TFX on a PiStorm32

[nikosidis]

Originally Posted by jotd

Vroom is already too fast for some machines. I have some requests to slow it down

it's by no means a 3D game, but a "classical" 2.5D racer. Amiga has no trouble with those (when done properly, see Chase HQ )

It is gfx corruption on anything faster than standard A1200.

[paraj]

v5 in the zone, consider this release candidate.

Changes:
- All versions now support new rendering code
- FPS display (As stated in previous posts it's more like ScreenRefreshRate/x) now prettier.
- Extra love for plain 020 version (seems to be most import version): If 060 is detected (important) unimplemented instructions are handled without exception (MULS.L/DIVS.L - could be improved...). Stupid _logbase in chipram fixed with extra relocs.

Similar stuff could be done for the other versions, but plain 020 one seems most important to people in the know, and the versions where hunk wizard did its magic would need serious work to get on par (the version with only 3 sections really need relocs done to move global variables out of chip mem...)

Quick video (PAL+plain 020 version) on 060): https://imgur.com/a/69mCVpy

Hard to meassure, but looks to me like it's now faster compared to previous version. Also added avatar for the first time to show my preference

[alexh]

Many thanks for all the hard work. I hope you had fun.

This game meant a lot to people who hung onto their Amiga's as their main computer a little longer than they should have (i.e. after 1998) like me

[tomcat666]

Thanx for the beta 5 It seems everything is ok. Quick test seems the fps are a bit faster (in PAL it is almost all the time solid 2 here), will test more tomorrow. Great work paraj!

[Karlos]

@paraj

Love the extremely relevant new avatar!

[Superman]

Just a quick test of the latest v5 on my A1200 with TF1230 50mhz in NTSC mode. Its definitely better than it was before

[ Show youtube player ]

[sokolovic]

I wonder if that kind of optimization was possible back in the days.... That's strange that such a 3D experts team like DID wasn't aware of everything you've done in a few time.

[Karlos]

Originally Posted by sokolovic

I wonder if that kind of optimization was possible back in the days.... That's strange that such a 3D experts team like DID wasn't aware of everything you've done in a few time.

It seems more like not realising the impact of certain design choices, like rendering straight to planes in chip memory. This may have seemed fine on a basic 020 with a bit of extra fast memory and an FPU, which was a common thing to have on ram expansion boards.

[redblade]

@Paraj Excellent work, love the new Avatar. I wonder if your release will become the new Frontier benchmark for new Amiga hardware

Originally Posted by DDNI

This progress is one of those totally unexpected developments that really delights! Thank you

Yes Youtubers will have to update their videos for the top 10 / 20 games or Top 10 3D games on the Amiga.

Originally Posted by sokolovic

I wonder if that kind of optimization was possible back in the days.... That's strange that such a 3D experts team like DID wasn't aware of everything you've done in a few time.

I guess lack of sales of the machine didn't help either, I'm also not too sure when Chunky to Planar became popular on Amiga and when faster routines were released. I think Gloom Deluxe was released 96 and that supported C2P so they knew they could get better results especially with better hardware.

How many colours is TFX? Is it dual play field with 16 colours? Would it have been possible to do a Amiga 3000 release as well with maybe Sprites used as the Aircraft console and 16 colours for earth, sky, buildings, enemies?

[pipper]

Originally Posted by Karlos

It seems more like not realising the impact of certain design choices, like rendering straight to planes in chip memory. This may have seemed fine on a basic 020 with a bit of extra fast memory and an FPU, which was a common thing to have on ram expansion boards.

It’s also possible they never got into the optimization phase to polish the performance. Just think of the trivial optimizations not done in TKG…
But true, it’s a pretty fundamental design choice that looks rather intentional than “hey, let’s keep it simple, stupid. Lets optimize later”

[Karlos]

Originally Posted by pipper

It’s also possible they never got into the optimization phase to polish the performance. Just think of the trivial optimizations not done in TKG…
But true, it’s a pretty fundamental design choice that looks rather intentional than “hey, let’s keep it simple, stupid. Lets optimize later”

That's why I keep wondering what else a full disassembly may reveal.

[coder76]

Looks great at least on a 68060 and Pistorm, but still unplayable on a 68030/50 MHz. I wonder what sort of optimizations would be needed for a fast 68030/50 MHz version?

Maybe drop Gouraud-shading and only go with flatshading, then no c2p is at least needed (not saying anyone should code this). Using a c2p really kills performance on a lower-end CPU Amiga, as then you can't use even blitter to clear previous frame, because all rendering is done in fast ram, and content is just copied to chip ram.

Or would it still be possible to do Gouraud shading effectively without a c2p on Amiga, I know full texturemapping is not generally doable without a c2p. Maybe some precomputed tables, that uses some approximations to Gouraud shading could work out.

[sokolovic]

Tested on a Blizzard 68030/50mhz, the game is now playable even with full details IMHO. Not butter smooth but when you grew up playing Frontier on an A500, this is much better.
I even got the impression that there isn't so much gain on framerate by lowering the details.
It would be nice to make a property readme detailling what have been done. This is great. Now I'm gonna print a key summary to play correctly.
Just a question, I don't get how is working the FPS counter. When flying I'm around it's 09/10 but when doing the infamous external to cockpit zoom number rise to 24/25 which seems illogical since the game is obviously struggling a bit more.

[Karlos]

Originally Posted by sokolovic

Tested on a Blizzard 68030/50mhz, the game is now playable even with full details IMHO. Not butter smooth but when you grew up playing Frontier on an A500, this is much better.
I even got the impression that there isn't so much gain on framerate by lowering the details.
It would be nice to make a property readme detailling what have been done. This is great. Now I'm gonna print a key summary to play correctly.
Just a question, I don't get how is working the FPS counter. When flying I'm around it's 09/10 but when doing the infamous external to cockpit zoom number rise to 24/25 which seems illogical since the game is obviously struggling a bit more.

It's not the frame rate, it's the number of vblanks I believe. If you are on a 50Hz PAL display, the frame rate is 50/V where V is the number on screen.

[sokolovic]

Originally Posted by Karlos

It's not the frame rate, it's the number of vblanks I believe. If you are on a 50Hz PAL display, the frame rate is 50/V where V is the number on screen.

Perfect ! It is Indeed slightly better in NTSC

[Karlos]

Originally Posted by coder76

Looks great at least on a 68060 and Pistorm, but still unplayable on a 68030/50 MHz. I wonder what sort of optimizations would be needed for a fast 68030/50 MHz version?

Maybe drop Gouraud-shading and only go with flatshading, then no c2p is at least needed (not saying anyone should code this). Using a c2p really kills performance on a lower-end CPU Amiga, as then you can't use even blitter to clear previous frame, because all rendering is done in fast ram, and content is just copied to chip ram.

You are making an assumption that it's necessary to clear the buffer. It may not be. Given distance shading and haze effects I suspect the entire frame is overdrawn completely every time anyway.

Or would it still be possible to do Gouraud shading effectively without a c2p on Amiga, I know full texturemapping is not generally doable without a c2p. Maybe some precomputed tables, that uses some approximations to Gouraud shading could work out.

I'll be honest, I'm not convinced about the Gouraud shading in many of the exterior shots where it actually looks more like a textured approximation of shading. You may notice it doesn't really vary as the aircraft moves around.

[coder76]

Originally Posted by Karlos

You are making an assumption that it's necessary to clear the buffer. It may not be. Given distance shading and haze effects I suspect the entire frame is overdrawn completely every time anyway.

Yes, but even then I would use blitter to draw horizon gradient, either in fill mode, or then use the faster blitter clear mode, and change clear data on the fly. And then clear rest of planes in the same go.

I'll be honest, I'm not convinced about the Gouraud shading in many of the exterior shots where it actually looks more like a textured approximation of shading. You may notice it doesn't really vary as the aircraft moves around.

Could be, I have only videos available right now, haven't analyzed it in more detail.

[Karlos]

Originally Posted by coder76

Yes, but even then I would use blitter to draw horizon gradient, either in fill mode, or then use the faster blitter clear mode, and change clear data on the fly. And then clear rest of planes in the same go.

Could be, I have only videos available right now, haven't analyzed it in more detail.

The horizon gradient is properly perpendicular to the horizon. How many blitter operations to fill the horizon at a 45 degree roll angle?

[Aardvark]

Gouraud and textures can be disabled separately in game config.

Both enabled:

Gouraud disabled:

Both disabled:

[Karlos]

Well that answers the question regarding whether or not the fuselage is really shaded or not.