Quote:
could you elaborate this with some (pseudo) code? |
Isn't that too slow to be useful? Remember, the Blitter only draws a single pixel@1 bitplane in 8 CPU cycles when in line mode.
|
Quote:
line0 plane0 line1 plane1 line2 plane2 line3 plane3 Chunky bitmap islike this: p0p1p2p3 - p0p1p2p3 - ...... If you get first 4pixel (p0p1p2p3p4), and use it as a patter for blitters' line draw, and you draw a vertical line, you'll get straight cp2, since with blitter you're rotating that 4 pixels |
Quote:
|
Since lines are fixed on ray-casting game, we could even have a game with "flat" walls, but faster and whitout cp2. Maybe evene 1x1 a lot faster..
Copper list won't be so huge, and you'll have cpu free to do other stuffs |
Quote:
if you have 4 bitplanes interleaved you have a theoretical field of 320*800, that would be 256.000 plixels ... leaving you with 4 frame per second. 8 if you go down to 160*200 and 16 for 160*100. Not really a big advantage, is it? |
Quote:
Assuming 320x200, there's 64.000 pixels in a frame. Which translates to a fill rate of about 4FPS. This also assumes you're not doing anything other than blitting, which seems unreasonable. |
Quote:
stock |
The point is that even at 160x100 the theoretical maximum frame rate when you're not doing anything except drawing with the Blitter is not far from the one the current CPU drawing routines get (16fps vs around 12 IIRC). Start adding all the stuff that is in the game now and I'm pretty sure you'll end up at the same or lower FPS as just using the CPU.
That said, it is an interesting idea. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Look, I genuinely like your out-of-the-box thinking. But this just doesn't seem like a very realistic solution.
I'm not saying it definitely can't be done, but you're essentially suggesting someone who is rather close to completing a game rewrite the entire rendering part (which is not as simple as just drawing a few bobs for a game like this) to try and see if it may get better results using your idea. Wouldn't it be better to create a full doom/wolf like 3D rendering environment using this technique yourself first? That would serve as a proof of concept so we can actually see if it's worthwhile. That seems to me to be a much better way of doing things, considering how far along this project already is. |
I'll try to do a demo were i'll use blitter to do cp2 160x100 and see how much fps we can get. I'm not suggesting to change it's rendering engine, I don't see why doing only "texture" walls at 2x2 or worse. Why don't consider just "flat" rendering on A500 and having better visual outcome?
Back in the day, even though I fully understood Amiga limits, I never liked 2x2 rendering |
Quote:
I'll try to set a demo. |
I can respect not liking 2x2 rendering, but it considering what's being attempted here I don't see any other option. Remember, even Doom did 2x2 rendering for the main part of the screen in low-quality mode on PC (though overlays etc were kept at full-resolution).
By the way it's certainly possible I misread your intent, we're both non-native English speakers and that can cause confusion ;) |
Quote:
Instead of telling others how to program / manage their games; let's see yours :agree |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I allmost finished CHIP game, a simple puzzle game, but guess what? That guy disappeared...Allmost finished |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
I fear you need Blitter-nasty to get to the 1 million pixels per second, but then the CPU is totally blocked without FastRAM Do you have some calculations here? |
All times are GMT +2. The time now is 22:07. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.