@amigakit

Quote:

amigakit wrote: A-EON Technology Ltd has invested substantial resources over the last 11 years in Warp3D. As the owners of the original source code and name, A-EON is continuing to develop Warp3D for the benefit of the Amiga community.

You are only a big liar, like always...

I saw on Youtube a video about a new Warp3D Radeon driver 68k seems working fine, and the author said he cannot release because of copyrights...

==> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-o8zaPlQpc

You know what this thread and development kinda sum up the bloody big ugly issue in the Amiga world. Ip and copyright they really do spoil things don’t they.

I felt it was a shame when the vampire/apollo team started working on improving AmigaOS and then basically told nope you can’t do that. So they switch to Aros and so that has befitted.

Again Amigakit wants to develop new hardware and software and clearly again, official ip couldn’t be used and so Amibench/Aros befits.

I wonder how much time and money been spent in having to re-engineer things for the Amiga platform to get around IPs.

I mean the best thing is where there a will there a way, and it feel like less and less project are being stop due to the right holder, which is great to see.

But it does kinda hurt the end user who many only want one AmigaOS to deal with and all the work can’t be befitted by all and OS system might not be as clean as they could be.

But regardless, I’d like to thank the devs who do open source there work, who made aros possible and made things publicly available, without them a lot of these projects would not be possible, and the community would be in a much worst place.

_________________
AmigaNG, YouTube, LeaveReality Studio

@amigang

Quote:

But regardless, I’d like to thank the devs who do open source there work, who made aros possible and made things publicly available, without them a lot of these projects would not be possible, and the community would be in a much worst place.

Amen

_________________
Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home.
The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga

People are being unnecessarily pessimistic here.

The situation, at least as I see it, is pretty simple. We have choices:

1. The IP holders are consulted in order to get some agreement/support to create an official W3DHW driver that would be royalty free and potentially even open. They seem pretty open to it based on the comments made.

2. A clean reimplementation from scratch, fully open. Obviously this is not the preferred path for the current IP holders but the boundaries of what is acceptable have been thrashed out and agreed in this thread, even if somewhat passive aggressively.

3. (Wildcard) approach the existing Wazp3D author and see if there's any interest collaborating on the problem.

I think that the IP holders underestimate the work required to get a v5 compatible 68K W3DHW driver developed unless they've already got it all building for 3.x 68K again. My recollection of the v5 iteration at the point my hardware gave up was that it had been unidirectionally ported, in it's entirety, to OS4 native standards.

My preference is obviously for 2, but 3 has most of the same benefits and might be a quicker critical path to completion.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@Karlos

Quote:

Karlos wrote: @matthey Pairing a physical 68K with a Radeon R200 era part over a PCI bus with potentially single digit MB/s write bandwidth (depending on how it's attached, maybe double digit on a GRexx) is already pretty bonkers. Especially when your just using it as a rasterizer and having to shovel your software transformed vertex data to it every frame. Doing the same thing for a more modern GPU like Radeon HD... I guess that would fall purely into the realm of "because you can". I have no issue with that per se, but the practicality of it... Hmmm. Even the proposed solution for PiStorm is of course going to be an underutilisation of considerable proportion. However, building it will doubtless be very educational for anyone interested in taking a different approach later - for example, creating a direct GL implementation that leverages much more of the hardware capabilities more directly. Everything has to start somewhere.

Speaking of T&L - as I just learned yesterday, Warp3D doesn't have T&L functionality - I still have to do all transform/lighting/clipping using my engine.

But, once the initial functionality of the current crowdfunding campaign is implemented (whenever that might be), I honestly can't see implementing T&L as any remotely complicated feature, especially since it's going to be on GitHub.

My reasoning is that it should be just a question of handling some render states and calling few wrapper functions (and we'll have functional samples in the provided source code on GitHub).

I hope the new Warp3D is written at least in C, though I am fluent in multiple assemblers - probably except ARM - never really encountered any ARM in my retro gaming coding...

@Heimdall

Adding T&L to the existing API is probably ill advised. It would be better to implement a GL subset as a new MiniGL version as you could peel away a lot of unnecessary layers internally then.

Almost all hardware accelerated 3D games currently available for the platform target MiniGL than they do Warp3D directly.

My inner nerd says "MiniVK" would be awesome but I think that's probably a stretch too far.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@Karlos

Quote:

Karlos wrote: @Heimdall Adding T&L to the existing API is probably ill advised. It would be better to implement a GL subset as a new MiniGL version as you could peel away a lot of unnecessary layers internally then. Almost all hardware accelerated 3D games currently available for the platform target MiniGL than they do Warp3D directly. My inner nerd says "MiniVK" would be awesome but I think that's probably a stretch too far.

Yeah, but that's basically writing an entire wrapper from scratch. That's a lot of work :)

How many games target MiniGL. anyway ? Is it even 10 ? Is there a list somewhere ? I presume they're all for PPC/OS4, right ?

@Heimdall

Maybe, but that's almost 10 more than target Warp3D directly. This is the point though, the PiStorm makes many of these OS4 "exclusives" entirely feasible for a backport, they just need a working GL layer. The fastest path to this is a working Warp3D implementation since MiniGL was originally built on top of it.

However, if you want proper T&L, vertex buffer objects a d shaders and stuff, a direct GL driver is a much more reasonable proposition than trying to kludge it into a driver mechanism designed written when fixed function hardware was all that existed and you were lucky if you even got a FIFO to write to.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@Karlos

Quote:

Karlos wrote: @Heimdall Maybe, but that's almost 10 more than target Warp3D directly. This is the point though, the PiStorm makes many of these OS4 "exclusives" entirely feasible for a backport, they just need a working GL layer. The fastest path to this is a working Warp3D implementation since MiniGL was originally built on top of it. However, if you want proper T&L, vertex buffer objects a d shaders and stuff, a direct GL driver is a much more reasonable proposition than trying to kludge it into a driver mechanism designed written when fixed function hardware was all that existed and you were lucky if you even got a FIFO to write to.

Yeah, it'd be nice to have Wipeout running at 1920x1080 on PiStorm.

hader pipeline is a whole another ball-game. I'd be entirely happy just with the standard T&L functionality - 2-4 texture stages, backface culling, standard Z-Buffer (no sorting needed).
Then again, given that all boards these days are shader-based, the wrapper would have to internally emulate the T&L via shaders anyway.

Have you ever worked with XNA ? The API had 2 profiles - Reach (T&L) and Full (Shaders). Reach worked on WindowsPhone7, the Full worked on X360. I had my shader-based XNA engine running on both WP7 and X360 via #ifdefs within the code.

Speaking of MiniGL, where is the latest spec of it ? I'm wondering how many features it actually has from OpenGL 2.0...

Last edited by Heimdall on 22-Jan-2025 at 05:48 PM.

@amigang

Quote:

Again Amigakit wants to develop new hardware and software and clearly again, official ip couldn’t be used and so Amibench/Aros befits.

I recall, Amigakit's A600GS has A-EON System 54 components backported to 68K, graphics libs on ARM's side and AROS filling the missing parts.

Unlike Retro Games Ltd's licensed Amiga Corporation's Kickstart ROMs, Amigakit avoided Hyperion's AmigaOS 3.2 and Amiga Corporation/Cloanto's AmigaOS 3.X.

There is bad blood between Mike Battilana (Amiga Corporation, Cloanto), Trevor Dickinson (A-EON) and Ben Hermans (Hyperion).

Amiga Corporation has new licensees besides Retro Games Ltd.

Reference
https://sites.google.com/site/amigadocuments/hyperion-entertainment-rtd-gray-eminence

Atleast, four Amiga related camps exist.

Both Amiga Corporation/Cloanto (AmigaOS 3.X) and Hyperion (AmigaOS 3.2) offers Kickstart ROMs for 68K Amigas. I purchased both 68K Kickstart 3.x.x ROMs.

Last edited by Hammer on 23-Jan-2025 at 02:54 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 23-Jan-2025 at 02:48 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 23-Jan-2025 at 02:42 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 23-Jan-2025 at 02:41 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 23-Jan-2025 at 02:29 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 23-Jan-2025 at 02:23 AM.

_________________
Amiga 1200 (rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32/RPi CM4/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (rev 6A, ECS, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 4B/Emu68)
Ryzen 9 7950X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB

@zErec

Suggestion:
"The product is now called 'DEpraW'."

Problem solved?
Just an idea...

OldFart

Last edited by OldFart on 23-Jan-2025 at 02:25 PM.

_________________
Life is a waste of time.
Time is a waste of life.
Get wasted all the time
and you'll have the time of your life!

@OldFart

The name doesn't matter, the file on disk just has to be called Warp3D.library after installation.

Regardless of which, at least under UK law you can't copyright a name or phrase. You have to register a trade mark. There doesn't appear to be a trademark for Warp3D anyway either in the UK, EU or the US.

That doesn't mean that you can just come along and create a clone product of the same name, there are some laws to cover first use and passing off. Generally the first to market can take legal action if a competitor comes along with the clear intention of confusing customers, etc.

However, this is not as good news for the IP holders as it sounds because the first use might be difficult to assert when there already is earlier software using the same name. For example: http://www.warp3d.net/

Trademarks are much more defensible than names from a legal perspective.

While I am generally in favour of the "fully open replacement" proposition, to avoid any conflict I would absolutely not use the name, even if it hasn't been trademarked.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@Karlos
Quote:

Karlos wrote: @OldFart The name doesn't matter, the file on disk just has to be called Warp3D.library after installation. Regardless of which, at least under UK law you can't copyright a name or phrase. You have to register a trade mark. There doesn't appear to be a trademark for Warp3D anyway either in the UK, EU or the US. That doesn't mean that you can just come along and create a clone product of the same name, there are some laws to cover first use and passing off. Generally the first to market can take legal action if a competitor comes along with the clear intention of confusing customers, etc. However, this is not as good news for the IP holders as it sounds because the first use might be difficult to assert when there already is earlier software using the same name. For example: http://www.warp3d.net/ Trademarks are much more defensible than names from a legal perspective. While I am generally in favour of the "fully open replacement" proposition, to avoid any conflict I would absolutely not use the name, even if it hasn't been trademarked.

There's a precedent of SteamOS Proton (Valve's commercial WINE fork)'s DLL names being the same as those of the Windows DLL names.

_________________
Amiga 1200 (rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32/RPi CM4/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (rev 6A, ECS, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 4B/Emu68)
Ryzen 9 7950X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB

@Hammer

I don't think this was ever a problem, regardless of what you call the package, it will install a file that is called Warp3D.library once installation is done.

I would just avoid the name for the package itself. Trademark or not, it's unnecessary confusion.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@Karlos

The renaming could be required to be done by the user as Wazp3D does it.

And yes, I stumbled upon the www.warp3d.net as well.

Also at least the licence for Warp3D 4.0 does not forbid reimplementation. Licence for 4.2 sort of does (but with a permission from Hyperion Entertainment) you still can do it (obviously the IP Holders could put out a new version with a different licence, but this would still not change the licence for 4.0/4.2).

Obviously it would be better if the IP Holders would just say "we are fine with a reimplementation".

Official Driver has the issues a) Sticking driver to a 23 years old library, which no longer is maintained (68k version at least) b) Might even be Warp3D Main library was compiled with old compiler, which might have performance disadvantages c) Starting project off with proof-of-concept of Paraj would get something working much faster than having to refactor for Warp3DK DDK (note I never saw the DDK myselves, just know it exists), especially as it is first PiStorm project for the developer. Technically everything speaks for a reimplementation. But - the good stuff - for the first parts of the project no real decision if reimplementation or official driver needs to be done, at first it is just implementing the stuff.

Obviously at latest when Campaign completes a decision needs to be made, as if not OpenSource money for all people who would not agree on non-OpenSource would need paying back and all backers would need to be asked if they are cool with non-OpenSource. This is a VERY important argument for OpenSource (refunding after run-out of campaign is bad, because of tax reasons - indiegogo pays out the money 15 days after campaigns completes, so at that point it needs to be known what form it finally takes, and if all backers agree in case of a change.

OpenSource as promised would be the least problematic path.

MagicSN

@MagicSN

I'm no legal expert but I just don't see any way in which a credible complaint can be made about it.

Even if some form of wildcard arcane legal skullduggery could be mounted over infringement (of what though)? You have not one, but two examples of prior art. QuarkTex and Wazp3D. That boat has already sailed.

There's no trademark registered and other users of the "name" have been around longer. And even if there was a trademark, there's no copyright (or copyright possible) of the name.

At this point, it all seems like butthurt posturing. The current IP holders have had at least a decade to update the 68K/WarpOS drivers and have done absolutely nothing whatsoever but squat on it.

Last edited by Karlos on 27-Jan-2025 at 07:15 PM.
Last edited by Karlos on 27-Jan-2025 at 07:14 PM.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@Karlos

Quote:

At this point, it all seems like butthurt posturing. The current IP holders have had at least a decade to update the 68K/WarpOS drivers and have done absolutely nothing whatsoever but squat on it.

They might not have much interest in coding for 68k, but boy, do they have experience in lawyering up

_________________
Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home.
The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga

@MagicSN

Wazp3D beta 56 targets Warp3D v5 reimplementation i.e. 97 functions from Warp3D.library v5 are present.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb05QmY8fLo
Wazp3D beta 56 inside WinUAE 4.9's AmigaOS 68K running Quake 3 68K example.


https://youtu.be/1CHlPN2v64U
Paraj's Warp3D reimplementation for VideoCore 4 3D running Quake 3 68K example.

_________________
Amiga 1200 (rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32/RPi CM4/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (rev 6A, ECS, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 4B/Emu68)
Ryzen 9 7950X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB

@CosmosUnivers

Quote:

CosmosUnivers wrote: @amigakit Quote: amigakit wrote: A-EON Technology Ltd has invested substantial resources over the last 11 years in Warp3D. As the owners of the original source code and name, A-EON is continuing to develop Warp3D for the benefit of the Amiga community. You are only a big liar, like always... I saw on Youtube a video about a new Warp3D Radeon driver 68k seems working fine, and the author said he cannot release because of copyrights... ==> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-o8zaPlQpc

Only a tiny minority with PowerPC-based neo-Amiga.

_________________
Amiga 1200 (rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32/RPi CM4/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (rev 6A, ECS, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 4B/Emu68)
Ryzen 9 7950X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB

MagicSN Quote:

Obviously it would be better if the IP Holders would just say "we are fine with a reimplementation". Official Driver has the issues a) Sticking driver to a 23 years old library, which no longer is maintained (68k version at least) b) Might even be Warp3D Main library was compiled with old compiler, which might have performance disadvantages c) Starting project off with proof-of-concept of Paraj would get something working much faster than having to refactor for Warp3DK DDK (note I never saw the DDK myselves, just know it exists), especially as it is first PiStorm project for the developer. Technically everything speaks for a reimplementation. But - the good stuff - for the first parts of the project no real decision if reimplementation or official driver needs to be done, at first it is just implementing the stuff.

Even if A-Eon does not want to open source Warp3D, it would be better if the Warp3D IP holders would put the Warp3D DDK on Aminet and give Hyperion permission to update Warp3D for the 68k and PPC with updated sources delivered back to A-Eon. Doing so would benefit Hyperion with more game sales, improve A-Eon's Warp3D IP practically for free, proliferate Warp3D instead of letting it die, improve their PR and save Amiga developers time. A-EonKit pretends to be Hyperion's partner but their interests are to block everything but the X5000, A1222 and A600GS which they need to do for competing software lacking competitive hardware. Hyperion needs a larger Amiga game market but A-EonKit is suppressing the Amiga market.

Hammer Quote:

Only a tiny minority with PowerPC-based neo-Amiga.

Close enough to on topic and short for once.

Anyone can be a PPC elitist. All you have to do is buy a system with starting prices roughly 20 times as much as a RPi 400 but with less performance per CPU core and only 1 of 4 cores can be used. Well, then you have the privilege to pay more for software including drivers and OS enhancements. Buy it or you will not get access to the latest software. Only AmigaNOne makes it possible.