English Amiga Board


Go Back   English Amiga Board > Main > Amiga scene

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 23 February 2015, 15:24   #161
TCD
Registered User

TCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Germany
Age: 39
Posts: 24,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovacm View Post
"Braben originally programmed the game for the Amiga in 68000 assembly language. It had roughly 250,000 lines of code, which were ported from 68000 assembler to the PC's 80286 assembler by Chris Sawyer."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fronti...nt_and_release
When you look at the cited page for this statement (http://www.frontier.co.uk/games/older/frontier_elite_ii), you won't find the information about it being developed for the Amiga first. Especially when it comes to computer/video games I'd take Wiki's information with a grain of salt.
TCD is offline  
AdSense AdSense  
Old 23 February 2015, 17:21   #162
pandy71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: PL
Posts: 1,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Megol View Post
It's obvious that you have no experience with the CGA standard... The Atari ST is superior.
But the lack of hardware scrolling is very strange...

Edit:
Atari ST modes: 320x200 16 colors, 640x200 4 colors, 640x400 2 colors (requires special monitor), palette of 512 (3-3-3 R-G-B)
CGA modes: 160x200 16 colors*, 320x200 4 colors, 640x200 2 colors, palette of 16** (1-1-1-1 R-G-B-I)

(* actually an undocumented text mode, no commonly used)
(** actually this is even less impressive as the colors aren't freely selectable - hence the characteristic "CGA look")
Well - one big change is definable CLUT not present in CGA, side to this all problems related to MC6845 seem to be valid for Atari design.

And yes, i know that CGA was Digital video signal (DAC was placed in each monitor, in Amiga this role is performed by VIDIOT).
My point was resolutions (CGA have limited to 16KB buffer - that's why i pointed CGA + HGC).
Hope this is clear, provided this feedback only to answer your doubts.
From my side this is all.

I addressed comparison problem between A1200 and Falcon earlier saying that there was no DSP in standard in Amiga, A1200 was not equipped with 68030 by default either.
pandy71 is offline  
Old 23 February 2015, 18:30   #163
dlfrsilver
CaptainM68K-SPS France
dlfrsilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melun nearby Paris/France
Age: 40
Posts: 7,175
Send a message via MSN to dlfrsilver
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovacm View Post
"Braben originally programmed the game for the Amiga in 68000 assembly language. It had roughly 250,000 lines of code, which were ported from 68000 assembler to the PC's 80286 assembler by Chris Sawyer."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fronti...nt_and_release
I was sure you went on wikipedia. Sorry, but this information is wrong. It is just said on frontier webpage that the game was made in 68000 assembler, with not specification. However, back in the day, i read in french magazines that Braben was an "openly ST fanboy" bragging out about the ST CPU clocked higher !

As such, i have removed on Wikipedia this false entry.


Quote:
ok. what game than does use blitter instead of CPU for 3D?

btw more sensible explanation than "it is ST game port so there is no blitter use" is that blitter is not used since Elite II appear in time when there were more powerfull machines than plain ST or A500 where blitter is slower than main CPU.

and where did you find that "David Braben was an ST fanboy"? As I read, he was more BBS/Archimedes fan since best, most complete, version of Elite 1 is for Archimedes. Zarch is also writen first Archimedes...
I read it back in the day in french magazines. I'll try to find back an article or interview about this matter.
dlfrsilver is offline  
Old 23 February 2015, 20:07   #164
amilo3438
Amiga 500 User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: EU
Posts: 1,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlfrsilver View Post
I was sure you went on wikipedia. Sorry, but this information is wrong. It is just said on frontier webpage that the game was made in 68000 assembler, with not specification. However, back in the day, i read in french magazines that Braben was an "openly ST fanboy" bragging out about the ST CPU clocked higher !

As such, i have removed on Wikipedia this false entry.

http://www.elitearchives.co.uk/the-e...ives/frontier/

quote:
"David began programming Frontier on the Commodore 64, but then later moved development onto an Amiga computer which had far less limitations than the Commodore 64."


EDIT:
http://www.mobygames.com/game/frontier-elite-ii

quote:
"Development

It took David Braben five years to develop Frontier: Elite II. He started programming it on Commodore 64 but eventually continued the development on Amiga computers instead, as the C64 was not only becoming out of fashion, but had way too many technical limitations for this type of game."

Last edited by amilo3438; 23 February 2015 at 20:21.
amilo3438 is offline  
Old 23 February 2015, 20:56   #165
TCD
Registered User

TCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Germany
Age: 39
Posts: 24,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by amilo3438 View Post
http://www.elitearchives.co.uk/the-e...ives/frontier/

quote:
"David began programming Frontier on the Commodore 64, but then later moved development onto an Amiga computer which had far less limitations than the Commodore 64."
Thank you for the proper citation HOL updated.
TCD is offline  
Old 23 February 2015, 21:19   #166
dlfrsilver
CaptainM68K-SPS France
dlfrsilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melun nearby Paris/France
Age: 40
Posts: 7,175
Send a message via MSN to dlfrsilver
Verified : In the génération 4 magazine n°63, page 111, the game has been tested AFTER on PC and atari ST, the amiga is coming BEFORE (tested in Gen 4 n°59 page 89.

I'll post next informations i found here

Last edited by dlfrsilver; 23 February 2015 at 21:30.
dlfrsilver is offline  
Old 23 February 2015, 21:29   #167
amilo3438
Amiga 500 User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: EU
Posts: 1,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlfrsilver View Post
the game has been tested first on PC and atari ST, the amiga is coming after.
tested or developed !?

p.s. I believe that elitearchives.co.uk has correct info.

The entire site is dedicated to the game of the elite (I see no reason why they would lie).
amilo3438 is offline  
Old 23 February 2015, 21:32   #168
dlfrsilver
CaptainM68K-SPS France
dlfrsilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melun nearby Paris/France
Age: 40
Posts: 7,175
Send a message via MSN to dlfrsilver
the amiga version was tested in october 93, while PC and ST versions were tested in march 94. The amiga test indicates that the game use 5 years old 3D routines (the game dev started in 1988 !)
dlfrsilver is offline  
Old 24 February 2015, 00:21   #169
kovacm
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Serbia
Posts: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlfrsilver View Post
the amiga version was tested in october 93, while PC and ST versions were tested in march 94. The amiga test indicates that the game use 5 years old 3D routines (the game dev started in 1988 !)
ok. if you wish to discus about 3D routines with blitter than you have another thread: http://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?t=77162
kovacm is offline  
Old 24 February 2015, 02:46   #170
Photon
Moderator
Photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hult / Sweden
Posts: 4,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCD View Post
Or simply: Does it pay off to improve the performance on the Amiga or would people still buy the game without the extra effort put in?
If they're fun anyway, they will of course Any game that's fun... well, you disregard the performance (which this thread is about surely). F.ex. Uno (being a Dan fan like me) played Gods to enjoy the graphics and then I... (oomph)...(wheeze)...suppose it works. But for me it was just too sluggish to enjoy.

Braben made only a few 16-bit games and spent years on them. They were ambitious with lots of effort in that direction. So his games are not quite like the 2D games with 10 bobs on screen and still struggling. It *is* simpler to write an assembler directive to swap scroll+bob routine between CPU and hardware mode, than for 3D because of (chipmem) polybuffers. It will be quite the smaller problem (for both bobs and polygons) if you plan for the hardware mode and port to CPU mode, but the main point is that it didn't happen (or any plans to use the hardware were aborted due to development cost reasons). Code one get one free! Best deal ever, except for Amiga users.

Same deal was available for PAL/NTSC sales, hence even arcade/action game ideas planned from the start to run only 25/30 fps.

So anyway, Braben is still a hero of mine for all sorts of reasons, not just being a great coder. It's just this frustration that so many games didn't take advantage of the beautifully conceived and balanced original chipset.

Speaking of Frontier, it would be a good "A1200 performance vs Falcon" game to pick actually. I'm not sure it would be fair to disallow 2MB extra ram for A1200 if it doesn't run on the 1MB Falcon, though.
Photon is offline  
Old 24 February 2015, 16:11   #171
dlfrsilver
CaptainM68K-SPS France
dlfrsilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melun nearby Paris/France
Age: 40
Posts: 7,175
Send a message via MSN to dlfrsilver
Well i guess that Frontier was delayed too long, i guess that using a technology 5 years old doesn't serve well the game. I note also that since the ST version came after, he has a bit tweaked or enhanced it.

Anyway, frontier elite II is very fast on A1200, because it's CPU driven.
dlfrsilver is offline  
Old 25 February 2015, 15:00   #172
kovacm
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Serbia
Posts: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandy71 View Post
For me it is clear - Atari (and Tramiels) at this stage are aware of Amiga existence and they have knowledge abot Amiga (Lorraine) capabilities, they need to create own design in short time to be first o market (RBP)
[ Show youtube player ]

Mac was already on market so he (Jack) was aiming at Mac:
- 2,5x cheaper
- faster memory access
- more max. memory
- fast ASCI DMA port
- mono monitor: bigger screen, bigger resolution, better refresh rate
- colors
- full keyboard
...every aspect of original Mac was improved in ST.
I firmly believe that Mac was primary role model when ST was designed and not Amiga (which was far from finished computer).
kovacm is offline  
Old 25 July 2017, 21:58   #173
Estrayk
Registered User

Estrayk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Spain
Posts: 86
Sorry for Open this old thread but today, I turn on my Falcon and checked some demos on it. I don't like very much Youtube for see demos, a demo is really enjoyed watching it on a real machine and....

Oh mY GOD !!!!!!!

[ Show youtube player ]

[ Show youtube player ]

Both in stock Falcon 030/16Mhz.
Do not tell me why, but the "Electric Night demo" framerate gives me the feeling that it is more fluid, or maybe more constant in my real Falcon than in the youtube video, anyway, I have not seen anything like it in a A1200 stock, even if fastram is added. I love both platforms, but I have to admit that having no c2p conversions and DSP support is noticeable. What a pity that they (Commodore) did not incorporate a DSP in the A1200, would not have had rival.

I also test the famous BadMood:
[ Show youtube player ]

Amiga & Atari forever! PC suxx !
Estrayk is offline  
Old 25 July 2017, 22:06   #174
bebek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Poole UK
Posts: 334
Shame these demos have no power. Unlike this one on C64 :

[ Show youtube player ]

and many others on Amiga
bebek is offline  
Old 25 July 2017, 23:41   #175
roondar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlfrsilver View Post
Well i guess that Frontier was delayed too long, i guess that using a technology 5 years old doesn't serve well the game. I note also that since the ST version came after, he has a bit tweaked or enhanced it.

Anyway, frontier elite II is very fast on A1200, because it's CPU driven.
Do note that Frontier Elite II does actually use the Blitter, it appears to use it to clear the screen. Very visible in the WinUAE Visual DMA debugger. As for tech, well in the end there are two problems to solve for a 3D game: the first is calculation where on the 2D screen what needs to be drawn and the second is how to fill the pixels quickly.

The first is definitely going to be faster using just the CPU.

As far as I've seen on EAB, the Amiga chipset can fill polygons but it's apparently not much faster than just using the CPU. And as soon as you add a faster CPU, it becomes less and less attractive to use the Blitter for drawing polygons. In essence, if you want the fastest possible 3D on expanded Amiga's (say a fast 68020 or any 68030+) it becomes better to use the CPU for all drawing.
roondar is offline  
Old 25 July 2017, 23:51   #176
Galahad/FLT
Going nowhere

Galahad/FLT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 44
Posts: 6,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by roondar View Post
Do note that Frontier Elite II does actually use the Blitter, it appears to use it to clear the screen. Very visible in the WinUAE Visual DMA debugger. As for tech, well in the end there are two problems to solve for a 3D game: the first is calculation where on the 2D screen what needs to be drawn and the second is how to fill the pixels quickly.

The first is definitely going to be faster using just the CPU.

As far as I've seen on EAB, the Amiga chipset can fill polygons but it's apparently not much faster than just using the CPU. And as soon as you add a faster CPU, it becomes less and less attractive to use the Blitter for drawing polygons. In essence, if you want the fastest possible 3D on expanded Amiga's (say a fast 68020 or any 68030+) it becomes better to use the CPU for all drawing.

I'm wondering if Elite 2 dispenses with the blitter if it detects a faster processor, because on 020/030/040/060 theres a huge speed increase, game is noticeably smoother as it appears to use a frame limiter for slower processors.
Galahad/FLT is offline  
Old 26 July 2017, 00:18   #177
roondar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galahad/FLT View Post
I'm wondering if Elite 2 dispenses with the blitter if it detects a faster processor, because on 020/030/040/060 theres a huge speed increase, game is noticeably smoother as it appears to use a frame limiter for slower processors.
Well, I was toying about in WinUAE anyway, so I did the test. As you can see in the attached thumbnails, both my A500 environment as well as the A3000 one I made (which is a 68030 at 'as fast as possible') use the Blitter.

I suppose the main program and calculations all running in fast ram do give it a lot more raster time even with the Blitter running though. More so since it appears to run at 25/30Hz max.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	frontier-A500.png
Views:	66
Size:	35.3 KB
ID:	53874   Click image for larger version

Name:	frontier-A3000.png
Views:	62
Size:	23.3 KB
ID:	53875  
roondar is offline  
Old 26 July 2017, 00:23   #178
Photon
Moderator
Photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hult / Sweden
Posts: 4,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by roondar View Post
Do note that Frontier Elite II does actually use the Blitter, it appears to use it to clear the screen. Very visible in the WinUAE Visual DMA debugger. As for tech, well in the end there are two problems to solve for a 3D game: the first is calculation where on the 2D screen what needs to be drawn and the second is how to fill the pixels quickly.

The first is definitely going to be faster using just the CPU.

As far as I've seen on EAB, the Amiga chipset can fill polygons but it's apparently not much faster than just using the CPU. And as soon as you add a faster CPU, it becomes less and less attractive to use the Blitter for drawing polygons. In essence, if you want the fastest possible 3D on expanded Amiga's (say a fast 68020 or any 68030+) it becomes better to use the CPU for all drawing.
The Blitter fills polygons faster than the CPU. It takes some understanding of the Blitter and some work to make a correct and fast Blitter polygon routine, though.

To save money and maximize profit, ST ports were very common. If a polygon routine used only the CPU, the game would be easier to port. Even for PAL only releases, the screen was shrunk and then the CPU would be decent at drawing the smaller polygons. This is why you see the ~320x160 screens in all these vector games.
Photon is offline  
Old 26 July 2017, 16:29   #179
roondar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 262
That's quite interesting. Do you know how much of a boost it roughly is to use the Blitter on an A500?

I ask that because a thread on EAB I read on using the Blitter for polygons seemed to me to conclude that is was faster, but not that much. If that's wrong, I'd like to know
roondar is offline  
Old 27 July 2017, 17:38   #180
Photon
Moderator
Photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hult / Sweden
Posts: 4,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by roondar View Post
That's quite interesting. Do you know how much of a boost it roughly is to use the Blitter on an A500?

I ask that because a thread on EAB I read on using the Blitter for polygons seemed to me to conclude that is was faster, but not that much. If that's wrong, I'd like to know
No-one can give such a figure, because the boost is not related to the speed of the A500 CPU vs speed of the Blitter.

Either rendering routine will be faster the more you optimize it , up to a point. That point is closer between the two when polygon size is very small, because the handling overhead is the same and the draw time is small enough that even the cycles for setting up the Blitter and get its pipeline filled and emptied are enough to affect the total time.
Photon is offline  
AdSense AdSense  
 


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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BEst of Amiga Demos 1988 Akira Nostalgia & memories 2 03 February 2012 20:01
Why so few NEW Amiga intros, demos, etc.? Crown Amiga scene 58 16 October 2009 14:53
Looking for actual AMIGA demos (A500) on Amiga Disks Gilbert request.Demos 8 20 July 2009 23:46
Amiga demos ? Tseki support.Demos 14 14 August 2008 12:26

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:29.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Page generated in 0.27441 seconds with 12 queries