@AmiRich

You seem confused. I never claimed anything about sales numbers.

I only said already in the 90s I found it annoying that some people did not leave the crappy custom chipst behind when other options existed. Please read careful before you reply. And do not put things into my mouth which I never said.

@Karlos

>I sympathise with your dilemma as someone who just wants to write software. You have a >Hobson's choice of adequately 3D accelerated boutique PPC machines that are few in number >versus a potentially much larger but not yet feature-complete machines.

Exactly. Though from what I was told PiStorm systems are not more in number than PowerPC machines either. It is harder to estimate of course, due to the "open design" of course. I still hope that both "low number" platforms together will get some decent sales. H2 will definitely perform great on Pi4 and Pi Qm4 despite the missing 3D Hardware Support. And with some reduced screen resolution also on Pi3. Sin should work great on all three.

Appearently the "big number" is on one hand Vampire, and on the other hand systems with 020 or 030.

The games I do won't ever run on a 030 (I tried a 100 MHz 060, and it was like 7 fps).

As to the Vampire we will have to see. I am trying my best (including hourlong disputes with Vampire makers about that I really really need GL_ONE,GL_ONE Blending Mode etc and it seems to be hard to make them accept that, I do not know how often I was told to "replace that with some AMMX Assembly code", same for a range of other GL features I need).

I hope that two systems (OS4 version and PiStorm version) which each get hopefully a few hundred sales will get a bit of sales together at least. We will see if I can get it running on Vampire - this would make the project financially worthwhile for sure.

>As I said, I don't even know who controls what any more. Last I remember - and this could be out >of date - the 3D subsystem shipping with OS4 is based on MiniGL/Warp3D and owners of >Radeon HD cards are able to get a bunch of separate paid-for drivers to get a more complete 3D >driver suite based on the Nova fork of Warp3D. They may or may not (I have no idea, so correct >as appropriate) have any 3D support out of the box for their chosen hardware.

The stuff included with OS4 covers "old" hardware with "old Warp3D". New hardware uses GL4ES and requires Enhancer 2.2 (which is as you say costing extra money). Software for the "old system" can be run using another payed component by again someone else, the NovaBridge.

For my own ports I support both the old and the new system, so it runs directly on the old systems and with Enhancer on the new systems (Novabridge not needed for my ports, at least not unless you want to switch to the MiniGL on a new system - but gl4es renderer runs faster than MiniGL Renderer anyways, so no need to switch to MiniGL on those...

And yeah, it is a mess. At the same time it is AVAILABLE. And I expect people who are interested in titles as I make them will already have Enhancer installed (if they have the new hardware).

@pixie

Sorry for the messed up quoting. Seems this happens when you try to quote when replying on the Mobile. Will not use the mobile anymore for this, as it seems to mess up things.

MagicSN

MagicSN Quote:

Appearently the "big number" is on one hand Vampire, and on the other hand systems with 020 or 030. The games I do won't ever run on a 030 (I tried a 100 MHz 060, and it was like 7 fps).

Was the 68060@100MHz software rendering or Warp3D hardware? What resolution and depth?

The W3D Avenger drivers are a disaster and I would give the code quality an F. I don't know what compiler was used but it is trash (pre EGCS version of GCC?). The code is also compiled for a 68040 which uses very expansive workarounds for the lack of the FINT(RZ) instruction which is the only FP instruction added back to the 68060 after the epic mistake to drop it in the 68040. The code is also bug infested including a very nasty memory trashing bug. It's embarrassing that the code was released in this state by Hyperion but also embarrassing that it continues to be unmaintained by A-Eon after they obtained it. The 68k W3D version is very old compared to the PPC version as well. That is the kind of nonsupport the 68k gets or should we say blocked 68k development.

H2 is the Quake II engine. AmiQuake II RTG in 8 bit with software rendering is very playable at low resolution on my 68060@75MHz. Quake I uses a slower engine and I could play 512x384x16 at ~25fps using W3D on a Voodoo 3 or 4. I patched up the W3D libraries to fix bugs and get a couple of extra frames/sec but it is pretty slow going in assembler when a C compiler generates lots of garbage.

MagicSN Quote:

As to the Vampire we will have to see. I am trying my best (including hourlong disputes with Vampire makers about that I really really need GL_ONE,GL_ONE Blending Mode etc and it seems to be hard to make them accept that, I do not know how often I was told to "replace that with some AMMX Assembly code", same for a range of other GL features I need). I hope that two systems (OS4 version and PiStorm version) which each get hopefully a few hundred sales will get a bit of sales together at least. We will see if I can get it running on Vampire - this would make the project financially worthwhile for sure.

If you keep complaining nicely and get lucky, maybe Gunnar will squeeze what you need into the stuffed FPGA. There is not enough room for a good 3D GPU. The CPU performance is not going to exceed a 68060@100MHz by much if any either.

MagicSN Quote:

The stuff included with OS4 covers "old" hardware with "old Warp3D". New hardware uses GL4ES and requires Enhancer 2.2 (which is as you say costing extra money). Software for the "old system" can be run using another payed component by again someone else, the NovaBridge. For my own ports I support both the old and the new system, so it runs directly on the old systems and with Enhancer on the new systems (Novabridge not needed for my ports, at least not unless you want to switch to the MiniGL on a new system - but gl4es renderer runs faster than MiniGL Renderer anyways, so no need to switch to MiniGL on those... And yeah, it is a mess. At the same time it is AVAILABLE. And I expect people who are interested in titles as I make them will already have Enhancer installed (if they have the new hardware).

Novabridge will make it so you can throw away all your old PPC hardware and use cheaper and more powerful x86-64 hardware instead. WinUAE already allows better performance than some PPC hardware, likely even some new PPC hardware.

Amiquake 2 RTG Amiga
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_kJ9KEkT44

He is using software rendering in 1280x720 and it flies.

Last edited by matthey on 05-Dec-2023 at 07:32 PM.
Last edited by matthey on 05-Dec-2023 at 07:29 PM.
Last edited by matthey on 05-Dec-2023 at 07:27 PM.

@matthey

>Was the 68060@100MHz software rendering or Warp3D hardware? What resolution and depth?

I think with the fps rate I cited you can give yourselves the answer. Software rendering of course. I am expecting test results of a 100 MHz 060 system with 3D Hardware this or next week (at the time of the earlier test the MiniGL Renderer for 68k was not ready yet).

Personally I expect it should run decently on a 100 MHz 060 + 3D HW.

We will see

>H2 is the Quake II engine. AmiQuake II RTG in 8 bit with software rendering is very playable at >low resolution on my 68060@75MHz. Quake I uses a slower engine and I could play 512x384x16 >at ~25fps using W3D on a Voodoo 3 or 4. I patched up the W3D libraries to fix bugs and get a >couple of extra frames/sec but it is pretty slow going in assembler when a C compiler generates >lots of garbage.

H2 is based on a heavily modified Quake 2 engine. I see this also for example when comparing H2 and Sin. Sin runs massively faster than H2. Same about Q2.

I suspect Sin 68k probably will be fast enough on software rendering on 060. H2 - not.

>If you keep complaining nicely and get lucky, maybe Gunnar will squeeze what you need into the >stuffed FPGA. There is not enough room for a good 3D GPU. The CPU performance is not going to >exceed a 68060@100MHz by much if any either.

My approach is I try to make a "proof of concept" which will look crappy (due to missing blending modes etc.) and check how fast it runs, maybe this gets Gunnar interested

And I do not need a good GPU there. A GPU which featurewise is on a level with an S3 Virge will be fine. Or even a bit less features than the Virge. More or less minimum I still need is GL_ONE, GL_ONE blending mode, GL_ZERO, GL_SRC_COLOR belnding mode and TexEnv both GL_REPLACE and GL_MODULATE. Everything else I need Maggie can do already.

>He is using software rendering in 1280x720 and it flies.

Again - Q2 runs faster. We are talking about H2 here.

And about x86 - I tried all three, Q2, H2 and Sin on QEmu. I get around 25 fps for 640x480 H2 on an i7 (PowerPC version, obviously as QEmu emulates OS4). On a x5000 (of course unfair comparision, QEmu is in software renderer, x5000 is 3D Hardware) like 180 fps. Don't see that "throwing away" here. And yes, if QEmu had support for 3D Hardware it surely would be noticably faster.

MagicSN

@Karlos

Probably nitpicking but W3D Nova is built from the ground up rather than being a fork of W3D, hence the need for Novabridge for compatibility with W3D software. I think A-EON originally planned to bolt new features onto W3D instead of starting from scratch.

AFAIK Warp3D is co-owned by A-EON and the Frieden brothers. I don't known why they don't just open source it at this point since they don't seem to have any plans to monetize it and it could be useful for hardware like the Apollo cards.

@Rob

I thought it was derived from W3D and diverged? Otherwise why not just call it Nova?

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@Karlos

You need to ask Hanz about that, it came to point where your retro fit new feature on top of broken 3D api, so instead he decided it was time to start from scratch and build it up from ground up.

Old Warp3D and Radion GFX drivers had transparent walls in H2, and shadow was broken in Wipeout2097, lots of stuff like that. Doom 3 won’t be possible without it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf6S86QiR3w

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 05-Dec-2023 at 10:19 PM.

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

MagicSN Quote:

My approach is I try to make a "proof of concept" which will look crappy (due to missing blending modes etc.) and check how fast it runs, maybe this gets Gunnar interested And I do not need a good GPU there. A GPU which featurewise is on a level with an S3 Virge will be fine. Or even a bit less features than the Virge. More or less minimum I still need is GL_ONE, GL_ONE blending mode, GL_ZERO, GL_SRC_COLOR belnding mode and TexEnv both GL_REPLACE and GL_MODULATE. Everything else I need Maggie can do already.

I expect Gunnar will look for any workaround possible first, no matter how much work it is for you, but he may relent eventually if it is the best way and logical. A proof of concept demo version with messed up colors but running at a usable frame rate may entice him.

MagicSN Quote:

Again - Q2 runs faster. We are talking about H2 here. And about x86 - I tried all three, Q2, H2 and Sin on QEmu. I get around 25 fps for 640x480 H2 on an i7 (PowerPC version, obviously as QEmu emulates OS4). On a x5000 (of course unfair comparision, QEmu is in software renderer, x5000 is 3D Hardware) like 180 fps. Don't see that "throwing away" here. And yes, if QEmu had support for 3D Hardware it surely would be noticably faster.

Why not 68k WinUAE which has better performance? Are Hans de Ruiter's Virtio GPU drivers possible on 68k WinUAE? Would having Virtio GPU drivers for perhaps the largest Amiga user base, unless counting THEA500 Mini users, solve your small Amiga market problem?

Rob Quote:

AFAIK Warp3D is co-owned by A-EON and the Frieden brothers. I don't known why they don't just open source it at this point since they don't seem to have any plans to monetize it and it could be useful for hardware like the Apollo cards.

Maybe A-Eon doesn't want competitors like MorphOS and Apollo Core to benefit? Maybe there is just another fragmented failure of leadership?

1. Hyperion beta tests 68k and PPC versions of AmigaOS 4 as contracted
2. Hyperion fails to deliver AmigaOS 4 as contracted
3. Hyperion removes support for the 68k in AmigaOS 4
4. Hyperion releases W3D v4 for the 68k and PPC
5. Hyperion releases W3D v5 for the PPC only
6. Hyperion gives A-Eon W3D for money stolen by Hyperion so Ben can avoid jail time
7. Hyperion actually provides W3D source code as contracted
8. Hyperion stops PPC AmigaOS 4 development
9. Hyperion starts 68k AmigaOS 3 development without being contracted
10. Hyperion developers need better 68k 3D support for porting games

It was likely easier to drop 68k W3D support than update several old 68k drivers. Dropping support gave compatibility issues with AmigaOS 4 though as old 68k programs used removed functionality.

https://www.amigans.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=103826#forumpost103826 Quote:

You can try my Aminet/PatchWarp3D (only) when you encounter old warp3D 68k progs that dont works on OS4 Warp3D v4 (os3/68k) and warp3D v5 (os4/ppc) are not 100% compatible as some old v4 functions may not be implemented in new v5 drivers Note: There is a similar problem with Morphos/Os4Emu that dont implements (wrap) the new v5 functions but only the old v4 ones so allowing only the old 3D games & demos to run on Morphos Alain Thellier - Wazp3D

Alain and I found and fixed several bugs. One of the things removed was the indirect rendering perhaps due to bugs and poor performance. The indirect rendering queue code in Warp3D.library is actually clever and once optimized in 68k assembler instead of poorly optimized C code, gives good performance with superior multitasking. The following is a list of W3D related bugs I fixed.

matthey Quote:

Avenger libraries o wrong stride type calculation for z-buffer writes trash memory big time (Warp3D bug) o a very common hardware function was so slow that it caused timing issues (likely a compiler issue) o optimized for 68040 which is poor for 68060 due to lack of FINT(RZ) and crashes on 6888x FPU due to lack of FSop and FDop instructions (partially optimized and may work on 6888x) Permedia library o floating point rounding problems would result in black rendered objects (maybe a compiler issue) Warp3D.library o horrible EGCS? code optimization (indirect rendering works better than direct rendering with indirect queue code optimized as it multitasks better) Vbcc o Wrong colors in GLQuake fixed by adding FPU initialization

At lest Vbcc received a new release. W3D on the other hand is a mess. Welcome to Amiga Neverland.

Last edited by matthey on 05-Dec-2023 at 10:56 PM.
Last edited by matthey on 05-Dec-2023 at 10:52 PM.
Last edited by matthey on 05-Dec-2023 at 10:44 PM.

@matthey

Quote:

matthey wrote: There may be more classic Amigas with PPC hardware than AmigaNOne hardware... Some of the old PPC boards have died but so have some of the AmigaNOne systems. I would be very surprised if there was more than 10,000 AmigaNOne systems sold and many AmigaNOne users bought more than one for a backup or to support development. Some users have likely converted to MorphOS on AmigaNOne hardware because it is actively supported and has better software available. The number of active AmigaNOne AmigaOS 4 users is likely in the low thousands, perhaps better measured in the hundreds like A1222+ production.

That surprises me a bit, I thought there must have been more NG machines. But even if less than 50% are NG my point still stands - ppc Amigas don't necessarilly have classic hardware in them so software cannot assume it's there.

Quote:

It is possible to have good Amiga compatibility and modern hardware for a more modern AmigaOS by developing 68k Amiga hardware like Intel did with x86 hardware. A new AmigaOS may not be as compatible but the old versions of AmigaOS would still run on the hardware. This is where the Amiga market demand is strongest and the market shrinks as compatibility is lost. There is a lot of compatibility lost when moving to a little endian CPU and PC hardware. Even PPC on PC hardware was too much compatibility lost. Emulation is more compatible but will not attract new users or encourage development.

Sure it's possible, but is it wise? 68k is retro hardware, and can only be improved via emulation. Surely it would be better to go native to obtain the performance and features required for a modern OS? Last time I looked there were no multicore 68k chips or any plans to make them.

Shouldn't we leave 68k to retro enthusiasts, and not be held back by insisting on maintaining compatibility with it? People who talk about modernising the Amiga should make up their minds about what they want and accept that there will be losses whichever way they go. Or do what many of us do, have different machines for retro and modern.

bhabbott Quote:

That surprises me a bit, I thought there must have been more NG machines. But even if less than 50% are NG my point still stands - ppc Amigas don't necessarilly have classic hardware in them so software cannot assume it's there.

At one time, the PPC boards in classic Amigas were as much NG as the early AmigaNOne hardware. They just had full "retro" 68k Amiga compatibility which many users obviously preferred as they sold better than AmigaNOne hardware. Many Amiga users want performance and compatibility. NG users are more likely to want performance and classic 68k Amiga users are more likely to want compatibility but it is possible to provide both. There is some 68k Amiga hardware that does not have full Amiga compatibility like DraCo hardware and perhaps some small FPGA Amiga hardware although FPGA hardware usually supports 68000+OCS at least. Classic users tend to value compatibility more so this makes sense.

bhabbott Quote:

Sure it's possible, but is it wise? 68k is retro hardware, and can only be improved via emulation. Surely it would be better to go native to obtain the performance and features required for a modern OS? Last time I looked there were no multicore 68k chips or any plans to make them.

A multi-core 68k CPU is no problem and doesn't require anything special. Gunnar described it as a "copy and paste" but it is better to push single core performance for Amiga compatibility in an affordable FPGA. The small cost of multiple cores is partially offset by better ASIC yields as defective cores can be disabled. At least 2 cores have become popular for embedded use even though the 2nd core often is not SMP configured but used as an I/O or specialized processor. There are some hardware decisions that could improve the chances of getting SMP working on the 68k Amiga like a TSO memory model (PPC has a very weak memory model for NUMA workstations/servers) and perhaps hardware lines to other cores signalling them to perform a pipeline synchronization, halt, signal back when ready and wait for a signal to continue (for Forbid/Permit but could be useful for debugging also). Even if SMP was not possible with existing Amiga software, new Amiga APIs could be defined that would allow new software to use SMP and use it more efficiently if the signalling works. Older versions of AmigaOS would run on one of the cores if there was any loss of compatibility. It may make sense to maintain a simpler, lower spec, and more compatible classic version of the AmigaOS and a NG version of the AmigaOS anyway.

bhabbott Quote:

Shouldn't we leave 68k to retro enthusiasts, and not be held back by insisting on maintaining compatibility with it? People who talk about modernising the Amiga should make up their minds about what they want and accept that there will be losses whichever way they go. Or do what many of us do, have different machines for retro and modern.

There wasn't much compatibility loss for x86 hardware until x86-64 yet there were huge gains in performance. The 68k is much cleaner than x86 and fully 32 bit including the AmigaOS. The 68k Amiga is in better shape than MSDOS with x86 and RISC OS with ARM. It feels modern enough on WinUAE, high end FPGA hardware and even a 68060@100MHz. We just need a modernized 68060@1-2GHz in hardware that costs less than $100 USD which is possible with investment within reach of small businesses. Old 68k Amiga hardware is dying, developer support is disappearing and there are no new and younger 68k Amiga retro enthusiasts so it all dies with Trevor throwing his money down the drain for bastard PPC PC hardware.

@MagicSN

Quote:

MagicSN wrote: @kolla >Hey, I’m a user and I do care. Whatever rocks your boat :) It is still a weird opinion that the BIOS makes something a PC.

It could be weird, but actually yes: it's part of PCs' specs / definition.

However it's being supplanted by UEFI (which shortly will be the only firmware available on PCs).
Quote:

>Amiga is about the software that exploits what the Amiga hardware and OS has to offer. Actually no. I was fighting against that backward stuff doing ugly direct hardware hits since the times when I still used an A2000 with graphics board back then

It wasn't ugly: it was THE WAY to go if you wanted to squeeze the most from the limited hardware (available memory, CPU performance, memory bandwidth available for the chipset) of the basic machines of the time (BTW, I had an Amiga 2000 as well: it was my first Amiga. But no graphic cards: I've switched to the Amiga 1200 after that).

And it was perfectly legit, as I've fully documented.

Actually I've also use self-modifying code on the games where I worked on (Fightin' Spirit and USA Racing. The latter I've never released) and this as well was fully legit when made according to the über mentioned Commodore's guidelines (which for me meant: use the proper o.s. API if the Kickstart was 2.0+, otherwise use the proper instruction for disabling the caches. Only if the CPU was 68020+, of course).
Quote:

OS4 is the perfect culmination of AmigaOS. If you check all the other options there is so much lacking.

I don't know what's your metric for measuring it, but AROS:
- added Gallium support YEARS BEFORE the first time that it was announced 12-13 years ago from Hyperion's tech lead. And I'm still waiting to see Gallium ported to AmigaOS4;
- added MESA;
- added 3D, thanks to the above (accelerated on some platforms / graphics boards). Several games were ported to it. For example, from BSzili: http://bszili.morphos.me;
- added a powerful USB stack (work on USB3 is going on);
- added 64 bit on x64 systems. YEARS ago! It enabled several hundred of GBs to be used for applications (recompiled, of course). OS4 has what? The 8-bit system bank switching...
- added SMP on x64 systems. Again, some years ago. It's unstable for obvious reasons, since compatibility cannot be achieved with the existing applications (see previous discussions on the topic). But at least it's there and users can try, instead of the promised of Hyperion's tech lead (again, 12-13 years ago) and the ridiculous statement of several years ago that multicore support was ready but only lacked a scheduler (it looks like that even the most simple Round Robin scheduler is an impossibile challenge for the team).

Those are the major points, but I'm pretty sure that I've forget some other stuff.
Quote:

>For me, OS4 as we know it, is an abomination, it serves no purpose really. It requires >modern hardware yet does not offer anything modern. AmigaOS is about being lightweight >and fast, but OS4 is cluttered, slow and even bloated for no good reason. And who cares >about some crappy games which run insanely better on other more relevant hardware >running other operating systems? OS4 offers the biggest amount of modern libraries and other things you require in a modern OS.

By using the shared objects AKA Linux stuff transplanted on the Amiga o.s.: an abomination, considered that we have the Amiga o.s. libraries since day 1.0, and MorphOS and AROS continue on the Amiga o.s. tradition.
Quote:

What you see as "perfect" I see probably as an abomination due to lacking so much which I am used to. And no, it is not slow. Please do not the "lie for the cause" thing. I thought that would only happen by American trumpists (lying for the cause) not inside Amiga platform And I take offense on the "crappy games" part. And if it offers anything modern is irrelevant. Again - all the other options for AmigaOS lack integral things which are present on AmigaOS 4.

See above: not true!
Quote:

Some create - some insult. You seem to be on the insult end. And again - I do not only support OS4. For example I currently actively develop a Heretic 2 version which runs on PiStorm machines (and hopefully at some point in the future also on Vampire machines - though Vampire makes it hard for me, especially due to the "barebone hardware" approach which you seem to want.

Develop a game which was a commercial failure and which is super old.

Only Amiga made it possible...

@cdimauro

Didn't AROS had a proof of concept where multiple instances of it were running on linux? Perhaps with a bit of arexx glue they could be seen by the user as one system.

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

@NutsAboutAmiga

What Warp3D and Warp3DNova have in common is the name. Warp3DNova is a Shader API based solution. I think name was chosen to trigger recognition value.

>Old Warp3D and Radion GFX drivers had transparent walls in H2, and shadow was broken in >Wipeout2097, lots of stuff like that. Doom 3 won’t be possible without it.

No idea on transparent wall thing you mention. At least H2 OS4 does not have transparent walls (and yes, was also tested on older systems like 800 MHz AmigaOne with an older graphics card - "old Warp3D"). Can't remember that from WarpOS H2 on A4000 either, but that is 20 years ago, so no idea.

@matthey

>Why not 68k WinUAE which has better performance? Are Hans de Ruiter's Virtio GPU drivers >possible on 68k WinUAE? Would having Virtio GPU drivers for perhaps the largest Amiga user >base, unless counting THEA500 Mini users, solve your small Amiga market problem?

Is it ? Faster ? Remember I am new to the whole Emulation stuff, and QEmu was recommended to me. I just tried UAE with H2, and it was slower. What sort of settings would you recommend? I got 13 fps vs. 22 fps on QEmu (640x480, i7). I tried with 060 settings, and I tried with 030 settings. JIT enabled of course. What I like is that I can directly copy over "in the path", makes it nicely for testing (I compile on PC).

I have no idea on Virtio GPU Drivers, I guess you have to ask Hans. And in how far Emulation users would buy games will have to be seen. But luckily I do not have to do much extra to ensure my games run on Emulation (that's why I installed QEmu, to be able to test that) asides from maybe a bit of testing. On both QEmu -and just now on UAE the game ran out of the box.

My personal expectation is you can only get the emulation crowd if you actually get GL Renderer. Wazp3D on software is too slow (tried this on QEmu), and why should someone buy a game he can only run in Software rendering when on the same machine he can run the Windows version in 3D Hardware ?

If the Virtual Driver comes, my games are prepared for them, I got both MiniGL and GL4ES renderers (GL4ES currently not on 68k, but if this would be required it would not be hard work to port that over to 68k).

Steffen

MagicSN Quote:

Is it ? Faster ? Remember I am new to the whole Emulation stuff, and QEmu was recommended to me. I just tried UAE with H2, and it was slower. What sort of settings would you recommend? I got 13 fps vs. 22 fps on QEmu (640x480, i7). I tried with 060 settings, and I tried with 030 settings. JIT enabled of course. What I like is that I can directly copy over "in the path", makes it nicely for testing (I compile on PC).

I'm far from an emulation expert but from everything I have heard, WinUAE is much better than UAE in many ways. I believe 040 is usually the preferred hardware to emulate in WinUAE and I recall an option to enable the missing 6888x instructions like they are in hardware. Wazp3D has a hardware driver like Warp3D.

https://forum.amiga.org/index.php?topic=59183.msg660368#msg660368 Quote:

Wazp3D can use hardware in WinUAE (and also AROS) so certainly something similar can be done in Amithlon In Wazp3D/WinUAE it works this way Wazp3D.library implement the 88 functions from original Warp3D Those functions call an other (simpler) library i called soft3d.library soft3d works at low-level: it is something like a 3d driver (23 functions only) soft3d.library exists as 68k on WinUAE side (It can render as software 68k) soft3d.dll exists as x86 on PC side (It can render as software x86) This soft3d.dll can also use the PC opengl32.dll for hardware rendering a given function in soft3d.library jump to same function in soft3d.dll with the "winuaenative" special calls that allow to call x86 code from WinUAE (BTW many thanks to quarktex author for this part of the code) So for Amithlon 1) Find how to do something like the "winuaenative" special calls 2) wrap soft3d x86 to make it use an hardware renderer (OpenGL) Alain Thellier Note: having soft3d give the great advantage to have only 23 "winuaenative" special calls from 68k to x86

No shader support like Virtio but it is what is needed for older games like H2.

@MagicSN

I respect that you want to support these games and respect even more that you want to keep them available for the community, no matter the platform. That is good and if this is your hobby, more power to you.

But on the other site you ask for betatesters and mention that if they do not have a hyperion nda, then to betatest they need to email you their full name and address and some legalese statements.

Under no circumstances whatsoever would I or any sane people provide my full name and address and some legalese agreements that will then be handed over to Ben Hermans.
Please understand this. Anyone providing their name and address and some legal promises to Ben Hermans will dearly regret it.
Do not do this.

Why do you even need this stuff? There is zero commercial value in this IP.
There is nothing to protect. Why do you want people to make themselves targets to Ben H?
Just do not do this, people. It is a trap.

@matthey

Tested at 640x480
AWinQuake
127 fps

AmiQuake
115 fps

BlitzQuake
50 fps

Perhaps there's better software for showing wazp3d strengths.

ps- I thought the script which launched BlitzQuake was 640x480 but it was actually smaller, so I had updated the fps

Last edited by pixie on 06-Dec-2023 at 02:20 PM.
Last edited by pixie on 06-Dec-2023 at 11:11 AM.

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

@matthey

Thanks a lot for this information. Sounds to me as if this should work regardless of the type of 3D Card I have on my PC (I never investigates as I assumed I would need a ATI Card in the PC to make Wazp3D to use Hardware on WinUAE - maybe I misunderstood, will check the Wazp3D documentation).

And yes, for H2 I do not need a shader API, will not need it for Sin either. Both games on OS4 (H2 final version, Sin Betaversion) support both MiniGL and GL4ES.

@V8:

>Under no circumstances whatsoever would I or any sane people provide my full name and address >and some legalese agreements that will then be handed over to Ben Hermans.
>Please understand this. Anyone providing their name and address and some legal promises to Ben >Hermans will dearly regret it.
>Do not do this.

I would more say no sane developer would send unreleased commercial software to someone not under NDA. Where he does not even know the address.

>Why do you even need this stuff? There is zero commercial value in this IP.

I disagree.

I take it is an ideological problem, but if it is I cannot help it.

I won't send out Beta versions to un-NDA'ed people where I do not even know the physical address. And myselves I lack the legalese knowledge to set up a NDA. Nobody forces you to become Betatester. It is your choice. And it is my choice that I require an NDA for Betatester. I have around a dozen different testers, NDAs were never an issue.

@pixie:

Are these fps values ? What system ? And are the mentioned ports all GL ones, or is the one with the lower number a software rendering one ?

Steffen

Last edited by MagicSN on 06-Dec-2023 at 12:10 PM.

treat pistorm as it is.
pistorm is hardware that change amiga into mouse, joystick, and keyboard interface for rpi.
made games for android with little code that read mouse, joystick, and keyboard.
don't waste time for emulator.

@MagicSN

Quote:

Are these fps values ? What system ? And are the mentioned ports all GL ones, or is the one with the lower number a software rendering one ?

I run timedemo demo1 on console and I average the fps. Both AWinQuake and AmiQuake are running on RTG and software, BlitzQuake (1.50) is the one I found that runs on Warp3D. It's the latest on Aminet.

My system is an AMD 5800X.

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

@ppcamiga1

Waste time ? People actually want to buy my games on this platform. And (judging from your username...) don't worry PPC OS4 Amiga for me comes first But I do not see the "do games only for this or that platform.

last important thing from original amiga hardware is 32 bit big endian cpu.

amiga software is mostly made in c or c++.
there is nothing special in 68k.
it may be changed to almost anything except x86, arm and risc-v.

chipset is not important.
graphics in 256 or thousands colors is made on amiga by cpu.
chipset just display it. and may by replaced by whatever want.