Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
6071 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
» Home
» Features
» News
» Forums
» Classifieds
» Links
» Downloads
Extras
» OS4 Zone
» IRC Network
» AmigaWorld Radio
» Newsfeed
» Top Members
» Amiga Dealers
Information
» About Us
» FAQs
» Advertise
» Polls
» Terms of Service
» Search

IRC Channel
Server: irc.amigaworld.net
Ports: 1024,5555, 6665-6669
SSL port: 6697
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

Who's Online
40 crawler(s) on-line.
 44 guest(s) on-line.
 2 member(s) on-line.


 amigakit,  t0lkien

You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 t0lkien:  1 min ago
 amigakit:  3 mins ago
 MEGA_RJ_MICAL:  15 mins ago
 zipper:  40 mins ago
 matthey:  59 mins ago
 dirkzwager:  1 hr 3 mins ago
 NutsAboutAmiga:  1 hr 9 mins ago
 OlafS25:  1 hr 44 mins ago
 ggw:  2 hrs 54 mins ago
 clint:  3 hrs 17 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Amiga General Chat
      /  How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 Next Page )
Poll : How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
10p Excellent (Best at 2D/3D, colors, and resolution, frame rate etc.)
5p Good / better than most computer.
0p Barely hanging in there.
-5p Below average / slow but usable
-10p useless / horrible
 
PosterThread
cdimauro 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 3-Nov-2022 5:56:41
#541 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 3650
From: Germany

@Hammer

Quote:

Hammer wrote:
@cdimauro

Quote:

And repeating it each time even when the discussion is on something else gives zero value. Do you understand it?

The only thing which you show is your attitude to parrotting like a broken record, reporting useless stuff AKA padding.

You have repeated your defense of Fightin Spirit like a broken record, hypocrite.

It happens since you continue write wrong things. As usual, with you.
Quote:
Quote:

Only because you told it. Oh, yes: we've to believe you only for this.

Your defense of the POS game

?!? What do you mean?
Quote:
is the reason why l exited the Amiga gaming scene in 1993.

I don't know you, what you did, but... it's totally irrelevant here. As usual...
Quote:
Quote:

Parallax floor?!? Where is it?!? Have you seen YOUR videos? Do you know how is the parallax FLOOR?




Quote:

I don't think so. As usual, you don't know of you talk about!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVIADQVY4Kw
MUGEN tutorial on Parallax Floor Stage

Totally irrelevant: the topic here was about MK2.
Quote:
Fightin Spirit is missing "Parallax Floor Stage" and you're not in a position to preach.

Of course: I've already reported it, several times!
Quote:
Quote:

Take a look at a SF2 video and compare it to any of those MK2 videos and MAYBE after that you'll be able to see what a parallax floor is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVIADQVY4Kw
MUGEN tutorial on Parallax Floor Stage

Totally irrelevant: the topic here was about MK2.
Quote:
https://youtu.be/abGjoiih1V4?t=99
This 486SX-25's MK2 scene shows "Parallax Floor Stage".

Don't you have a better video? This is really bad

Whereas the ones that you provided before are much better, but none of them shown the floor parallax.
Quote:
Quote:

Tech demos: what you like...

They are game tech demos to show Elfminia's dynamic gameworld effects can be applied for SF2 artwork

And they still remain tech modes because a full game is different. Especially if it should run on stock machines.
Quote:
instead of having dead gameworld like on Fightin Spirit's and US Gold's SF2 port.

At least they were playable. Guess what: it's what games are supposed to be...
Quote:
Quote:

I've just replied to it. So, you used a monster, a PiStorm, to see the SF2 tech demo running... smooth. Compliments

1. You missed my point on the SF2 tech demo's CPU performance scaling instead of the unscalable US Gold SF2 port.

Then you should be clear next time.
Quote:
2. Recent SF2 tech demo runs fine on stock 68000 A500 with Fast RAM.

3. Recent SF2 tech demo's frame rate is unplayable on stock 68000 A500 Plus with 2 MB Chip RAM.

So, not good for stock machines...
Quote:
4. Recent SF2 tech demo runs fine on stock A1200 i.e. it can handle 6-bit planes.

The last that I've seen is still using the Dual Playfield mode, so 16 colors for the back layer and 15 colors for the front layer (where characters are shown).

Do you have some other video which shows this 6 bitplanes mode (which should be EHB)?

EDIT. You added more stuff (as usual).
Quote:
5. Turrican AGA example needs Fast RAM for smooth frame rates.

Already discussed, right?
Quote:
I could test Turrican AGA on stock A1200 with AmigaKit's simple 8 MB Fast RAM card, but this is verified by a forum member in the EAB forum.

Already discussed: it gives no information.
Quote:
You attempted to claim Turrican AGA needs 68020 @ 28 Mhz + Fast RAM accelerator which is FALSE.

Sorry for having read only the first comments, where the coder was writing about the game and he reported his configuration.

But I'll not spend my time reading all posts on a big thread. If you have time, do it yourself...

Last edited by cdimauro on 03-Nov-2022 at 06:01 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Hammer 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 3-Nov-2022 8:14:42
#542 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 9-Mar-2003
Posts: 5339
From: Australia

@cdimauro


Quote:

It happens since you continue write wrong things. As usual, with you.


You continued to defend Fightin Sprit's virtues despite the fact that many Amiga gamers wanted SF2 artwork with Elfmaina's gameworld effects AND several SF2 artwork game tech demos have been released that focused on Elfmaina's gameworld effects.


Quote:

?!? What do you mean?

Have you forgotten your Fightin Spirit's BIG SPRITES defense?

I replied with Fightin Spirit has workload balancing issues and it has dead gameworld issues. I'm only repeating SNES console gamers' criticism against Amiga's Fightin Spirit.


Quote:

Totally irrelevant: the topic here was about MK2.

It's totally relevant when defining the "Parallax Floor" term. This topic is NOT a definition debate and you started a definition debate.

Quote:

Don't you have a better video? This is really bad

Whereas the ones that you provided before are much better, but none of them shown the floor parallax.


Run MK2 in low detail setting (press F10, set to low settings ) in DOSBox-X before being debunked again.

DOS MK2's Kombat Tomb arena stage example at low settings has gameworld features

1. "Parallax Floor Stage" feature similar to "MUGEN tutorial on Parallax Floor Stage" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVIADQVY4Kw

2. A background parallax with the red clouds artwork. Missing pillars and upper wall sections from higher graphics setting modes.


PC MK2 graphics details scale with higher hardware performance, hence giving incentives for PC hardware upgrades.

In 1993, I don't have to repeat myself when A1200 with a 3rd party 68030 accelerator card is not price-competitive against the 486SX-33 PC clone.


Quote:

And they still remain tech modes because a full game is different. Especially if it should run on stock machines.

A single game stage is good enough for a game tech demo, especially when Capcom's intellectual property is a major concern.

Quote:

So, not good for stock machines...

It's a Scorpion game engine.

This topic is about "How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993". The recent SF2 game tech demo for Amiga 500 with 16-bit Fast RAM runs fine on stock A1200.







Last edited by Hammer on 03-Nov-2022 at 08:15 AM.

_________________
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB
Amiga 1200 (Rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32lite/RPi 4B 4GB/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (Rev 6A, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 3a/Emu68)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 3-Nov-2022 21:51:41
#543 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 3650
From: Germany

@Hammer

Quote:

Hammer wrote:
@cdimauro


Quote:

It happens since you continue write wrong things. As usual, with you.


You continued to defend Fightin Sprit's virtues

Of course: why shouldn't I? It's a great game!
Quote:
despite the fact that many Amiga gamers wanted SF2 artwork with Elfmaina's gameworld effects

Who cares? Many Amiga gamers loved Fightin' Spirits. Some say that it's one of the best AGA games. And it was the game of the year on 1996.
Quote:
AND several SF2 artwork game tech demos have been released that focused on Elfmaina's gameworld effects.

You said: tech DEMOS...
Quote:
Quote:

?!? What do you mean?

Have you forgotten your Fightin Spirit's BIG SPRITES defense?

First, there's only ONE sprite used on Fightin' Spirit, which is used for the "energy bubbles".

Second, having big characters puts the game on par with many beat'em up for much more powerful arcade systems or consoles. So, it's a GOOD thing!

Third, you still haven't clarified what do you mean with this: "POS game".
Quote:
I replied with Fightin Spirit has workload balancing issues

Where are those issues?!?
Quote:
and it has dead gameworld issues.

Who cares: it's NOT a tech demo, but a game with a lot of playability.

As I've already said, games should have... a gameplay.

Tech demos are only for voyeurs: people that get excited watching something which that they don't do...
Quote:
I'm only repeating SNES console gamers' criticism against Amiga's Fightin Spirit.

Again: WHO CARES! Many Amigans loved the game and PLAYED it.
Quote:
Quote:

Totally irrelevant: the topic here was about MK2.

It's totally relevant when defining the "Parallax Floor" term. This topic is NOT a definition debate and you started a definition debate.

Of course, since you posted videos when talking of parallax floor, where this parallax was NOT visible. Hence, my reply...
Quote:
Quote:

Don't you have a better video? This is really bad

Whereas the ones that you provided before are much better, but none of them shown the floor parallax.


Run MK2 in low detail setting (press F10, set to low settings ) in DOSBox-X before being debunked again.

DOS MK2's Kombat Tomb arena stage example at low settings has gameworld features

I don't have the game and it's not my problem: YOU said that MK2 had the parallax floor and then YOU have to prove it.
Quote:
1. "Parallax Floor Stage" feature similar to "MUGEN tutorial on Parallax Floor Stage" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVIADQVY4Kw

2. A background parallax with the red clouds artwork. Missing pillars and upper wall sections from higher graphics setting modes.

Hammer's PADDING...
Quote:
PC MK2 graphics details scale with higher hardware performance, hence giving incentives for PC hardware upgrades.

PADDING...
Quote:
In 1993, I don't have to repeat myself when A1200 with a 3rd party 68030 accelerator card is not price-competitive against the 486SX-33 PC clone.

PADDING...
Quote:
Quote:

And they still remain tech modes because a full game is different. Especially if it should run on stock machines.

A single game stage is good enough for a game tech demo, especially when Capcom's intellectual property is a major concern.

The single stage is NOT completed.

To be clear, it should have full playability exactly like a stage on any other beat'em up game which was published: insert the disk, it loads, you start playing (since there are only two characters and a single stage), and when you win it finishes there. All of this with all bells and whistles: like all other similar games.

Plus, the guy is NOT selling the tech demo, so I don't think that Capcom is interested on suing him since it can claim no money.
Quote:
Quote:

So, not good for stock machines...

It's a Scorpion game engine.

Should I care? I would say no.

No, I don't care if a game is using a particular engine: I'm only interested if it works on the stock machines. Which were THE reference for the software houses of the time.

Nobody sane would have invested specifically on machines with other specs (albeit some developers sometimes used some "extra" features) because they were niche markets and likely there was no return of investment.
Quote:
This topic is about "How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993".

Sure, and when do you understand that we also talked of OTHER things? Let me know...
Quote:
The recent SF2 game tech demo for Amiga 500 with 16-bit Fast RAM runs fine on stock A1200.

So, a game which doesn't run on a stock machine (to me, and not only to me, as I've always said, it means OCS/ECS with 512kB Chip-Mem + 512kB Slow/Fast-Mem) works fine on a stock Amiga 1200.

Unbelievable!!!

Wasn't it better to directly code the game for the Amiga 1200?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BigD 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 17-Dec-2022 0:44:35
#544 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 11-Aug-2005
Posts: 7329
From: UK

@kolla

What do you mean Wing Commanderr AGA? The 256 colour version was CD32 only! Do you mean that? The disk version was 16 colours and that did run fine on a stock A1200. With the later installer the CD32 version needs an 030 to run smoothly.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
kolla 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 17-Dec-2022 2:32:35
#545 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 21-Aug-2003
Posts: 2940
From: Trondheim, Norway

@BigD
Don’t know which post you’re referring to, but anyhoo…

Wing Commander AGA, yes, it was made for CD32, but so what? CD32 is AGA.

I bought both, first ecs version when I bought my A1200, and later CD32 version for the CD32, though I ended up played it a lot more on the A1200.

Neither of them ran very well on stock A1200, or CD32 for that matter. I didn’t enjoy WC before I got the Blizzard 1230 III. On a 040 A4000, it got a little difficult to keep the Kilrathi away and on 060 it was damn hard.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Karlos 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 17-Dec-2022 14:28:59
#546 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Aug-2003
Posts: 4415
From: As-sassin-aaate! As-sassin-aaate! Ooh! We forgot the ammunition!

@kolla

Something something something Fast RAM... Something something something Complete.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
ppcamiga1 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 18-Dec-2022 10:48:20
#547 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 23-Aug-2015
Posts: 787
From: Unknown

blitter as fast as in 1983
sprites with only sixteen colors as in 1983
playfields that has only sixteen colors
only two times better trasfer to chip RAM than in 1983
only four times better trasfer from chip RAM than in 1983
no protection of zero page chip RAM
no active elements to support 256 colors
no active elements to support thousands colors
no support of chunky pixels
To sum it up AGA was too litle too late

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Karlos 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 18-Dec-2022 10:53:47
#548 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Aug-2003
Posts: 4415
From: As-sassin-aaate! As-sassin-aaate! Ooh! We forgot the ammunition!

@ppcamiga1

Regardless of the shortcomings of AGA, productivity users could sidestep the problem with RTG. The shortcomings of PPC are forever.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
agami 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 19-Dec-2022 1:32:20
#549 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jun-2008
Posts: 1676
From: Melbourne, Australia

@Karlos

Quote:
Karlos wrote:
@ppcamiga1

Regardless of the shortcomings of AGA, productivity users could sidestep the problem with RTG. The shortcomings of PPC are forever.


_________________
All the way, with 68k

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Oscar12 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 19-Jan-2023 22:45:04
#550 ]
New Member
Joined: 18-Jan-2023
Posts: 7
From: Unknown

@NutsAboutAmiga

AGA had a lot of shortcomings. Paula still 1983 chip with no HD floppy support. Crappy ide interface with no DMA for harddisk. 16 bit same blitter with very slow chip speed.

A lot of PC 3d games wiped the floor with AGA. Doom, wing commander, commanche and many more.

SNES wiped the floor with AGA with its 2d and 3d games like very good arcade ports like SF2 and starfox.

So compared to competition it was a weak machine.

What could be done to make it more competitive:
- Add fast ram
- Use a more up to date processor like 68030
- Add chunky modes
- 32bits faster blitter

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Hammer 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 20-Jan-2023 3:11:26
#551 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 9-Mar-2003
Posts: 5339
From: Australia

@cdimauro

Quote:
Of course: why shouldn't I? It's a great game!

cdimauro's fluff.

Quote:

Who cares? Many Amiga gamers loved Fightin' Spirits. Some say that it's one of the best AGA games. And it was the game of the year on 1996.

Fluff. Fact: Amiga platform competes against other gaming platforms.

Quote:

Where are those issues?!?

Static background and static floor i.e. it's a dead game world.

Quote:

YOU said that MK2 had the parallax floor and then YOU have to prove it.

I have proven it and running PC DOS's MK2 on DosBox is not hard to obtain.

Quote:

Hammer's PADDING...

You can't handle the truth.


Quote:

Should I care? I would say no.

cdimauro's fluff. This topic is about "How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993."

Quote:

So, a game which doesn't run on a stock machine (to me, and not only to me, as I've always said, it means OCS/ECS with 512kB Chip-Mem + 512kB Slow/Fast-Mem) works fine on a stock Amiga 1200.

cdimauro's fluff. This topic is about "How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993."

Note the AGA chipset, NOT OCS/ECS.

_________________
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB
Amiga 1200 (Rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32lite/RPi 4B 4GB/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (Rev 6A, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 3a/Emu68)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Hammer 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 20-Jan-2023 3:39:30
#552 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 9-Mar-2003
Posts: 5339
From: Australia

@Oscar12

Quote:

AGA had a lot of shortcomings. Paula still 1983 chip with no HD floppy support.

Paula can support HD FDD via half-speed configuration as in Amiga 3000s.

Quote:

Crappy ide interface with no DMA for harddisk.

Better than nothing. PC's IDE PIO modes are part of the ATA-1 standard.

1st IDE and ATA-1 has existed in 1986.

ATA-2 standard was released in 1994.

The faster hard drive interface doesn't address Amiga AGA's out-of-the-box experience CPU issue and uncompetitive cost above A1200's base price to the $1200 USD price range.

Quote:

16-bit same blitter with very slow chip speed.

A1200's 680EC020 CPU has a hardware barrel shifter @ 14 Mhz, but A1200 doesn't have 32-bit Fast RAM @ 14 Mhz.

Quote:

A lot of PC 3d games wiped the floor with AGA. Doom, wing commander, commanche and many more.

For out-of-the-box experience, Amiga's Wing Commander AGA needs an Amiga model SKU with 68020 at 25 Mhz with 32-bit Fast RAM.

PC's Wing Commander VGA runs fine on 386DX-25 level CPU and reasonably high-clocked 16-bit ISA bus and competent SVGA chipset. Don't use IBM's original VGA.

Quote:

SNES wiped the floor with AGA with its 2d and 3d games like very good arcade ports like SF2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33kH9DdNznA
Street Fighter II AGA: The impossible Amiga port, made possible.

Commodore's business model didn't have 1st party game developer intervention for critical game IP. Microsoft's Xbox team learned this lesson with a buying spree on multiple game companies.



_________________
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB
Amiga 1200 (Rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32lite/RPi 4B 4GB/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (Rev 6A, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 3a/Emu68)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Oscar12 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 20-Jan-2023 12:24:59
#553 ]
New Member
Joined: 18-Jan-2023
Posts: 7
From: Unknown

@Hammer

Yes, Commodore did a very bad job for both A1200 and CD32 releases with no killer-app/game to include but instead shovelware. Actually, as I said machines were also severely anemic if you look that the stock A1200 cannot run AB3D properly then you cannot create a miracle.

I heard here that the most incompetent CEO of the millenium Mehdi Ali said fk-off to faces of Psygnosis team when they requested an accelarated A1200 with fast ram as a bundle. Rest is the history..

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
QBit 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 22-Jan-2023 3:29:55
#554 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 15-Jun-2018
Posts: 474
From: Unknown

@all

I don`t give a fudge, Universe will remain unchanged or I will never be able to give Katrin a motorola Smartphone *lol*

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
ppcamiga1 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 22-Jan-2023 8:51:45
#555 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 23-Aug-2015
Posts: 787
From: Unknown

Commodore bankrupt because AGA has hot chunky pixel. The rest is history.


 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 22-Jan-2023 10:10:23
#556 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 3650
From: Germany

@Oscar12

Quote:

Oscar12 wrote:
@NutsAboutAmiga

AGA had a lot of shortcomings. Paula still 1983 chip with no HD floppy support. Crappy ide interface with no DMA for harddisk. 16 bit same blitter with very slow chip speed.

A lot of PC 3d games wiped the floor with AGA. Doom, wing commander, commanche and many more.

SNES wiped the floor with AGA with its 2d and 3d games like very good arcade ports like SF2 and starfox.

So compared to competition it was a weak machine.

What could be done to make it more competitive:
- Add fast ram
- Use a more up to date processor like 68030
- Add chunky modes
- 32bits faster blitter

A 32-bit Blitter isn't enough. Memory bus sizes increased a lot on video cards, for obvious reasons. In fact, AGA had a 64-bit fetch mode.

So, if you upgrade the Blitter to 32-bit then you'll waste anyway half of the bandwidth which is available.

In general, it would have been better to upgrade the Blitter to be "data bus size-agnostic", trying to get automatically (without any specific code) the most from the data bus size and the specific sources/destination buffers alignments.

Last but not really least, the Blitter should have been working at higher frequencies (it was still 7Mhz!).

Besides that, the audio subsection was the original one, whereas more channels (at least!) were needed.


@Hammer

Quote:

Hammer wrote:
@Oscar12

Quote:

AGA had a lot of shortcomings. Paula still 1983 chip with no HD floppy support.

Paula can support HD FDD via half-speed configuration as in Amiga 3000s.

Which is slow.
Quote:
Quote:

16-bit same blitter with very slow chip speed.

A1200's 680EC020 CPU has a hardware barrel shifter @ 14 Mhz, but A1200 doesn't have 32-bit Fast RAM @ 14 Mhz.

See above: not enough.

The CPU cannot replace even the old Blitter for operations involving moves with shifts and/or masking, because it's not fast enough.

Otherwise - and obviously - coders would have used it instead of the Blitter...
Quote:
Quote:

SNES wiped the floor with AGA with its 2d and 3d games like very good arcade ports like SF2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33kH9DdNznA
Street Fighter II AGA: The impossible Amiga port, made possible.

Not on a stock Amiga 1200...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 22-Jan-2023 10:37:38
#557 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 3650
From: Germany

@Hammer

Quote:

Hammer wrote:
@cdimauro

Quote:
Of course: why shouldn't I? It's a great game!

cdimauro's fluff.

No arguments...
Quote:
Quote:

Who cares? Many Amiga gamers loved Fightin' Spirits. Some say that it's one of the best AGA games. And it was the game of the year on 1996.

Fluff. Fact: Amiga platform competes against other gaming platforms.

I was stating something different: care to reply accordingly instead of derailing to something different? See above: no arguments...
Quote:
Quote:

Where are those issues?!?

Static background and static floor i.e. it's a dead game world.


Ah, yeah, I recall now: you're the one which actually like to see demos instead of playing games...
Quote:
Quote:

YOU said that MK2 had the parallax floor and then YOU have to prove it.

I have proven it and running PC DOS's MK2 on DosBox is not hard to obtain.

You proved nothing. And I'm still waiting for you, since YOUR is the "thesis" and YOUR is the burden of proof.
Quote:
Quote:

Hammer's PADDING...

You can't handle the truth.

I can. But I cannot handle the non-sense that you're writing and which is totally irrelevant on the specific context.

As I've said before, you like to completely derail the discussion. So, I can do nothing else than underlining that your is just padding...
Quote:
Quote:

Should I care? I would say no.

cdimauro's fluff.

Sure: I believe you. See above.
Quote:
This topic is about "How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993."

Right. And you aren't able to understand that a discussion brings some new things to talk about, which are related to it.

Which is strange, since actually you are the leader on systematically bringing completely different / totally not useful things on discussions, writing wall-of-non-sense...
Quote:
Quote:

So, a game which doesn't run on a stock machine (to me, and not only to me, as I've always said, it means OCS/ECS with 512kB Chip-Mem + 512kB Slow/Fast-Mem) works fine on a stock Amiga 1200.

cdimauro's fluff.

See above.
Quote:
This topic is about "How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993."

Right again, but what's not clear to you that this:

"a stock Amiga 1200"

is exactly matching this:

"How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993."

?

I don't think that it requires a PhD in logic, right? Actually this requires just elementary logic, common to the average Joe...
Quote:
Note the AGA chipset, NOT OCS/ECS.

Right, and? See above.

As usually, you like to reply without even understand the simple statements that were written, and you do it just because you like to argue to me. Is it for satisfying your violated ago? Poor kid...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
agami 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 23-Jan-2023 0:44:46
#558 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jun-2008
Posts: 1676
From: Melbourne, Australia

@anachronists

Forget 1992. Show me which machine in 1993, for $599 (USD) or £399, can do better.
Heck, show me a machine at that price in 1993 that can do the equivalent.




_________________
All the way, with 68k

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 23-Jan-2023 5:47:12
#559 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 3650
From: Germany

@agami

Quote:

agami wrote:
@anachronists

Forget 1992. Show me which machine in 1993, for $599 (USD) or £399, can do better.
Heck, show me a machine at that price in 1993 that can do the equivalent.

What do you mean with "machine"?

For games, there were already consoles that overall were much better than an Amiga 1200 and even much cheaper:
- 1988, Sega Genesis, $337/£189.99;
- 1990 (Japan), Super Nintendo. 1991 (US/Canda), $199.

The best was the Neo Geo, released on 1990, but it costed a lot ($649.99). But I don't know how much it costed on 1993.

Talking of computers, there was the Sharp X 68000: released on 1987 (same year of the Amiga 500/2000), but I don't know the price in dollars or pounds. But I'm confident that it costed more or less the same of the Amiga 2000.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
agami 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 23-Jan-2023 7:33:00
#560 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jun-2008
Posts: 1676
From: Melbourne, Australia

@cdimauro

Quote:
What do you mean with "machine"?

Something in the same category. The Commodore Amiga 1200 is a personal computer. Primarily a gaming focused SKU, but nevertheless a personal computer.

Gaming consoles are a separate category.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright (C) 2000 - 2019 Amigaworld.net.
Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle