Tfx Aga? - Page 11

apex · 09 January 2021, 14:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by jotd

No need to discuss the pros and cons of whdload to people who aren't interested. Lesson learned.
So only answering to tell you "you're welcome".

Damian use WinUAE, I am using real hardware and I see only advantages using WHDLoad. Please just ignore this discussion and go on with the WHDload version. Thank you very much.

DamienD · 09 January 2021, 16:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by apex

Damian use WinUAE, I am using real hardware and I see only advantages using WHDLoad.

Whether someone uses real hardware or emulates makes no difference...

The 3 x game EXEs work on either.

apex · 09 January 2021, 18:02

It make sense, because I cannot cut down my OS easily. To run normal HD games, I have to use my A1200/030. To run the big games I have to use my A1200/60, removing patches and other stuff or I use WHDLoad, then I have no problems.
From the perspective using real hardware, WHDLoad makes absolutely sense. ;-)

Angus · 09 January 2021, 19:36

I appreciate it must be jolly good fun, running round implying people are thick, and talking about rocket science.

This is what you were saying in April. You were wrong then too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamienD

Have you even ever installed the native version of TFX?

It runs fine on:

(a) TFX_020 BETA exec (requires FPU)
(b) TFX_030 BETA exec (requires FPU)
(c) TFX_040 BETA exec (requires 68040/060 CPU)

jotd · 09 January 2021, 20:31

indeed those beta ersions are broken beyond repair except for the 020 if you hack the exe so data hunk is in chipmem.

no answer from Charlie either... sad

DaveTaylor · 09 January 2021, 20:57

The 020 beta exe is from the end of 1997. It's the latest touch of the original coder. All other working exes are from early 1995.
Good that you made it running, JOTD.

See screenshot here.

http://eab.abime.net/showpost.php?p=362737&postcount=43

By the way, the whole thread is old, but interesting.

jotd · 09 January 2021, 22:03

020 beta is 571008 bytes, it's the latest version we have, and is also using 68881 FPU routines.

Which means that if I can fix FPU instructions so they use 68040/060 FPU emulation this could be the fastest version around on real machines.

Today this latest executable only runs on 68020/030+FPU and not on 68040/68060. No 68040 version has been made. The so called 040 beta version (599152 bytes) doesn't use the FPU at all. Maybe it uses 68040 instructions, but I'm not sure. Besides it's from 1995 as well. Not really useful except for me because the executable has symbols.

On WinUAE it runs on 68040/060 because by default unimplemented FPU instructions are transparently emulated (but you have to force the FPU attnflags bit, this can be done using 68040.library/oxypatcher whatever or removing the check, but winuae does the job, not oxypatcher (oxypatcher does a terrible job on that game: it just makes computations fail)

Angus · 09 January 2021, 23:18

Does Cyberpatcher perform any better, Jean-Francois?

By the way, if I remember correctly at one point Charlie had access to somebody's 040, but later on he was doing his best to make the 040 code work without having one to test it on. I don't think he ever had access to an 060.

jotd · 09 January 2021, 23:29

Didn't test cyberpatcher TBH, and I don't think I will. Even if it works I don't think I can use the result anyway.

I have math source code I can plug into the FPU version, will do that.

dlfrsilver · 10 January 2021, 02:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by jotd

indeed those beta ersions are broken beyond repair except for the 020 if you hack the exe so data hunk is in chipmem.

no answer from Charlie either... sad

there : https://www.linkedin.com/in/charlie-wallace-281143/

jotd · 10 January 2021, 10:50

contacting people you don't know on linked in requires pro account. Asking the man to be part of his network just to ask something is bound to fail. I've already tried that with Sean Griffiths and got no answer.

jotd · 11 January 2021, 00:11

holy crap! I adapted the motorola FPSP code, compiled it, ran it in background, and ran the FPU program on a 68040 setup, no unimplemented instructions emulated.

And it bloody WORKED!

So now here comes the easy part. I need your inputs. 68040 and 68060 users on real machines.

What I'd like to do is a blind test so people aren't influenced by the setup

So, basically, I'm going to create an amiga shell that runs TFX with various configurations. Your task shall you accept it will be to test those configs with the same level of detail and tell me which one is the best (without looking inside the script so you don't know which setup it is).

I'm going to provide the set of executables and the "fpsp" emulation code + slave so you can just upgrade and test easily.

Note: Winuae users can help if they want, but they'll have to untick the "unimplemented FPU instruction" box, else that will be cheating since WinUAE does the job.

Angus · 11 January 2021, 01:11

Wow, sounds cool, Jean-Francois. Nice work! :-)

jotd · 11 January 2021, 01:24

Tested on 68060 doesn't seem to work yet, but I think it may work on properly configured systems.

pipper · 11 January 2021, 10:40

What is FPSP and how does it work?

alexh · 11 January 2021, 10:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by pipper

What is FPSP and how does it work?

https://android.googlesource.com/ker...sp060/fpsp.doc

Angus · 11 January 2021, 15:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexh

https://android.googlesource.com/ker...sp060/fpsp.doc

Yeah.................... but what IS it?!

Floating Point Simulation Program?

jotd · 11 January 2021, 16:44

something like that yes.

FLOATING-POINT SOFTWARE PACKAGE

software-emulate the unimplemented exceptions, but use the implemented exceptions. Won't work on a 68040 or 060 without FPU at all.

tolkien · 11 January 2021, 17:41

Dont know what happends in my a1260. The normal EXE works but whdload version fails to starts with a black screen and I have to reboot.

I'll go trying future versions but I think this is a good job anyway.

jotd · 11 January 2021, 17:58

are you using the "auto" config in whdload? Strange. works on 060 with the nofpu exe ("TFX") on my setup, fails on FPU (for the moment hehe)

09 January 2021, 20:57	#206
DaveTaylor Registered User Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Japan Posts: 100	The 020 beta exe is from the end of 1997. It's the latest touch of the original coder. All other working exes are from early 1995. Good that you made it running, JOTD. See screenshot here. http://eab.abime.net/showpost.php?p=362737&postcount=43 By the way, the whole thread is old, but interesting. Last edited by DaveTaylor; 09 January 2021 at 21:13.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Looking for TFX	apollo630	request.Old Rare Games	3	21 December 2011 22:20
Tfx	Johnyt	request.Old Rare Games	125	17 August 2008 14:06
Tfx	Independent	HOL contributions	8	06 February 2007 19:31
Tfx	macce2	request.Old Rare Games	10	21 August 2006 19:31
Tfx	forumbase	request.Old Rare Games	16	30 May 2006 00:57

09 January 2021, 18:02	#203
apex Registered User Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Amigaplanet Posts: 551	It make sense, because I cannot cut down my OS easily. To run normal HD games, I have to use my A1200/030. To run the big games I have to use my A1200/60, removing patches and other stuff or I use WHDLoad, then I have no problems. From the perspective using real hardware, WHDLoad makes absolutely sense. ;-)

09 January 2021, 20:31	#205
jotd This cat is no more Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: FRANCE Age: 49 Posts: 5,103	indeed those beta ersions are broken beyond repair except for the 020 if you hack the exe so data hunk is in chipmem. no answer from Charlie either... sad

09 January 2021, 22:03	#207
jotd This cat is no more Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: FRANCE Age: 49 Posts: 5,103	020 beta is 571008 bytes, it's the latest version we have, and is also using 68881 FPU routines. Which means that if I can fix FPU instructions so they use 68040/060 FPU emulation this could be the fastest version around on real machines. Today this latest executable only runs on 68020/030+FPU and not on 68040/68060. No 68040 version has been made. The so called 040 beta version (599152 bytes) doesn't use the FPU at all. Maybe it uses 68040 instructions, but I'm not sure. Besides it's from 1995 as well. Not really useful except for me because the executable has symbols. On WinUAE it runs on 68040/060 because by default unimplemented FPU instructions are transparently emulated (but you have to force the FPU attnflags bit, this can be done using 68040.library/oxypatcher whatever or removing the check, but winuae does the job, not oxypatcher (oxypatcher does a terrible job on that game: it just makes computations fail)

09 January 2021, 23:18	#208
Angus Amiga Games Database Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: South West England Posts: 782	Does Cyberpatcher perform any better, Jean-Francois? By the way, if I remember correctly at one point Charlie had access to somebody's 040, but later on he was doing his best to make the 040 code work without having one to test it on. I don't think he ever had access to an 060.

09 January 2021, 23:29	#209
jotd This cat is no more Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: FRANCE Age: 49 Posts: 5,103	Didn't test cyberpatcher TBH, and I don't think I will. Even if it works I don't think I can use the result anyway. I have math source code I can plug into the FPU version, will do that.

10 January 2021, 10:50	#211
jotd This cat is no more Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: FRANCE Age: 49 Posts: 5,103	contacting people you don't know on linked in requires pro account. Asking the man to be part of his network just to ask something is bound to fail. I've already tried that with Sean Griffiths and got no answer.

11 January 2021, 00:11	#212
jotd This cat is no more Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: FRANCE Age: 49 Posts: 5,103	holy crap! I adapted the motorola FPSP code, compiled it, ran it in background, and ran the FPU program on a 68040 setup, no unimplemented instructions emulated. And it bloody WORKED! So now here comes the easy part. I need your inputs. 68040 and 68060 users on real machines. What I'd like to do is a blind test so people aren't influenced by the setup So, basically, I'm going to create an amiga shell that runs TFX with various configurations. Your task shall you accept it will be to test those configs with the same level of detail and tell me which one is the best (without looking inside the script so you don't know which setup it is). I'm going to provide the set of executables and the "fpsp" emulation code + slave so you can just upgrade and test easily. Note: Winuae users can help if they want, but they'll have to untick the "unimplemented FPU instruction" box, else that will be cheating since WinUAE does the job.

11 January 2021, 01:11	#213
Angus Amiga Games Database Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: South West England Posts: 782	Wow, sounds cool, Jean-Francois. Nice work! :-)

11 January 2021, 01:24	#214
jotd This cat is no more Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: FRANCE Age: 49 Posts: 5,103	Tested on 68060 doesn't seem to work yet, but I think it may work on properly configured systems.

11 January 2021, 10:40	#215
pipper Registered User Join Date: Jul 2017 Location: San Jose Posts: 278	What is FPSP and how does it work?

11 January 2021, 16:44	#218
jotd This cat is no more Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: FRANCE Age: 49 Posts: 5,103	something like that yes. FLOATING-POINT SOFTWARE PACKAGE software-emulate the unimplemented exceptions, but use the implemented exceptions. Won't work on a 68040 or 060 without FPU at all.

11 January 2021, 17:41	#219
tolkien AmigaMan Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Castro Urdiales/Spain Posts: 658	Dont know what happends in my a1260. The normal EXE works but whdload version fails to starts with a black screen and I have to reboot. I'll go trying future versions but I think this is a good job anyway.

11 January 2021, 17:58	#220
jotd This cat is no more Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: FRANCE Age: 49 Posts: 5,103	are you using the "auto" config in whdload? Strange. works on 060 with the nofpu exe ("TFX") on my setup, fails on FPU (for the moment hehe)

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)