Who's Online |
76 user(s) are online ( 46 user(s) are browsing Forums)
Members: 0
Guests: 76
more...
|
|
|
|
|
Re: There is hope for OS4 on the Classic.
|
Posted on: 2007/11/19 20:13
#381
|
Quite a regular 
|
@Lio
No idea, really. If it appears as a "normal" Zorro II/III board, it might work, but I really can't tell.
|
|
Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.
|
|
|
|
Re: There is hope for OS4 on the Classic.
|
Posted on: 2007/11/19 17:30
#382
|
Quite a regular
|
@nubechecorre Quote: 1) is possible to use the old elbox driver to use the pci board like soundblaster and ethernet pci card ? If yes we have to use also the old graphic driver for voodoo ( mediator ) with the old soundblaster and ethernet driver or we can use the new graphic driver for the os4 with the old ? Yes, this should be possible. It used to work, I haven't tried it in a while, and there is one potential pitfall. You would need to use either all AmigaOS 4.0-drivers or all-Elbox drivers. The reaons for this are two-fold: One, you will need the Elbox graphics card driver since otherwise you do not get the additional memory buffer that is used as a bounce buffer for the DMA devices. Two, the Elbox pci.library wants to retain the exclusive access to the Mediator hardware and more specifically, to the Mediator Offset Register. That means that the V52 expansion.library and pci.library might interfere with each other if both are trying to service "their" drivers. The result would invariably be trash. The latter might also be an issue when you are using only Elbox drivers, but the code in expansion.library usually is dormant unless there is really something accessing PCI via the expansion.library. Quote: 2) As you said before, is possible to adapt the old driver to work on os4 or is a "big and trouble" work ? Not so much. In theory, you could even use a new feature of AmigaOS 4.0's rtg.library (pinned bitmaps) to create the bounce buffer without the need for a modified driver, but that would require that you know you are allocating a bitmap on the Voodoo 3, and that this Voodoo 3 is stuck into a Mediator. This is a bit shaky, but once you are use it would probably be relatively easy to adapt the drivers. However, as I pointed out before, this requires a PCI Graphics card in the Mediator, it will not work with a Zorro card, or a BVisionPPC/CVisionPPC, or an AGA-only system.
|
|
Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.
|
|
|
|
Re: There is hope for OS4 on the Classic.
|
Posted on: 2007/11/19 15:37
#383
|
Quite a regular
|
@orgin Quote: I've seen some people starting to claim that dma doesn't work and implying that it's because of os4 since it doesn't work on the A1's either. DMA does work on the A1, otherwise there would be no DMA-capable IDE devices, or 100/1000 MB network drivers. Personally, I don't think that these claims will stop with anything I write, but just in case, here's a cut-and-paste quote for everyone: -- CUT HERE -- DMA PCI cards on the classic do not work because neither the Mediators nor the Prometheus support DMA. Some of them can do DMA between cards on the PCI bus, but that requires a) special drivers that are specifically adapted to this "feature" b) A bounce buffer in a PCI card, like a graphics card, so this does not work with e.g. AGA. c) Adoptions in the graphics driver so that it reports less memory than it actually has. Overall, this "solution" was rejected for the wide-ranging consequences it has. You may claim that the Articia fix was done on the A1 as well, but these kinds of fixes are local to the driver and do not require any changes in the DMA-driver AND the graphics card driver. Needless to say, the graphics memory DMA hack only works on PCI graphics cards, i.e. if you have a CyberVisionPPC, or a BlizzardVisionPPC, a Picasso IV, AGA, or any other Zorro 2/3 graphics card, you would need to put in an extra (possibly unused) graphics card just to be able to use this "solution". -- CUT HERE -- I hope this clears it up.
|
|
Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.
|
|
|
|
Re: There is hope for OS4 on the Classic.
|
Posted on: 2007/11/18 13:40
#384
|
Quite a regular
|
@orgin Quote:
orgin wrote:
@Rogue
Perhaps you could write an article (Article section here on amigans) describing why certain hardware isn't supported, why dma doesn't work, what can be done to get around it, alternative cards to use and so on. That is, describe the technical reasons, economical reasons etc.
That way we can point people to that article.
Of course I could do that, but what would it help? If you read Catalists posting, you see the typical rant. I don't think that any reasoning will reach him, more so since he apparently created this account just for the purpose of this rant. The reasons are always the same, either no one actually was available for the driver, or the hardware doesn't support it. I don't think that people like Catalist could be reasoned with anyway.
|
|
Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.
|
|
|
|
Re: There is hope for OS4 on the Classic.
|
Posted on: 2007/11/18 11:14
#385
|
Quite a regular
|
@Catalist
(edit)
Deleted my post. No point in replying to this.
|
|
Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.
|
|
|
|
Re: Re-written Nursery Rhymes (not for kids) ;-)
|
Posted on: 2007/11/8 0:25
#386
|
Quite a regular
|
@Mikey_C OH MY <beep>ING GOD... You really had me lying on the floor there 
|
|
Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.
|
|
|
|
Re: Status of OpenGL (or compatible) for OS4
|
Posted on: 2007/11/3 17:11
#387
|
Quite a regular
|
@LordArt Quote:
LordArt wrote:
@Rogue
Is the one on AmiNet not the most up to date (which wouldn't surprise me at all considering when it was dated)?
No, the later versions where included with the OS 4 SDK. We also have an SVN repository with a later version. I think I'll have a look at brushing it up a bit and then making it public. Quote: Wouldn't one be able to grab the list functions from a version of Mesa to integrate in MiniGL? (I'm not saying for you, I mean just in general) Not really, Display lists tie quite deeply into the underlying architecture of the GL implementation. Essentially, you would need to hook into every call and determine whether it would compile or execute (or both), it's not exactly difficult to do but a bit of tedious work. Quote: The further from the origin, the more the imprecision is noticed and makes things "shakey". I already use "sectors" to compensate for that however, so I guess I can shrink the sectors. I don't remember at this point which part uses the doubles precisely, so I'll have to look into that. Using the f versions will do for now for a port to get it running (even if I just do a wrapper). True, if you have a large space then this will cause imprecision of that sort, but it should be possible to work around it. You will always have some sort of observer, and unless you have a very large-scale "universe" with a high visibility, you would always have the possibility to translate into a local coordinate system first for drawing - chances are you will do that anyway for hierarchical objects.
|
|
Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.
|
|
|
|
Re: Status of OpenGL (or compatible) for OS4
|
Posted on: 2007/11/3 12:06
#388
|
Quite a regular
|
@LordArt Quote:
I know the standard answer is "use MiniGL", but I've already done a lot of work and there are things lacking in MiniGL. So I was wondering if StormMesa or some other OpenGL implementation was more complete yet for OS4?
If you need speed, forget about StormMESA. It doesn't work on AmigaOS 4.0 anyway, since it requires the obsolteted indirect mode. Quote: Both in already. Quote: gluOrtho2D (I can just use glOrtho) Should both be available, and easy to replace/insert if they aren't. Quote: Normals are in, as well as... Quote: ... these, including the full lighting pipeline. Quote: glCallList
glEndList
glNewList
glGenlists Those are missing. Can be added (since MiniGL is OpenSource), in fact I am in contact with someone that was planning to have a go at it. Quote: LineWidth, PointSize, stipple pattern etc. are in. Quote: gluSphere (I can get around this)
gluNewQuadric (I can get around this as well) No quadrics support, I suppose that a possibility might be to get these from the SGI GLU library. Quote: Those are in too. Quote: That's available too. Quote: glRasterPos2i
glDrawPixels Available as well. Quote: glVertex2d (I CAN reduce this to f's but it makes things shake too much)
glVertex3d (I CAN reduce this to f's but it makes things shake too much) They are in the API IIRC, but internally MiniGL uses floats internally. I am not sure whether that can be changed easily, but normally floating point precision should really be sufficient, unless you use very small coordinates... Seems that display lists are the only feature that is missing.
|
|
Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.
|
|
|
|
Re: Some questions regarding OS4 for Classic Amigas
|
Posted on: 2007/10/29 10:48
#389
|
Quite a regular
|
@R-TEAM Quote:
But to say the IDE device is a nearly Full replacement for the SCSI
on BPPC is a nonsens.
The IDE driver eat more CPU cycles and is signifikant slower,this
on a low CPU power system make the wohle system not faster ..
The point is that this is not an IDE issue, but rather an issue of the (rather botched) Amiga 1200 machine, which, let's face it, was never ever intended to be extended as it now. Quote: And i would say all user that use a BPPC have a good and running
SCSI system already, so switch to IDE generate only extra costs. You are wrong, I know a good number of BPPC users that don't use SCSI. Quote: And SCSI drives have a realy LONG life ... [compared to IDE drives] Also wrong. The drives and technology is the same, only the electronic on it is different. I have IDE drives running here that are about 8 years old already and in daily use. Quote: So ... for BPPC-SCSI user the "cheap IDE" point is nonsens... Just repeating this over and over will not make it any more true. Quote: To say SCSI is nowdays expansive is right ...
But this to say to a usergroup that love his exclusive OS [dont Mainstream!]
on very expansive [much more if it in relation to the Power he offers to actual
other systems] HardWare with the Touch of individualism .. is maybe a little
bit wrong ...[from my sense]
If the users need "Cheap" .. i dont think Amiga is his option.
And SCSI have a big history on Amiga systems ... Yeah, SCSI has a long history on the Amiga... as do PS/2 memory modules. And I find it hilarious that users complain about prices (of AmigaOS 4.0, of the hardware etc) but then claim that over-expensive server harddrive are "individualism". Quote: .but no SCSI card..
I dont say support actual SCSI [SAS] or exotic Pro-SCSI cards..
I dont pray for the older U320SCSI cards or the old U160SCSI Cards ..
I pray for ancient UW2SCSI cards [the chipset that is already in the limmited
8bit SCSI1 mode supportet .. dont remember the name] to use very good HD?s with
a much more power than a IDE/SATA drive [not only the TransferRate/Seek-Time,
tagged-queuing btw is only anounced for SATA2 ...... on SCSI it is already!]
and much more quality and duarability ... For one thing, read Tetisoft's comment on PCI on the classic, then you know why you cannot get a SCSI card into your A1200 (or one of the excellend Silicon Images IDE controllers). Secondly, what do you actually noticed about the supposed speed of SCSI on the A1200? Any IDE setup on the AmigaOne is faster than that, and even PIO mode on the AmigaOne is about as fast as that. Boasting with the features of SCSI that you don't even notice doesn't make sense. Quote: I see the point that not much user would use on new systems SCSI ...
But for me with my equipment it is a MUST HAVE [specialy for the Backup
on DLT Streamer].
To Clarify- this is going only for my Main System .. on my second or third
Amigas i use always IDE ..
I have no problem to pay [even 200EUR] for an GOOD SCSI driver ...
But OS4 without SCSI for me is not a good Option. So be it then. Matter of fact is that so far no one was willing to work on a Blizzard SCSI driver, simply because no one saw the need for it. It is a simple matter of fact that the demand for SCSI on the A1200 is limited, and only a few people actually complained about it. That concludes the matter for me.
|
|
Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.
|
|
|
|
Re: Some questions regarding OS4 for Classic Amigas
|
Posted on: 2007/10/28 9:35
#390
|
Quite a regular
|
@TMTisFree Quote: Have been sold. These numbers are public. Have been sold? If that number is "public", then it's wrong.
|
|
Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.
|
|
|
|
Re: Some questions regarding OS4 for Classic Amigas
|
Posted on: 2007/10/28 9:32
#391
|
Quite a regular
|
@TMTisFree Quote:
I understand you probably have to create a driver de novo for the BPPC SCSI but for the 3000T/A4000T, it was included with OS3.1, so you have its source I presume?
68k Assembler sources that no one would touch with a ten foot pole unless there is a good reason for it. I don't really think there is.
|
|
Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.
|
|
|
|
Re: Some questions regarding OS4 for Classic Amigas
|
Posted on: 2007/10/28 9:31
#392
|
Quite a regular
|
@TMTisFree Quote: But I disgress. I expect to buy a product with the drivers I need to install/use it, that's all. Difficult to understand? There is a limited amount of hardware that can be supported. We do not even try to support all the clockport/Zorro/made-up zorro/solder-to-mainboard type of hardware that is around. Since you need a CyberStormPPC, SCSI equipment can be used on the 3000/4000/4000T via the CyberStorm's SCSI port, I can't see the reasoning why the onboard SCSI needs to be supported. Quote: For the moment I can use my scanner on the PC with USB (impossible with A1/OS4, no USB driver) Why not buy one of the supposedly cheap SCSI cards? Actually, there is support for one in AmigaOS 4 on the AmigaOne. Quote: and on the A4000T with SCSI (impossible with A4000T/OS4 no USB/SCSI driver). I see no reason to change to a product that do not met my requirement(s) be it called AmigaOS4 or whatever. Wrong. You can connect it to the CyberstormPPC. That controller is supported. In the end, it's up to you. If you think that this is asking too much, fine, so be it.
|
|
Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.
|
|
|
|
Re: Some questions regarding OS4 for Classic Amigas
|
Posted on: 2007/10/28 9:26
#393
|
Quite a regular
|
The whole "SCSI vs. IDE" debate reminds me about "Beta vs. VHS" or "KDE vs. GNOME" or "Windows vs. OS/2". Especially since it is about as fruitless.
Let's face it. SCSI hardware is a hell of a lot more expensive than IDE. You pay about ? 1.50 per gigabyte on SCSI and about ? 0,3 on SATA. The speed difference is neglectable, you won't notice it unless you run a "make-me-happy" type benchmark program.
Error tolerance is not better on any of those.
So it all boils down to price, and sorry to say so but SCSI is overpriced, a lot more complicated to set up (termination, SCSI ID, cabling) and plainly nobody but workstations ever uses it anyway.
|
|
Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.
|
|
|
|
Re: Some questions regarding OS4 for Classic Amigas
|
Posted on: 2007/10/28 9:13
#394
|
Quite a regular
|
@Wol Quote: I was refering to all the IRQ conflicts etc,
how PCI cards conflict with each other.
I thought you would, however, you should be aware that they are always present on Zorro since there is only one interrupt on the Zorro bus as opposed to four on PCI. There actually are no IRQ conflicts on PCI (and zorro) because it is a purely software issue to check. An interrupt on a PCI card should check whether there actually was an interrupt from your card, and if it wasn't, you should not handle it. The fact that some drivers didn't do it is a problem of the drivers, not of the bus or the autoconfig.
|
|
Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.
|
|
|
|
Re: Some questions regarding OS4 for Classic Amigas
|
Posted on: 2007/10/26 20:03
#395
|
Quite a regular
|
@Wol Quote: Hardly a question anymore, Serial-ATA is winning anyway. IDE was cheaper than SCSI, and the cabling was much easier (especially if you had to cope with wide and narrow equipment). Quote: That one's easy. The porn industry adapted VHS... Good bye beta. Quote: Winblows not Anything else In the absence of any serious contender... Quote: Price issues as well. Quote: PCI crappy config not Zorro Autoconfig  You don't know much about PCI if you think that Zorro is better. What exactly do you think is better with Zorro?
|
|
Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.
|
|
|
|
Re: Amiga OS4 Classic And Emulated 68k
|
Posted on: 2007/10/25 19:21
#396
|
Quite a regular
|
@mike
Since there is no snooping or anything like that going on, and the two CPU's have their own caches, running 68k code on the 68k CPU would require a cache flush on the PowerPC and the other way around when the control passes back to the PowerPC. That is also the reason why you could never use both CPU's at once, even on WarpUp/PowerUp, because their caches might see totally different data and they don't speak the same language (i.e. the same bus protocol as two PowerPC cores would).
Bottom line, you don't get extra performance, or anything like "parallel computing" out of a CyberStorm or Blizzard. More so, executing a small quantum of 68k code will also negatively affect all other running applications because the cache flush will make them slow down (the cached memory needs to be fetched again).
"Luckily" there is no L2 cache on the 603/604, or things would become even worse.
|
|
Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.
|
|
|
|
Re: Request to AOS4 Developers
|
Posted on: 2007/10/21 17:33
#397
|
Quite a regular
|
@DonF Quote: I meant no offence to you or anybody else None taken, I was merely trying to point out that if there was any issue with developers, these developers would make themselves heard.
|
|
Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.
|
|
|
|
Re: Quake 3 HELP
|
Posted on: 2007/10/16 11:34
#398
|
Quite a regular
|
@nubechecorre Quote:
nubechecorre wrote:
Sorry i dont' understand what you are saying..
there is a little difference from someone who kindly ask for something and from someone who expect it..
I DO NOT expect anything i had only asked if someone could ( and repeat COULD ) take up the job of re-porting a game that is desired from the amiga community..
Oh, let me see.. You start out by saying "we need good 3D drivers", implying that the current ones aren't. However, that is not the point, since the current ones are perfectly capable of running Quake 3. So we do not need other drivers at all. Next thing. "We need 3d libraries". MiniGL is sufficient to run Quake 3, and even if not, it's open source and could be extended if the need would arise. Next thing: "we need quake 3 and it must be rewritten." Sounds like a demand to me. Quake 3 need not be rewritten, the port needs to be worked on, but I don't see why it would need to be rewritten, more so since apparently no one is capable or willing to work on it. A quick and dirty port is much better than no port at all, and it can easily serve as a starting point. Quote: I have always supported the amiga community/market and if you check my account in Hyperion Portal you can see that i have registered ALL the games that you ported to the amiga, so i am ready right now to pay for an amiga version of QUAKE III
The Engine is GPl right ? like Quake II ?.. No one is willing to do this. I'm not, for sure. Anything that you ask money for is something that you need to support, and quite frankly, the effort to support something like that far outweights the money you could earn with that. This is a hobby project, and as such, it has been ended by Thomas and me. Someone else may pick it up, but like I said, apparently the incentive for that is very low.
|
|
Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.
|
|
|
|
Re: Request to AOS4 Developers
|
Posted on: 2007/10/15 14:46
#399
|
Quite a regular
|
@DonF I hope you don't get what I say now wrong, I am not trying to attack anybody. Note also (although it should be clear) that I do only speak for myself, NOT for Hyperion. This should normally go without saying, but usually it doesn't so I want to stress that point. Quite plainly, though, I don't know how this all could be anybody's business but Hyperion's and the developers. In other words, it's none of yours, or anybody else. If either Hyperion or the developers want to complain about anything in their relationship, they could do so on forums or other means - there is enough possibility to make yourself heard these days. For the record, I don't think ANY AmigaOS 4 developer has, so far, complained about any payment or other issues. I find it rather hilarious to demand proof of anything - to the best of my knowledge any country with a decent jurisdiction adheres to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", so I don't see any reason for anybody to prove their innocence in this matter - if someone claims otherwise, the burden of proof is on him. And even though it isn't anybody's business, I am being paid. Something else that struck me is your claim that "Hyperion has done little else but sit back and watch the developers work". I find it disturbing how people can make such claims without any insight whatsoever into the development process. All of Hyperion have invested a lot of work themselves into the project, beyond "sitting back and watch the others work", and also a lot of money (contrary what numbers might be floating around, I know the true numbers). I would therefore like to ask you to abstain from any such statements until you have actual facts to back them up. @pjs Quote: Unless, of course, they are all chained up in Evert Carton's basement... Damn, how did you find out ?
|
|
Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.
|
|
|
|
Re: Quake 3 HELP
|
Posted on: 2007/10/15 14:25
#400
|
Quite a regular
|
@MamePPCA1 Quote:
MamePPCA1 wrote:
@Antique
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.
Any tricks?
Yeah, the trick is to install the required data files. You probably only downloaded Urban Terror and copied the Q3 binary there. That does not work. You MUST have a valid PC copy of Quake 3, and it even MUST have been updated to the latest release.
|
|
Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.
|
|
|
News feed
OS4 Feedback forum
OS4Depot Feedback forum
Amigabounty forum
OpenAmiga forum
AmiCygnix forum
ABC shell forum
AmiKit forum
Cinnamon Writer forum
CodeBench forum
Digital Universe forum
Dopus 5 forum
E-UAE forum
Gnash forum
Ibrowse forum
JAmiga forum
Odyssey forum
OWB forum
Qt forum
SmartFileSystem forum
Timberwolf forum
TouchDevice forum
TuneNet forum
Unsatisfactory Software forum
