Outrun AGA

[eXeler0]

Ok,
so that was a follow up to a previous post (#85) where there was a spec which was quite specific.. about double the clock of an original A1200+ fastram. That was indeed my first expansion (A Blizzard 1220) in 1994 which turned the A1200 from mainly useless quite to useful. After that games like Frontier went from painful to wonderful.
So why do you feel the need to go to extremes with that interpretation? Yes it becomes a dumb question if you read your own (dumb) things into it that.. Explain to me where you got the idea I was asking about some "no limit CPU that would bottleneck the AGA"

Originally Posted by Tigerskunk

Sorry, don't want to be rude here, but that's kind of a dumb question.
You can solve about any computational problem with throwing just enough power and RAM at it.

So, just use your fantasy and envision a crazy super detailed 3D engine game with amazing textures and an extensive sound mixer engine, only hindered by AGA capabilities. Means, it would need to run in 8 bitplane or HAM8 and 4 channel sound.

It would be looking great, but in the end it would not have much to do with the Amiga chipset and its capabilities except it actively hindering the game.
Almost anything would be happening in fast RAM being rendered by the CPU, and the rest of the Amiga hardware would be being a frame and sounds buffer, and that's it.

So basically trying to be kind of overcomplicated PC hardware.

[K1200RS21]

using an A1200 without fast has always been very stupid !

[saimon69]

Originally Posted by K1200RS21

using an A1200 without fast has always been very stupid !

That is the fault of Commodore and whomever produced the 1200 afterwards: did not gave us any

[agermose]

Originally Posted by eXeler0

Depends, people set up all sorts of "what if goals". I'm totally on with the idea of trying to get the best possible Outrun port of a stock A500. Same with DREAD for e.g. , it just wouldn't be nearly as interesting if it was targeting a 030 AGA..
But as for Outrun AGA..
My question was actually, what a faster CPU would bring to the table.. What previously impossible things would become possible? Why can't that question be asked without judgement? Just asking
(And.. We sort of know it took the power of the Sega Saturn to get a truly "perfect" (better even) port. )

You can ask any question you want, and if you notice I did try and reply to your "what-if" question above

[agermose]

Originally Posted by saimon69

This means - if am correct, AGA dual playfield and a separate 16 color palette for the Ferrari if is a composite sprite - that should be good

AGA dual playfield correct yes. The Ferrari is not done using hardware sprites. It is 80 pixels wide, which would require 4 hardware sprites to be allocated for it alone (attached mode), and I'm using hw sprites for other purposes as well.

[kjmann14]

https://eab.abime.net/showpost.php?p...&postcount=388

[saimon69]

Originally Posted by agermose

AGA dual playfield correct yes. The Ferrari is not done using hardware sprites. It is 80 pixels wide, which would require 4 hardware sprites to be allocated for it alone (attached mode), and I'm using hw sprites for other purposes as well.

Being a practical person on pixel art i would structure palette like this, and i think you did: you have three shades of red for the car, two grays,a reserverd color for brakes, white, black and seven custom colors for other parts/cars/driver and girl

[Reynolds]

Originally Posted by apex

2022 everything will be hopefully better.

Well...

[axilmar]

Originally Posted by agermose

Since there is no super-duper sprite scaler available the sprites frames in-between the fixed frames (5 per object) have to be pre-drawn.

You could imitate sprite scaling with the blitter.

An image could be 'enlarged' by blitting parts of it onto itself, with a few rows/columns repeated.

Then, at the next frame, instead of scaling the original image, do the above to the already scaled image.

If you do that repeatedly on a scaled image, the effect will be similar to sprite scaling.

[Tigerskunk]

Originally Posted by eXeler0

Ok,
so that was a follow up to a previous post (#85) where there was a spec which was quite specific.. about double the clock of an original A1200+ fastram. That was indeed my first expansion (A Blizzard 1220) in 1994 which turned the A1200 from mainly useless quite to useful. After that games like Frontier went from painful to wonderful.
So why do you feel the need to go to extremes with that interpretation? Yes it becomes a dumb question if you read your own (dumb) things into it that.. Explain to me where you got the idea I was asking about some "no limit CPU that would bottleneck the AGA"

I am just extrapolating in my post.
In the end you are on an axis from "Amiga<---->doing it the PC way". That's what I am saying.

Saying the vanilla A1200 is "useless" just because it wasn't good enough to run a 3D game (something which the Amiga with its planar display was never really good at) is a bit weird, imo. I concur the A1200 is pretty useless to run a more than 4 colour Workbench without fast RAM, but after coding a bit for the A1200 and AGA, I feel for games it's a quite rounded machine with a lot of power, actually. It just hasn't been exploited ot its fullest potential like OCS has been. Although that's changing a bit now.

From my point of view fast RAM on a vanilla machine is extremely useful if you are doing CPU intensive computations (eg 3D stuff).

For anything else, especially chipset related stuff: not that much.

And more mhz for the CPU obviously lets you do more stuff per frame.

[jotd]

For anything else, especially chipset related stuff: not that much.

Sure, there's the blitter bottleneck, but I've patched some CD32 games so they can run with fastmem (Ultimate Body Blows, Chaos Engine) and the difference of speed shows.

Specially when you have a CPU accelerator which slows down code execution in chipmem (as compared as vanilla 020 CPU)

[Tigerskunk]

Originally Posted by jotd

Specially when you have a CPU accelerator which slows down code execution in chipmem (as compared as vanilla 020 CPU)

Out of curiosity, which parts in these games benefitted the most from using fast mem? Plus, how was this noticable in those games.

I experimented using fast mem for Inviyya2, but in the end I felt that slight increase in code execution speed wasn't worth giving up on the vanilla config for it.
Ymmv off course.

I guess with accelerators these things change rapidly, though as seen in that Final Fight Demo with 64k fast and a 68040 CPU.

[jotd]

loading of course, but for Ultimate BB, the game was so fast it was almost unplayable.

If you can support vanilla A1200 yes fastmem should only be an option.

[mindvoid]

are you using the cannon ball source as guide to the outrun engine ?
i would like to know more if possible, pm me if possible.

[agermose]

Due to events surrounding another project, I’m no longer updating this thread. Sorry.

[DanyPPC]

New Year, new projects.
Every year a lot of game engines / demo / conversions are showed to the Amiga public, but most of these will never be completed.

I know that every project requires a lot of effort and time, so thank you very much also for the single demo released. Even a demo can make you dream, and Amiga users are very dreamy.

[agermose]

Originally Posted by DanyPPC

New Year, new projects.
Every year a lot of game engines / demo / conversions are showed to the Amiga public, but most of these will never be completed.

I know that every project requires a lot of effort and time, so thank you very much also for the single demo released. Even a demo can make you dream, and Amiga users are very dreamy.

No updates does not imply no progress
Head over to the 1942 thread to understand why there are no updates.

Keep dreaming!

[DanyPPC]

Yes, always dreaming !

[agermose]

Dreams may come true.

[dlfrsilver]

Originally Posted by agermose

Dreams may come true.Attachment 78154

Ah cool