Forums - All Posts - The Amigans website

Forum Index

Board index » All Posts (tfrieden)

Bottom

« 1 ... 4 5 6 (7) 8 »

tfrieden

Re: OpenGL on OS4?

Posted on: 2007/11/29 13:12 #121

Just popping in

@Cool_amigaN

Quote:

So I supposed that OS4 was making full use of 3D hardware allready!

It doesn't use any 3d hardware for this.

Topic | Forum

tfrieden

Re: OpenGL on OS4?

Posted on: 2007/11/29 12:55 #122

Just popping in

@Cool_amigaN

Quote:

Cool_amigaN wrote:
May I ask something else. If you get MESA, MiniGL or anything similar that will mean that you have 3D hardware properly? What is the main problem (except drivers of course!) to have fully 3D hardware capabilities?

There is no problem. The drivers ARE the problem.

As I said above, porting Mesa (and thus a fully OpenGL 2.1 compliant implementation) is a no-brainer, that will give you a fully compliant software-rendering implementation.

The problem is creating a driver, and integrating it into the system.

Topic | Forum

tfrieden

Re: OpenGL on OS4?

Posted on: 2007/11/29 12:44 #123

Just popping in

@Elwood

Quote:

Elwood wrote:
Is it possible to have a rough idea of the difference between both needed efforts? Does OpenGL need twice time than MiniGL? 5 times?

Sorry, but you are comparing apples and oranges.

An "OpenGL" does not exist, it's a standard API that someone can implement.

There are two possibilities: Implementing the OpenGL API, or porting an existing implementation.

Implementing a full OpenGL is an effort beyond anything that the Amiga developers can pull off. So the only viable solution is a port of an existing OpenGL. Most likely Mesa.

Porting Mesa is a no-brainer. Doing the hardware drivers for it is another matter. A software-only mesa port can be done in several hours (already did that). That does not give you a usable OpenGL implementation, though.

Implementing a hardware driver requires a lot more work and knowledge about the chip. And even then, there's other things to consider, namely interaction with the existing "2d" graphics driver, contention for the hardware, etc.

This is not something that can be done cleanly by a third party, as Hans-J?rg and me had to learn with Warp3D. Any solution that you can do "from outside" has to cope with a lot of shortcomings. The result will never be optimal, and will not allow the full capabilities of the hardware to be used.

Topic | Forum

tfrieden

Re: There is hope for OS4 on the Classic.

Posted on: 2007/11/20 12:06 #124

Just popping in

@Catalist

Quote:

I really don't think much, if any, time has been spent over the last 4 years, developing to support the Classic Amiga A1200, maybe not even the A4000.

As if you had a frigging clue...

Neither Mediator nor Prometheus are capable of DMA (as in direct *MEMORY* access). Period. Mediator can busmaster between PCI cards, but that's it.

*IF* we were to support this kludge, we would need to change each and every driver that we have to support it. This is not realistic.

Bottom line, either the PCI busboards support DMA into the Amiga's main memory directly, or not. They don't. Hence, no DMA capabilities. Simple as that.

Topic | Forum

tfrieden

Re: Quake 3 HELP

Posted on: 2007/10/11 16:28 #125

Just popping in

@MamePPCA1

Quote:

I have adirectory called Quake3UT (Urban Terror).
Now I changed the files to baseQ3 and the result is the same except the HD now makes noise and the memory slow down.

Can you PLEASE re-read what I wrote before ? I said the quake3 binary must be in the same directory as the baseq3 directory. The latter comes from the Quake 3 install CD. You CAN NOT simply rename a random directory to baseq3 and expect that it works...

jahc's description is very accurate, if you do it like this, you should be fine. For a full reference, I've copied a listing of my Quake 3 directory here:

dh2:Games/quake3 contains this:

Quote:

Directory "quake3" on Thursday 11-Oct-07
q3 104 -s--rw-d 27-Apr-07 12:43:40
baseq3 Dir ----rwed 18-Apr-07 20:35:37
.q3a Dir ----rwed 25-Jul-07 21:51:21
q3.info 2111 ----rwed 18-Apr-07 20:34:03
quake3 4871204 ----rwed 18-Apr-07 20:32:55
README 1048 ----rwed 18-Apr-07 20:31:47

baseq3 contains this:

Quote:

Directory "baseq3" on Thursday 11-Oct-07
pak0.pk3 479493658 ----rw-d 18-Apr-07 20:36:49
q3key 167 ----rw-d 18-Apr-07 20:35:37
pak1.pk3 374405 ----rw-d 18-Apr-07 20:35:37
pak2.pk3 7511182 ----rw-d 18-Apr-07 20:35:37
pak3.pk3 276305 ----rw-d 18-Apr-07 20:35:36
pak4.pk3 9600350 ----rw-d 18-Apr-07 20:35:36
pak5.pk3 191872 ----rw-d 18-Apr-07 20:35:34
pak6.pk3 7346884 ----rw-d 18-Apr-07 20:35:34
pak7.pk3 320873 ----rw-d 18-Apr-07 20:35:33
pak8.pk3 454478 ----rw-d 18-Apr-07 20:35:33
q3config.cfg 6759 ----rw-d 18-Apr-07 20:35:33

Topic | Forum

tfrieden

Re: Quake 3 HELP

Posted on: 2007/10/10 12:38 #126

Just popping in

@nubechecorre

Quote:

nubechecorre wrote:
anyone that could remake the porting for Quake 3 ??

Go ahead

Topic | Forum

tfrieden

Re: Quake 3 HELP

Posted on: 2007/10/9 10:46 #127

Just popping in

@Snuffy

Quote:

May I ask what video card you are using?

First Voodoo 5, now a Radeon 7200

Topic | Forum

tfrieden

Re: Quake 3 HELP

Posted on: 2007/10/8 12:54 #128

Just popping in

@ikir

Quote:

Anyway Q3 for OS4 crash and freeze your machine after a random time. It happes to the majority of users i dn't know if it is a Q3 issue or Warp3D one.

Strange, this didn't happen for me, I could play it for over an hour without problem.

How much memory do you have ? Anything that eats up memory, like, for example, something that generates a big log file in t: ?

Topic | Forum

tfrieden

Re: Quake 3 HELP

Posted on: 2007/10/8 12:53 #129

Just popping in

@Antique

Quote:

this is where i have quake3.
Progs:quake3/baseq3

Reading the documentation is definitely a good idea: It says:

Unpack Quake 3 data files to a directoy (say, dh1:games/Quake3), and extract the archive there.
(As a reference, the quake3 binary should be in the same directory as the "baseq3" directory).

Note: quake3 binary should be in the same directory as the baseq3 directory, NOT IN the baseq3 directory...

Topic | Forum

tfrieden

Re: Quake 3 HELP

Posted on: 2007/10/5 17:25 #130

Just popping in

@MamePPCA1

Quote:

No it doesn't output to nothing I say the results are the same than running with the PNG icon.

Try this (in the quake3 directory)

makedir .q3a
quake3 +set fs_homepath <path to your quake 3 directory>/quake3/.q3a +set r_colorbits 16

Quote:

How much memory the game requires?

I had it running with 256 MB. This works for the base game (although some mods need more than that).

Topic | Forum

tfrieden

Re: Quake 3 HELP

Posted on: 2007/10/5 11:16 #131

Just popping in

@MamePPCA1

Quote:

I have done the steps you give me on your post and the result is exactly the same as if I am running with the PNG
icon.

Does that mean it outputs nothing ? If you enter "quake3" and press enter, it directly returns to the shell prompt ? Or does it output anything ? Does it return to the shell at all ?

I'm really sorry, but if you don't even give such basic information, no one can help you.

Topic | Forum

tfrieden

Re: Quake 3 HELP

Posted on: 2007/10/4 14:54 #132

Just popping in

@MamePPCA1

Quote:

MamePPCA1 wrote:
@tfrieden

It doesn't start neither any window opens when I click on the Q3 PNG icon.

Help is very aprecciated.

Please start it from a shell. If there's any problem, it will output it on a shell which you can of course not see when you are starting it via an icon...

Also, make sure you have enough stack... it needs a good 1MB to run:

stack 1000000
quake3

Also, make sure that you have a supported Warp3D graphics card. Quake 3 does not support software rendering, it MUST have 3d hardware. You might want to try one of the MiniGL demos available to verify that it works.

Topic | Forum

tfrieden

Re: Quake 3 HELP

Posted on: 2007/10/1 15:00 #133

Just popping in

@MamePPCA1

Uhm... If you could give a little more detail you might get some help...

What doesn't work ? Doesn't start ? Crashes when starting ? any message ?

Topic | Forum

tfrieden

Re: The Memory Protection Debacle

Posted on: 2007/8/15 13:33 #134

Just popping in

In addition to the protection aspects mentioned by others (protection from buggy programs, protection of system structures, protection of data that is security sensitive), there's another thing: available address space

If you run each process in a separate address space, you have the full address space available. This means you can do nifty things like allocate a large portion of address space for the stack and automatically map physical pages to the stack as it grows.

Address space is also necessary for memory mapped files: Imagine a 1 GB file that you want to memory-map... in a single address space, chances are you won't be able to get 1 GB of address space in one piece, so it can't be mapped.

@ atheist

Quote:

So, what program CAN NOT be written if there is no memory protection available from the OS?

All programs can be written with memory protection. I don't know who the original poster was, but he's totally off the mark.

What most people are "afraid" of when someone says "memory protection" is that they think that message passing can no longer be done with just passing a pointer around. Most people don't see an immediate solution to this, but it can be done (Mach does it).

Another thing people are afraid of is that they thing tightly integrated programs can no longer run multiple tasks and have them access the same data. This is of course completely invalid when you consider threads.

Regarding slowdown: On some CPU's an address space switch adds an overhead. This is true for example on the x86. OTOH, on the PPC, it's not the case since the PPC simulates a 56 bit address space (on the 32 bit CPU) so switching an address space is nothing more than reloading some registers (no need for any cache/TLB/MMU invalidation).

Quote:

2) I don't think ANY SW HAS to have memory protection, that we know of. (This is of course, IF the SW writer KNOWS EXACTLY what he is doing.)

Well, this is a rather nonsensical thing. Of course, any software that works correctly can work without protection, since the software doesn't violate anything. however, we all know that NO software is 100 % correct. Additionally, even if a program is 100 % correct, that might not be the case for other programs.

OTOH, and I take isolated address spaces as "memory protection" again, consider that some program might need more address space than you have... physical memory is not so much of a problem, just add a large swap partition, and the problem of physically available memory all but vanishes, but in a single address space system, you still have the problem that all programs are limited to their combined address space use (see the 1 GB memory mapped file example).

So bottom line, you CAN say that an isolated address space allows you to run more programs than a single address space.

Quote:

What is missing here is resource tracking. I guess a good implementation of this will slow down the OS much more than memory protection, wouldn't it?

Not necessarily. OS4 can track resources already, but the problem is that a lot of resources are not allocated in the task that actually use them, so if the allocating tasks ends, it would kill off all resources that have been allocated, including those used externally.

Isolated address spaces also help in cleaning up: Non-shared resources will be mapped only in the particular address space, and when the address space is deleted (because the program quit or crashed), all resources are deleted, too (for resources shared among processes, this has to be done differently, of course).

It would also mean that if one thread inside the process crashes, it would kill the whole process (unless the process/thread can handle the crash, of course), making it possible to just restart it.

Quote:

So my idea: when or if resource tracking will be implemented, why not activate it for applications which the user can choose, like the blacklist for Petunia?

You don't know which programs will actually support that... Ibrowse might or might not...

@ Helge
Quote:

I dont understand what the big fuss on other webforums is about and why they are making a scandal out of it

Well, the fact that this was taken from here to another site only shows that the trolls are out again furthering their agenda. That's the usual thing, always happens...

Thom

Frieden HQ

Topic | Forum

tfrieden

Re: Techie questions regarding the nuw Amiga OS4 update

Posted on: 2007/7/19 22:54 #135

Just popping in

@abalaban

Quote:

is the $STACK cookie still ok ?

Yes

Topic | Forum

tfrieden

Re: Techie questions regarding the nuw Amiga OS4 update

Posted on: 2007/7/19 1:24 #136

Just popping in

@Hans

Quote:

Hans wrote:
One other thing, I've noticed that the installer has an XML file. Can the new installer be used as an installer for other software? If so, will the next SDK include documentation?

Actually, it's the same installer that is also used for the SDK installation. It can be fully configured via the XML file, although right now, there's no plan to release documentation. It's not an "official" component.

We are planning to do a bit more work on it, like making it possible to embed the archives and assorted files into the binary to make it a "download and double click" installer without the need to unpack to a temporary directory...

Topic | Forum

tfrieden

Re: Shared objects (.so)

Posted on: 2007/7/18 22:00 #137

Just popping in

@Chris

Quote:

Chris wrote:
Please can somebody alleviate my concerns that the new support for Linux-style .so files will make for lazy programmers.

Programmers are always lazy. However, since idltool can generate a ready-to-use library skeleton, I don't really see that much of a difference between creating a shared library vs. creating a shared object.

Quote:

(although should probably be in Libs:SObjs rather than Sys:SObjs)

Actually, no. We deliberately call them "shared object", not "shared library", because quite frankly, they are more like object files that are linked at execute time.

Quote:

but I can already see some .so files for libraries that have been ported properly as .library for a long time.

Why ? Why should someone now convert an existing library to a .so ? And in fact, there are quite a number of advantages for .library files: For example, the shared objects do not allow you to share data between multiple instances (You can, of course, but that requires extra work).

Quote:

Are there any advantages to using the .so versions? Other than making Linux ports quicker? This seems like a bit of duplication when I have, for example, a z.library, libz.so, and a static version in my SDK which is no doubt linked into rather more files than my stick-shaking abilities are capable of.

They are a tool available to the devloper. Nothing more, nothing less. Some things can be easily ported as a shared object, some things can be better done with shared libraries. It depends on the circumstances. If I were to develop a library for AmigaOS directly, I'd go for a shared library, not a shared objects. Ports are much easier with shared objects simply because they are the way things are done elsewhere.

Topic | Forum

tfrieden

Re: Techie questions regarding the nuw Amiga OS4 update

Posted on: 2007/7/18 21:51 #138

Just popping in

@bean

Quote:

bean wrote:
I'm curious does the pthreads library now support explicitly setting a priority of a thread? IE does:

pthread_attr_setinheritsched(&attr,PTHREAD_EXPLICIT_SCHED);

..now return a 0? ..and can it be followed with a:

pthread_attr_setschedparam();

No. pthread_attr_inheritsched will always return ENOSYS.

Same applies to pthread_attr_setschedparam: The threads are nothing more but separate tasks. As such, they are still limited by the exec scheduler, which is fixed to round robin, i.e. you can't set SCHED_FIFO.