@Hammer

Quote:

You didn't factor in Commodore management's "read my lips, no new chips" directive from Dave Hydie's statement. Commodore management's reaction amounts to

Complaining about other people making mistakes is easy.

If you never take risk, never do any development yourself - then of course you never fail.
Because you do nothing.


I think people that developed themselve all understand what happened at Commodore.
And yes with 20/20 hindsight - its very easy to say ...
If they 40 years ago would have done this, and if they 30 years ago would have done that...
and 20 years ago would have played this numbers at the lottery... then they would have ruled the world.

But this is silly

Cesare Di Mauros

posts are simple ridiculous, as Cesare does not understand the Amiga development history.

Cesare does believes to have "invented" solutions -
but he misses that everybody knew all this since 40 years.
And he misses that the Commodore Team already worked on this 30 years before he "invented" it.


So his posts are like someone today propose as invention "to sail west from Spain" to discover a new continent. Sorry this is not a new invention.

@Gunnar
Quote:

1) Amiga offers sprites.

Yes, and unfortunately probably one of the least sophisticated sprite hardware in the history.
Quote:

With AGA you can create 8 Sprite

Most importantly it is up to 8. Due to the fixed DMA slots you quickly lose sprites.
And it's still just 8.

Quote:

with 4 colors

3 colors + transparency

Quote:

or 4 very big sprites

up to 4. And you cannot manually load data into these nor can you manually reuse them.

Quote:

with 16 colors each.

15 colors + transparency. And each is misleading because the same single palette is shared among all those few sprites.

Quote:

This gives you nice options for games.

It gives you a rather crude helper tool for games.

Quote:

You can even make a complete background playfield with the sprites.

Yes, because AGA didn't really improve on the playfield system you had to. And as always with Amiga sprites with severe limitations.

Quote:

2) The Planar hardware support smooth scrolling for free 3) You can do nice effect like Dual Playfield

You don't need planar hardware to have smooth scrolling for free.
It was the Amiga way to do it, which again came with its limitations, tied to the fact that there are only hscroll values for even and odd planes.
Which is why you are unflexible with the color setup for those playfields and which is why there is just a Dual and no triple or quadruple playfield mode.
Which is why you have to resort to the abovementioned sprite hack with its severe limitations.

Quote:

4) You can use the Copper to make add a lot more colors to the Display.

Actually that's maybe the only true strength of the AGA chipset compared to OCS:
the otherwise ugly bankswitching allows you to at least quickly change a whole set of colors instead of one by one.
Oh, yes, speaking of setting colors in AGA: the way you setup a 24bit color value comes straight out of hell.

Quote:

AGA offers a lot very nice features for games

Most of all it lacks tons of nice features that were standard on other (game) hardware:
chunky / packed color formats, tilemode, sprite flipping, sprite scaling, no manual sprite Y sorting, no unflexible DMA structure, not just 1 to 4/8 sprites max, etc.
AGA also lacks consistent feature enhancements:
still the same slow short word blitter, still short word sprite data register (so no manual mode for wide sprites), etc.
Not to mention other shortcomings like still no flicker fixer, still fixed sprite pairs, still fixed sprite priorities, still the antique Paula, etc.

Quote:

The trick with Amiga chipset is that the hardware does all this for free. This means you can smooth scroll dualplayfield with many colors thanks to Copper - without eating CPU time.

Plain wrong.
Nothing is for free here. Keep the copper busy to e.g. work around sprite and color limitations and you'll feel it, especially on a Chip-RAM-only Amiga.
And as being mentioned, everything comes with limitations:
Want to have 8 sprite in automatic mode? Then better make sure that you don't use hscroll or delay your display start.
Want to use sprite manual mode? Then better make sure that you don't use wide sprites.
Want to reuse sprites in automatic mode? Then dont forget to sort and watch out for overlap.
Want to reuse and even animate (wow!) sprites in automatic mode? Then prepare to constantly reconstruct / blit into the DMA structures.
Want to flip or scale sprites? Ooops. Then either waste quite a lot of your free CPU time or waste quite a lot of RAM.
I could go on and on here. "For free", LOL. You must be kidding.

Quote:

PC GFX card did not provide the same features at the time.

You'll find plenty of non-PC gfx hardware of that time which beats AGA, especially when it comes to gaming.
Unfortunately the Amiga wanted to be a egg-laying jack of all trades. For mid 80s OCS this worked pretty well.
But with AGA's minor improvements it was no more than "okay" compared to other hardware of the time.

All in all ppcamiga1 has a point when he claims that there is nothing special in AGA.
When compared to OCS it's a rather sad improvement.
Actually, the only true special thing about AGA is that despite it's shortcomings some people managed to make cool and still somewhat competitive stuff with it.
And I'm being very fair here.
I don't blame the hardware engineers, they certainly did what was possible within their budget, time and other restrictions. Nevertheless AGA is nothing stunning at all. That's just a fact. Your rose-tinted glasses don't change that.

Quote:

PED81C ... Can you explain what advantage this will give? ...

Watch the demos and RTFM, saimo explained it in absolute detail already.

@saimo
Great job, btw.

Last edited by FairBoy on 01-Mar-2024 at 08:39 AM.

@FairBoy


Every hardware has limitations.
This is normal.

Also the Amiga chipset has limitations.
This is also normal.


The Amiga chipset allowed to make good 2D games.

For example: Lionheart




Can a PC have done such a game with VGA?
Yes but you would need a 486 or Pentium Class machine to do similar on the PC.

The "advantage" of the Amiga chipset was to allow you to do more with your amount of memory and CPU speed that you had.
The Amiga chipset and Copper allowed it to do more.


The same is true for AGA.
AGA Amiga chipset allowed you to do more in certain areas with the CPU speed than the same CPU could do with a simple "VGA" framebuffer.






No one ever said that the Amiga chipset is flawless.

But the Amiga chipset allowed the 68000 CPU in the A500,
or the 68020 CPU in the A1200 to make nice 2D games.

And with a simple VGA framebuffer the A500 or A1200 itself would have been to slow to make the same quality Amiga games.

@Gunnar
Indeed, nobody said that the Amiga chipset is flawless (it's a flaw feast).
But you completly forgot to mention any of those flaws and limitations when you harshly dismissed ppcamiga1's perfectly valid questioning of AGA being "special".

Therefore thanks for bringing up Banshee which is a perfect example for why AGA is just "okay" and not "special" compared to OCS or other hardware of the time:
low framerate because of antique blitter, ultra narrow playfield because of hscroll in combination with 64bit fetch mode.

It perfectly underlines what I said before:
"Actually, the only true special thing about AGA is that despite it's shortcomings some people managed to make cool and still somewhat competitive stuff with it."

Here the game designers went for a nice cover sprite and a low framerate to circumvent those shortcomings.
I bet they rarely said nice words about AGA while developing this game...

Quote:

But the Amiga chipset allowed ... the 68020 CPU in the A1200 to make nice 2D games.

Yes, and often somewhat crippled and full of compromises to counter the hardware's flaws, like Banshee. As being said: AGA was "okay" but not "special".
Unless you use "special" in way like I did above.

@FairBoy

We both have a different point of view.
You look at it negative : glass is halve empty
I look at thing positive : glass is halve full
Both views are equally valid.


My view point is very simple,
if I compare the ATARI ST and the AMIGA 500

The ST had a faster CPU! 8mhz versus 7Mhz
The ST had twice the memory 1024 KB versus 512 KB.

But many games on the Amiga looked a lot better.
The reason is simple: The ST has no sprites, and no Copper.
The Amiga chipset allowed to make nicer games on the Amiga.


And if you can compare the PC or the MAC of the time with the Amiga, then you see the same.
The Amiga chipset allowed the Amiga do made nice 2D games - even with limited CPU and memory.

@Gunnar
Quote:

We both have a different point of view. You look at it negative : glass is halve empty I look at thing positive : glass is halve full Both views are equally valid.

I'd say I have the realistic pov.
But at least you admit that the glass is only filled until the mid point.
Half full, half empty, whatever: nothing what I'd call a great achievement or even "special".

The point is:
before you harshly dismiss people's valid questioning of AGA qualities or try to educated them, better show the full picture and not just cherry-pick some parts of AGA's on-paper specs and don't come up with false statements like "for free", especially considering that a huge part of your posts consists out of accusing other people of "lying" or spreading inaccurate info...

Quote:

The Amiga chipset allowed the Amiga do made nice 2D games - even with limited CPU and memory.

When it comes to AGA it allowed the Amiga to do technically acceptable 2D games for the time.
Only certain types of 2D games though. E.g. try to make a 1:1 port of pretty much any NeoGeo (released before AGA) beat'em up or shooter and you'll quickly find out just how crippled the Amiga's sprite and playfield hardware was compared to pretty much all the other hardware with similar features at that time (you'll also struggle with 1:1 ports of many Genesis or SNES titles).

Sure, without the - in parts embarassingly outdated - features AGA offered pretty much nothing would have been possible on a 68020. But that's more or less the only positive thing to say about AGA in the early 90s.

The thing is:
in contrast to OCS mid 80s, AGA did not stand out at all in the early 90s.
To stick with the example, if AGA had been updated enough to even come somewhat, really just somewhat, close to e.g. NeoGeo's sprite hardware (or something equivalent like an updated blitter), then the term "special" would probably be adequate.

Last edited by FairBoy on 01-Mar-2024 at 10:45 AM.

@Gunnar

Quote:

Quote: And, yes, Doom could be adapted to PED81C. Can you explain what advantage this will give? * We know with normal Amiga Planar good 2D games can be made. * its obvious that real Chunky will help to make 3D games easier. But with a fast CPU e.g. 68040+ and fast fastmem you have another option you can render the screen in fastmem and do the C2P conversion on the copy to chipmem. With a good routine and fast CPU we can do this on the fly... Basically for free during the copy. * Maybe you can explain us the PED idea again? As far as I understood you use 4 planes Super Hires Screen in PAD to simulate lowres chunky? As far as I understand, this looks a bit different then real chunky, and this needs twice the DMA to display compared to normal 8 planes lowres, Is this correct? For what CPU configuration do you think PED makes most sense? Did you try to add this into a game like DOOM or QUAKE?

A proper answer would be very long and mostly consist of copypasted information from the documentation that is included in the downloadable archive - which I invite you to read if you really want to know how PED81C works.
Therefore, I'll keep this as short as possible:
* while traditional C2P can be done in parallel with writes to CHIP RAM (at least on the CPUs you mentioned), there may be scenarios where rendering directly to CHIP RAM performs better, thanks to the fact that also rendering calculations can be done in parallel with CHIP RAM writes;
* yes, PED81C uses 4 SHRES bitplanes and thus twice the CHIP bus bandwidth than a normal 8 bitplanes screen;
* yes, PED81C looks different (and requires some getting used to it) - it's one of its downsides (but it could be exploited stylistically);
* PED81C is / can be especially advantageous on stock/underpowered machines (just consider the stock A1200 scenario: with a traditional C2P engine, the frame gets rendered in chunky first and then converted to planar, which requires multiple accesses to CHIP RAM, whereas with PED81C the frame gets rendered once... and that's it!);
* I didn't try to adapt any game to PED81C (I'm not interested Doom, FPS games, porting/remaking/updating games); what I did, though, was making a voxel engine demo (downloadable from the same place as well) to see how PED81C performed; one noteworthy thing to mention is that on my Blizzard 1230 IV the difference between rendering directly to CHIP RAM and rendering to FAST RAM and then copying the frame to the PED81C screen in CHIP RAM amounted to something like 1-3 fps in favour of the second option - but the gain was given not by the fact that rendering to FAST RAM is faster, but thanks to the fact that in such case I can render the frames by rows (then, I rotate them into columns while copying them to CHIP RAM, which, thanks to the chunky format of the destination buffer, is faster than traditional C2P on the aforementioned board).

Last edited by saimo on 01-Mar-2024 at 03:15 PM.
Last edited by saimo on 01-Mar-2024 at 10:57 AM.
Last edited by saimo on 01-Mar-2024 at 10:56 AM.

_________________
RETREAM - retro dreams for Amiga, Commodore 64 and PC

@Hammer

Quote:

I've just been reading up on CGA, EGA and VGA graphic modes. What I found was interesting. CGA had a standard 2-bit packed pixel format. But EGA used planar graphics and VGA was natively planar as well! Well except for Doom Mode 13h. I found something else. On EGA it had bitmasks and different write modes. And one write mode in particular allowed it to write packed pixel data that the EGA hardware split up internally and write to all bitplanes! That's write. EGA had built in chunky to planar hardware almost ten years before Commodore could say Akiko. And it was superior! What's more, EGA could even do split screens similar to the Amiga. And colour cycling. Even the C16, with a superior palette and split screen raster interrupts, is looking under a shadow. Given these hardware tricks were known about it makes me wonder, why didn't they include them in the Amiga? The Amiga would have benefited greatly with a packed to planar hardware register. Including allowing the blitter to blit to parallel planes. Though a CPU only mode would have sufficed. Workbench would have been fast. 3d and all games could just written pixels in linear fashion. By comparison, the Akko hardware is an inferior design, as data must be written to it then read out again and finally written to chip ram. The EGA way is one way where you write data and the EGA hardware does the rest itself in the bitplanes. I actually wonder if this was why particular PC games weren't released on the Amiga or ran slowly. For example, in the early 90's, Wolfenstein 3d. Basic looking game, not as pretty as most Amiga games. I read it initially had been planned to be EGA then they changed it to VGA. No wonder, it would have needed VGA, and only AGA could match the closest. I've heard arguments that he Amiga should have had VGA instead of AGA. Now I used to dispute that because of lack of copper, sprites, blitter, 24 bit RGB and the like. We know the C16 almost killed Commodore because it lacked sprites, Commodore had enough blunders. But after finding out that VGA is in fact natively planar, up to four bitplanes as it may be, I'm softening to the idea. It doesn't look so bad after all. I think it may have been a good idea to include some VGA features. Packed write mode for a start. And packed pixel mode to finish it off. Now that would have finished off the Amiga on a higher note! OP argued for additional hardware features.

Yes, to be included (the OP uses this verb twice) in the Amiga chipset. You brought up a third-party add-on (which is OT) and then even said that you prefer it over PED81C, thus comparing oranges and stones (and, yes, I didn't use "apples" on purpose) - your own words:

Quote:

I have read PED81C and its limitations are less than ideal. I preferred the Graffiti-Lisa workaround's 256-color VGA-like results.

You either can't understand or don't want to have a honest conversation, therefore for me it ends here.

@FairBoy

Quote:

Great job, btw.

Thanks!

_________________
RETREAM - retro dreams for Amiga, Commodore 64 and PC

@saimo

Quote:

* PED81C is / can be especially advantageous on stock/underpowered machines (just consider the stock A1200 scenario: with a traditional C2P engine, the frame gets rendered in chunky first and then converted to planar, which requires multiple accesses to CHIP RAM, whereas with PED81C the frame gets rendered once... and that's it!);

I assumed that the "low" powered A1200 systems is where PED helps.
Thanks for clarify.

Its a nice idea.

@FairBoy

I see this different than you.


I think the Amiga Audio is very good.
I think that Amiga can do very nice 2D games.


Quote:

try to make a 1:1 port of pretty much any NeoGeo (released before AGA) beat'em up or shooter and you'll quickly find out just how crippled the Amiga's sprite and playfield hardware was compared to pretty much all the other hardware with similar features at that tim

I perfectly know NEO-GEO.
Maybe you know that I optimized the NEO-GEO emulator for Amiga.


I think you complete miss the point.

The Amiga is/was a very affortable system.
Everybody could affort an A500 or A1200 at its time.
In opposite to the NEOGEO was a very expensive system.


So does it make sense to compare them?

Is this is not like compare a Ferrari to a VW Golf?
Which one is better?
Is the Ferrari better because its faster?
Or is the VW Gold better - because everybody could afford it?

And why don't you compare the Amiga 12000 not with an ONYX?
They came out at the same time.
And the Onyx had many times stronger feature.
Of course the Onyx also costed like $100,000.



Quote:

To stick with the example, if AGA had been updated enough to even come somewhat, really just somewhat, close to e.g. NeoGeo's sprite hardware

Could it be that you do not know the Amiga history?
Let me try so over-simplify it for you:

The Amiga development started in 1982.
At that time the Amiga development begun people usad the C16 with 16KB memory,
and in parallel to the start the of the Amiga design, Commodore launched the first C64.
With impressive 64KB RAM.

The Amiga design allowed to do a lot more stuff than Computer of its time.
Amiga gaves looked better than C64, Atari, MAC and PC games of their time.
And Amiga 500 was affordable.

Then after the Amiga success, the engineering team planned on a new much improved Amiga chipset.
The planned features were many and plenty.
So many good ideas that they ran into problem to debug and finish the new chipset.

To give the Amiga people at least something. The AGA chipset was given out.
On purpose the AGA features were limited to "moderate" changes to ensure that this get to market without failure.

This decision is something that I understand.


So if you say but AGA does not include XYZ, then yes this in on purpose.
On purpose they tried to limit the improvements.

Nevertheless AGA give many improvements.
A lot more color depth, many more colors on Screen and you can really do nice 2D games with it,
and of course AGA is backward compatible and you can play A500 games on it.

AGA goal never aimed to kill the ONYX!

AGA goal is to provide for a system that can play all the old games and at the same time allows for nicer looking new games.

And minimize the risk to failure to finish the chipset.

AGA does this job very good.

Does it not reach all of these goals?

@Gunnar
As I already said, AGA doesn't shine neither when compared to other game hardware of that time or of earlier time, it's not even necessary to focus on the NeoGeo example (which btw. end of 1992 wasn't as costly as you imply).
Actually, it doesn't even shine when compared to OCS.
No, it doesn't do a "very good job", it does a hardly okayish job.

No matter how much you twist and turn it, no matter how many short stories about history or Onyxes you write here to distract:
In contrast to OCS mid 80s, AGA was nothing special in the early 90s, apart from the fact that it still and despite its severe shortcomings allowed to do somewhat technically acceptable 2D games for the 020 at that time.

And again, the point is:
before you harshly dismiss people's valid questioning of AGA qualities or try to educated them, better show the full picture and not just cherry-pick some parts of AGA's on-paper specs and don't come up with false statements like "for free", especially considering that a huge part of your posts consists out of accusing other people of "lying" or spreading inaccurate info...

@FairBoy

Quote:

AGA doesn't shine neither when compared to other game hardware of that time or of earlier time

What were AGA design goals?

1) able to play A500 games
Achieved!

2) give improvements over ECS
More colors, Bigger Sprites, Higher Screen modes. Nicer Workbench screens.
Achieved!

3) get done and to market
Achieved!


AGA reached all its design goals.



You have to see AGA as what is was.
It was designed and planned as OCS upgrade.


AGA design goal was a "inflation adjustement" of the OCS chipset.
Nothing more, nothing less.

AGA design goal never was not to be "Wonder weapon"

@FairBoy

Quote:

don't come up with false statements like "for free"

You misquote me. Or you misunderstand me.

I can clear this up.

If you code for a VGA screen buffer, and you want to do some dual playfield scrolling,
then you need a very powerful and costly CPU for this.

Yes the 68040 CPU could do this.
How much did the 68040 CPU at that time?
How much did a 486DX2 cost at that time?

The smooth scrolling effects that you can do with dual playfield, and with Sprite playfields on Amiga,
would with VGA frame buffer only easily "consumed" a high CPU costing $500 and more.

And the Amiga you could do these effect "for free" without burning 30 MIPS CPU power on it.
This is a good advantage.

And the Amiga was not "narrowly" aimed to be a game machine only.
You could on the Amiga also do a lot productive stuff like compose music, paint pictures, even surve the internet. You could do a lot stuff with it that a NEOGEO could not do.

@FairBoy

Quote:

t's not even necessary to focus on the NeoGeo example (which btw. end of 1992 wasn't as costly as you imply).

Did you had a NEOGEO?
I did.


The NEOGEO was expensive and as it was designed to have its games in ROMS.
All the games were highly expensive.
For the price of 6 NeoGeo games you could get an AMIGA 4000.

@Gunnar

aga has not support for 256 colors
sprites were not upgraded to 256 colors
playfields were not upgraded to 256 colors
blitter was not upgraded
in 256 colors aga works as dumb framebuffer
aga in 256 colors may be changed to anything

@ppcamiga1

Quote:

aga has not support for 256 colors

You are wrong.
AGA can perfectly show 256 color images nicely.


Quote:

sprites were not upgraded to 256 colors

Why should they?
The Amiga sprites with max 16 colors is very good.
If you compare this to state of the art Arcade systems
like Capcom Streetfigther or NEOGEO then 16 color sprites is good.
16 colors for a Sprite is actually good.


Quote:

blitter was not upgraded in 256 colors

Blitter can perfectly fine blit 256 color background and 256 color Bobs
You seem to misunderstand this.



Quote:

aga works as dumb framebuffer

You are absolutely wrong.
AGA can smooth hardware scroll the 256 color screen in hardware

What makes you talk so much nonsense?
Could it be that you not understand what a dumb framebuffer is?




AGA can do a lot more than your "beloved" VGA can do.


@ppcamiga1
You are so absolutely wrong in your posts.
Are you just clueless?

Or do you post on purpose and knowingly this bullshit?

@Gunnar

I remember having multiple choice tests at school.

The fun thing was you had 4 choices, 1 in 4, 25% change of picking right one on a whim.
on true or false statement it’s a 50/50 chance.

I have feeling he does not check if he is right or wrong, and he ignores anything anyone says.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 01-Mar-2024 at 07:54 PM.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@Gunnar

sprites, playfields, blitter were not upgraded to 256 colors. accept that.
there is nothing special in aga and aga may be changed to anything.

@Gunnar

Quote:

Gunnar wrote: @cdimauro Quote: This mathemical proof (so, not something like: "my cousin told me") was already given by me TO YOU around 11/12 years ago, on Olaf's forum. Cesare Di Mauro, every coder on the planet knows and understands the advantages of CHUNKY versus PLANAR. This topic is common knowledge and this was never disputed. Why do you want to "proof" mathematically something that everybody on the planet knows and understand and agrees too? This makes absolutely no sense. Do you think you told anyone something new? Everybody knew what you think you "invented". Are you crazy? Cesare Di Mauro I think you need a reality check.

Quote:

Gunnar wrote: @kolla Quote: That chunky is better was never his point. His point has always been that planar use just as much ram as chucky does, that the argument that Amiga used planar to save cost (ram) is a myth. PLANAR has certain advantages and CHUNKY has certain advantages. - This is clear to everyone. Same way as for cars - front wheel drive - rear wheel drive - and 4 wheel drive All have different advantages. When the AMIGA was originally designed to go for PLANAR made a lot sense. The Amiga 1000 could in theory have supported Chunky Byte pixel from bandwidth. Everybody knows this. But a chip with 256 color register would have made the A1000 ridiculous expensive at this time. I can understand why this was not done. But technology changed and when the Commodore Team could add 256 colors they did plan to add Chunky. They had many nice improvements in their plan. Chunky, Truecolor, 16bit audio. This was HUGE improvement over OCS. And the improvements were so big that they were a lot to do. And they were not market ready - there was still a lot to debug. And because the new development was not debugged and market ready : AGA was done as stopgap solution. This is the history. The development work on A1000 began in 1982. Mind that this is the same year the C64 came out! 256 color register were out of scope at this time. But later in the 80th the Amiga team already worked on adding CHUNKY to Amiga. The Commodore team worked on this already before many of the Amiga fans here, got their first Amiga. So what Cesare is proofing us in 2013 ... Everybody including the Commodore team knew already in the 80th. This makes his whole "mathematical proof" totally ridiculous.

Quote:

Gunnar wrote: Cesare Di Mauros posts are simple ridiculous, as Cesare does not understand the Amiga development history. Cesare does believes to have "invented" solutions - but he misses that everybody knew all this since 40 years. And he misses that the Commodore Team already worked on this 30 years before he "invented" it. So his posts are like someone today propose as invention "to sail west from Spain" to discover a new continent. Sorry this is not a new invention.

You've written a big pile of wall-of-non-sense talking of an argument where you had no clue, at all!

It's OBVIOUS that talking of ONLY 256 colours then packed/chunky graphics obliterates the planar graphics, NEW Messier de La Palice!

But THAT was NOT the focus of the thesis. "OF COURSE" (!)

You've completely forgotten that I've proved it on Olaf's forum with BITPLANES = 5 = 32 colours! Which was the most common depth for games on Amiga. That should have been already enough for you, since FIVE is "odd-enough" when talking of graphics, right?

However on my articles (I've written 17 of them, covering every single aspect. The last is reporting links for all of them: https://www.appuntidigitali.it/19768/amiga-packed-16-endgame/ ) I've started with depth = 3 = 8 colours, which is the first "odd" depth where a comparison between packed and planar graphics makes sense (depth = 1 is common for both. Depth = 2 is already an easy win for packed graphics, since there are no bytes/words overlapping for accessing single pixels). And I've also shown how to extend the analysis to bigger depths (5, 6 and 7 are the most interesting for this comparison, for obvious reasons), also showing that the bigger is depth then the bigger becomes the gap favoring packed graphics.

Next time instead of venting a complete load of b@alls showing to the world that you're talking of complete non-sense, at least take the chance to UNDERSTAND what people where talking about, Mr. Obvious!

Gunnar, Gunnar... why don't just focus on VHDL? That's the only thing where you've shown some value. For the rest (discussions, logic)... no comment!


@kolla

Quote:

kolla wrote: @Gunnar That chunky is better was never his point. His point has always been that planar use just as much ram as chucky does, that the argument that Amiga used planar to save cost (ram) is a myth.

Exactly, but it wasn't only about memory size: memory bandwidth was covered too, and as well the implementation of the common graphics primitives with special focus on the ones implemented by the Blitter.
Quote:

Now, with that out of the way… have you open sourced Super-AGA yet? Your announcement on that is soon reaching age of two-digit number of years - were you … ahm… lying?!

Why do you continue to ask the same thing to The King of LIARS?

He has never answered and it's clear that he'll never do it, since his word has no value. A real man (!), which deserves respect (!!)...