Been reading about amiga stuff lately, and I'm amazed by Individual Computers Indivision and ACA boards.
I am neither a software or hardware engineer, so please excuse my ignorance regarding the following, but I'm just curious about this..
Todays (or yesterdays) tiny and cheap gfx processors for mobile or embedded devices could provide better 2D graphics performance than any classic amiga computer could ever wish for.
How much more work would it require for someone to make a gfx-card for the amiga1200 in comparison to the work required by mad scientist J.Schoenfeld to make flickerfixers?
Even if we forget about 3D, I realize that software and drivers would be more demanding, but how much so?
- Would it be just a matter of writing a driver for Picasso 96?
- Would the picasso 96 software require an update itself?
- Did GPU hardware evolve too much for old software models to take advantage of its 2D capabilities?
- To what degree could a new driver take advantage of open source linux drivers?
From what I understand the best way for flickerfixers to be connected to an a1200 is to the Lisa chip directly. I guess the only option for an a1200 RTG card is the main expansion port?
So, how unrealistic is an expansion board like the ACA1230, but with a a graphics card, and an internal DVI cable to join the output from the Indivision?
Guess it would be a tight fit, but BPPC/BVision fit inside an a1200d, didn't it?