figures for the hardware fix for this?
>
>500 pounds for a Zorro II box.
>That brings the total for you so far to ~#1700.
Hm. Okay, A1200 expandability is fairly limited, then.
>I could buy a reasonable Pentium PC (say 100Mhz) for around #600 in
>Australia. Your basic problem is that Europe seems to have the most
>expensive PCs in the world, deluding you into thinking they're
>expensive everywhere else. I wish the Amiga was competitive in
>other parts of the world, but they simply aren't even close.
So I have to go abroad to get myself a cheap IBM clone,
and you have to go abroad to get a cheap Amiga system..
>>You exaggerate, I think. They could be a lot faster,
>>but they are neither very slow, nor zero bandwidth.
>>I'll leave Fabio to discuss the exact specs..
>
>AGA resolutions are *extremely* slow. 8-bit colour is unusable for
>useful (high resolution) work. Fabio can discuss as much as he wants.
Now, to me, *extremely* slow means obvious pixellation and/or
watching things come up on the screen line by line, it doesn't
mean 'Not photorealistic'.
>At work I use P90s with screens set to 1280x1024.
>This is *impossible* to do with a 1200, barring
>a graphics card and ugly Zorro box solution.
Or in other words, this is *expensive* to do with a 1200.
>>> no real time true color modes, etc..),
>>True. What do you use realtime true colour for?
>
>Desktop video and animation construction, DTP, some stupid PC games.
>Oh, and pose value. You're arguing against something simply because
>you can't have it, I fear.
Not arguing against it, per se, just doesn't strike me as a necessity.
I could have it, I just can't afford it right now at the moment.
>The Amiga can't handle the parallel version of the Iomega ZIP,
>for example. The standard PC serial port has a 16550 UART,
>with a 16 byte buffer, as opposed to the 1 byte buffer on the Amiga
Okay.. Can't say I use my serial port enough to notice.
>The etcetera might have something to do with having multiple serial
>ports, or built-in ethernet capabilities, neither of which any
>standard Amiga can boast.
Not things I'd use in a personal computer, actually.
>>> Is the drive an IDE drive, or the 600$ include a scsi interface?
>>You usually get a SCSI on '060 boards, yes.
>
>You don't get a SCSI interface with any '060 board as standard.
>Add another #90.
#90? I suspect you're not shopping around much there.
Still, I overestimated HD cost. Put it in with the #250.
>>> A similare system is around 500$ last time I check in the PC world.
>>And which system is that, precisely?
>
>A basic Pentium 75 clone. 8Mb RAM, monitor, 850Mb HD, twin floppies.
>Generally you don't get a CD-ROM for that kind of money, but who knows
Is this with Windows 95 and a soundcard?
>>> One can only wish that the amiga OS is finaly made portable...
>>Well, that would be nice, but there's always Linux..
>
>Linux isn't AmigaOS by any definition.
Well, nooo.. But it's just as useful and well supported, no?
What would you want to add to it from the Amiga OS?
Marc Forrester
astr...@netspace.net.au (Paul Dossett) wrote:
>>:> I actually have no idea what a good price for a 4M SIMM is..
>>(Although -I- won't be comfortable till I have at least eight)
>
>My next SIMM will be a 32Mb one - they're getting insanely cheap.
Well, that's nice to know.
>>Of course, it's an Amiga luxury, and an IBM necessity..
>>You can get a pretty good telly for #250, and you can
>>use it to watch Red Dwarf, too.
>
>Christ, somebody still advocating the use of a TELEVISION with an Amiga?
>My God.... I just got back from work complaining about the stingy
>management buying cheap Taiwanese 17" monitors! Think of your eyes;
>they DON'T handle staring at a TV for hours each day well at all.
Erm. They don't feel too good after staring at a big,
expensive monitor all night down in the Sun lab, either.
>Just say no to televisions.
There's a difference? I thought a CRT was a CRT..
Now, what I really want is a nice big flat LCD television,
something of that nature. Or a projector, maybe.
>My next monitor will probably be a nice NEC or Sony, something really
>high-quality. My vision is bad enough after 6 years of doing just
>what you suggest.
Well, my vision's always been bad, anyway.. It's a family thing.
>>>CDROM - PC - incredibly cheap, usually included as are better
>>>soundcards than what the Amiga has.
>>Won't they run through that Squirrel?
>
>Yes, but you need a box and power supply,
Yes, another expandability problem with the 1200,
you really need a bigger power unit.
I suppose the Escom units don't fix that problem?
>plus they take up more space on your desk and add hassle.
Can be dealt with in the same manner as external drives, surely?
Stack them up on the shelf above the keyboard. Hassle?
>>>Web stuff - I wouldn`t touch an Amiga with no gfx card for WWW stuff,
>>>for software reasons, but mostly hardware reasons.
>
>>Hmm. Well, I would, just as soon as IBrowse arrives.
>>256 colours strikes me as an acceptable compromise.
>
>You haven't used 16/24-bit colour, have you? :)
Yes, we have some very nice graphics workstations hereabouts,
and I do like some of the subtle dark backgrounds you can put
on a 16 bit colour page, but I don't think 8 bit colour makes
the web unusuable by any means. Maybe when I'm rich. :>
>>>Compatibility - the PC is compatible with everyone else,
>>Well, yes. Because they all have PC's too. Iffy point.
>
>Not for Joe Public. I couldn't sell an Amiga to anybody I know,
>simply because it won't run the big names.
I am aware of this, but the IBM is not compatible with
everyone else, it's compatible with other IBMs.
Er. What was the original point of this, anyway?
>>>the Amiga is on its own.
>>Apart from ShapeShifter and PC-Task, anyway. And CrossDOS.
>>In fact, it's the most multilingual platform I know.
>
>You're advocating buying a machine to run substandard emulations of
>other, cheaper machines. Why not just buy a PC/Mac if that's your
>objective?
It's not my objective, I just don't see where we get the idea that
the Amiga is on its own, and the IBM compatible with everything.
And they're not substandard emulations, they're perfectly good
emulations, but of substandard, last-year's-model machines.
Can the Amiga not run Mac software better than the IBM?
>>>Amiga freaks - fine, the general public - no use.
>>Well, half of them would be Amiga freaks too,
>>if only they had a chance to learn..
>
>Hmm.. possibly. I do believe that an 030 powered Amiga would be more
>than sufficient for 80% of home users. People are just brainwashed
>into thinking they need 300Mhz, 16Mb RAM, hex-speed CD drives, etc.
Well, a lot of them might be. My mum seems perfectly happy with her
386/25 running Win3.1, and you should see what she was using two years
ago.. And she didn't throw -that- out, either, she still uses it at
work, so's she can multitask. :>
>The same 80% of people only run games and
>do simply word-processing/net access.
Hrm. It's the games and net access that feed
the hardware addiction, I suspect.
astr...@netspace.net.au (Paul Dossett) wrote:
>Marc Forrester (me...@aber.ac.uk) said:
Oh, bloody hell.
Why is Netscape quoting documents twice today?
[Chomp]
Stephan Schaem
Juergen "Rally" Fischer (fisc...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE) wrote:
: HAAVARD JAKOBSEN (haa_...@gih.no) wrote:
: : (A1200 with 420mb ide,ScsiII, 16mb fast, monitor, HD diskdrive, a tower
: : with ZorroII board (that I can't use, as it don't work with my) blizzard
: : 1260)
: : Still, there are stuff that DO look better on an PC screen nowadays, and
: : I
: : want it on my amiga.
: why you whine for a chunky mode ?
: with a 1260 you would render in fastmem anyway, and then the
: c2p will be as fast as copy. so what ?
C2p is fine because of the oh so slow amiga 'video ram'.
You would need like a 250mhz 040 to handle something like AAA in planar
mode. problem to equal PC spec oflast year is that AAA or 250mhz 040
dont exist. And they would probably be totaly out of reach.
: just do what they do on PC, bandwidth will break it a bit
: but the c2p is no problem.
Compare to busmaster PCI video card that xfer 100meg sec without the
CPU ,even c2p with an 060 is something major.
: (BTW most current doom clones would increase only a tiny little bit
: in speed on a ultra-superbus-SVGA).
True, because even old ISA card where pretty fast :)
Stephan
Hans-Joerg Frieden
Juergen "Rally" Fischer (fisc...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE) wrote:
: why you whine for a chunky mode ?
planar.
: with a 1260 you would render in fastmem anyway, and then the
: c2p will be as fast as copy. so what ?
NOT TRUE. Don't tell me that setting _one_ pixel in a chunky display is
as fast as c2p. It is NOT! So generally speaking, the chunky mode is much
more versatile... Just think about _why_ ecerybody uses c2p... If planar
was so damn good, that everyone would use it...
: just do what they do on PC, bandwidth will break it a bit
: but the c2p is no problem.
: (BTW most current doom clones would increase only a tiny little bit
: in speed on a ultra-superbus-SVGA).
You mean like Nemac IV, which runs _much_ faster on a gfx card? Or
Marathon, which, on an emulated Mac, runs faster than most Amiga-Side
clones? Why? Because it uses chunky pixels...
I'd say this: Ditch AGA. Forget custom chips. Take a good cheap S3
chipset, or better yet, leave room for a graphics card. That's the way to
go, and to keep it cheap.
Regards, Hans-Joerg.
--
Hans-Joerg Frieden Schloss-Strasse 176 54293 Trier Germany
Private Mail to hfri...@fix.uni-trier.de
HiWi at University of Trier, Germany
Any Opinion expressed is completely my own, not those of my employers.
Juergen Rally Fischer
Hans-Joerg Frieden (hfri...@fix.uni-trier.de) wrote:
: Juergen "Rally" Fischer (fisc...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE) wrote:
: NOT TRUE. Don't tell me that setting _one_ pixel in a chunky display is
: as fast as c2p. It is NOT! So generally speaking, the chunky mode is much
you don't get it ;)
you got a 64k picture in fastmem.
if it is chunky, the c2p to chipmem is as fast as copying the
planar pic to chipmem. though if AGA had a chunky mode, a doom
game would not be faster on it.
: You mean like Nemac IV, which runs _much_ faster on a gfx card? Or
: Marathon, which, on an emulated Mac, runs faster than most Amiga-Side
: clones? Why? Because it uses chunky pixels...
Yes, on a 060 board, especially on a 060 board with
bad chipmem interface, a quick clone is faster on gfx-card.
this is the _bandwidth_ thingy, not the chunky/planar thingy.
: I'd say this: Ditch AGA. Forget custom chips. Take a good cheap S3
: chipset, or better yet, leave room for a graphics card. That's the way to
: go, and to keep it cheap.
The thing is that most clones on most Amigas will only speed
up some little % if you use a gfx-card instead of ideal c2p.
conclusion: good old AGA still useful for games up to 030-50.
Juergen Rally Fischer
Stephan Schaem (ssc...@teleport.com) wrote:
: : with a 1260 you would render in fastmem anyway, and then the
: : c2p will be as fast as copy. so what ?
: C2p is fine because of the oh so slow amiga 'video ram'.
: You would need like a 250mhz 040 to handle something like AAA in planar
well, a double speed 040 with 2 times faster memory would be enough.
Afaik AAA bandwidth would have been 14mb/sec. and it would have ha
a chunky mode anyway ;)
But still: if AGA had a chunky mode, doom would not be faster
on it vs. ideal AGA-c2p.
: Compare to busmaster PCI video card that xfer 100meg sec without the
: CPU ,even c2p with an 060 is something major.
I do not tell 060 can c2p 100mb/sec.
: : (BTW most current doom clones would increase only a tiny little bit
: : in speed on a ultra-superbus-SVGA).
: True, because even old ISA card where pretty fast :)
no, just because the difference between 5.5mb/sec and 100mb/sec
vram is almost none if cpu rendering time is quite much.
this is the case for a dooming 030.
a 040 on AGA would be faster and cheaper than a 030 + gfx-card,
so if I had to invest into a doomable Amiga config...
: Stephan
Juergen Rally Fischer
Paul Dossett (astr...@netspace.net.au) wrote:
: >yourself by thinking that anyone would care for the PC enough to port the
: >best OS on a home computer.
: The hardware can *easily* handle it. It's Windoze that holds PCs back. I'd
: dearly love to be able to buy a standard PClone and run all my Amiga apps on it.
well, timer & interrupts maybe would have to be extended.
mis...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
> Do you make a habit of talking out your arse all the time? After reading some
> of your rather outlandish claims I really am getting sick of it. The
> biggest joke is that you quote prices for this ultra powerful PC hardware
> that in fact costs alot more than you say. I checked the prices in many
> catalogues and you really are dreaming. If you continue this dumb thread then
Uh, actually he's probably right about the prices, but lives in a different
country. Another thing is that (in my country), the places that have catalogs
are the most expensive places to buy hardware (the proper dealers refuse to use
them, so the price information the buyers get is up to the minute.) The price
difference is _often_ as much as 40% less! (People buy computers from department
stores. I can't understand that.... :)
I'm also pretty sure that the thread "why are europeans..." is mainly the
result of Americans not realising that PC hardware costs so much more in
Europe, while Amiga hardware doesn't. And conversly, people living where
hardware is expensive not realising that it's different elsewhere.
IOW, the merits of Amiga's and PC's change depending on your location, so there
is no hope of stopping the flames in this newsgroup :)
(BTW, another thing of interest, here, the Amiga seems no better off than any
other country :( but in terms of advertising etc in it's prime years, in my
experience, it got much better, and more, advertising than either PC's or
Mac's. PC hardware pricing is quite good here though, so I think comparitive
hardware costs were the biggest factor here...)
Hans-Joerg Frieden
Well, yes I got it, I just wanted some extreme example. You don't need to
copy everything every frame if you got a gfx card, that's what I meant...
: you got a 64k picture in fastmem.
: if it is chunky, the c2p to chipmem is as fast as copying the
: planar pic to chipmem. though if AGA had a chunky mode, a doom
: game would not be faster on it.
That's the problem. Of course it is not the fault that AGA has only
chunky modes, but because AGA is so limited in Bandwidth. It would help
if the chip ram would be clocked at the same speed as the processor...
: Yes, on a 060 board, especially on a 060 board with
: bad chipmem interface, a quick clone is faster on gfx-card.
: this is the _bandwidth_ thingy, not the chunky/planar thingy.
But you still have to use c2p. Even if you use the blitter for that,
you'll have to do one pass at least with the CPU to get it into chip ram,
because the chipram is way too slow to be useful.
: The thing is that most clones on most Amigas will only speed
: up some little % if you use a gfx-card instead of ideal c2p.
:
: conclusion: good old AGA still useful for games up to 030-50.
But then, if you had an S3 chip with a fastram buffer (like, say, a CV64)
and no chip ram inbetween, you could write directly into a fastram buffer
that gets displayed immediatley. Bandwidth to fast ram or to the Z3 bus
isn't a problem, you even get a descent speed with 3.5 MB/s to a Z2 card,
with around 50 fps... Add to this the problem that the Agnus blitter can
only address chip ram... The Picasso Blitter can actually copy from
fastram, so that even if I have a slow Z2 bus, I can write into a fastram
buffer _very_ fast (around 60MB/s on my Blizzard 2060), and flush it into
the Picasso with just a call to VillageBlitCopy()... I'll get a maximum
of frames due to the copying, but I really get to this maximum because I
don't have much to do...