Demos using a GFX mode please !

[carls]

@MagicSN

First: Correct me if I'm wrong, but as long as you write directly to the graphic card's memory I don't think it could be classified as RTG?
RTG implies some kinde of HAL or it wouldn't be retargetable...

I get your point, but here's how I see it:

There is a big difference between the Amiga and the PC demo scene.

At work, I've got a PIII 667MHz with 256MB RAM and a 32MB 3D graphics card (from Matrox I believe), and an AC97 soundcard. I'm running Win2K with the latest versions of DirectX etc.

Still, many of the demos I download won't work for a number of reasons. Sometimes there's no sound. Sometimes the graphics are distorted. Sometimes it is just plain SLOW although the effect shown on the screen is similar to one that runs smoothly in Amiga demos on my 060! And these are demos that has won compos on big parties so they must have been working on at least the compo machine.

There's also comments in the file_id.diz (or whatever textfile is included): "Will only have fog on graphics card so-and-so", "Sound will be jerky on slower computers". SLOW? My 667MHz PIII is SLOW?

If you download a compo-winning AGA+060 demo, you know that it will look the same on all Amigas. The sound will be correctly synced with the effects, it will keep a decent framerate, etc.

I downloaded some RTG demos from M&S last year and they were so slow on my CV64/3D I could barely watch them.

Custom hardware is what built the demo scene and I can fully understand why many coders stick to AGA.

I am not impressed by a demo doing 100FPS on an NVidia card. If I want to be impressed, I watch Hotstyle Takeover or The Castle (Loonies/Amiga) or Mathematica (Can't remember the group/C64).

Any decent graphician and musician can create the right audiovisual feeling in a demo, but not every coder can make it look as intended using 2MB graphics memory and a 50MHz 060.

Oh well, maybe I'm just a crazy "oldschool" guy :-)

[MagicSN]

Hi!

> First: Correct me if I'm wrong, but as long as >you write directly to the graphic card's memory I >don't think it could be classified as RTG?

No, that is still RTG.

>RTG implies some kinde of HAL or it wouldn't be >retargetable...

Well, sure:

LockBitmapTagList
UnlockBitmap
LoadRGB32
OpenScreenTagList
CloseScreen
OpenWindowTagList
CloseWindow
AllocScreenBuffer
ChangeScreenBuffer

I'd say this *is* a HAL

>                                          Still, >many of the demos I download won't work for a >number of reasons. Sometimes there's no sound. >Sometimes the graphics are
 
Bah, stupid PC coders Since when is that something is done bad on a PC an argument for us ?
That's exactly the sort of fake-argument I usually read from AGA-fanatics. Please define what's so great in AGA ? If you look at it it boils down to "I like it. I am used to it. I never did anything else.". And nothing more.
                                         >distorted. Sometimes it is just plain SLOW >although the effect shown on the screen is >similar to one that runs smoothly in Amiga demos
>                                          on my >060! And these are demos that has won compos on >big parties so they must have been working on at >least the compo machine.

Well, then an RTG-version of these demos should
be even faster

>There's also comments in the file_id.diz (or >whatever textfile is included): "Will only have >fog on graphics card so-and-so", "Sound will

fog == obviously they use 3D Hardware. And we
did agree on that we don't use 3D Hardware for
"oldschool" demos, didn't we ?

>                                          If you >download a compo-winning AGA+060 demo, you know >that it will look the same on all Amigas. The >sound will be correctly
 
Again: There is nothing magic in AGA. You can achieve the same on RTG using the GFX Board
as a simple Chunky Buffer. Only most demo coders (most !!!) "don't like what they don't know". And of course as they don't like what they don't know they never will have a closer look - so will never
know it - so will never like it

>I downloaded some RTG demos from M&S last year >and they were so slow on my CV64/3D I could >barely watch them.

Maybe these demos were just coded badly ? Or they
used 3D Hardware (which is simply a PAIN on the CV/3D). Or they used Highres graphics. Which won't be fast on EITHER AGA or RTG (with some exceptions, maybe...) as long as no 3D Hardware
is used.

For a good comparision you should do the same demo - once for AGA, once for RTG. And you will notice the RTG version will be faster (just usually nobody does a demo for both AGA and RTG...). Some early RTG-Demo also still did their graphics layout in Planar graphics (as for AGA) and then converted over while displaying...

But principially you can do what you do in AGA
also on RTG - only faster

>                                          Custom >hardware is what built the demo scene and I can >fully understand why many coders stick to AGA.

Believe it or not - a GFX Card is also Custom Hardware. Just custom hardware which implements a standard (but if you look at the direct-hardware coding of a Card it will look very "Custom" to you... no two Cards do the Card Init the same way it seems...).

>                                          I am >not impressed by a demo doing 100FPS on an NVidia >card. If I want to be impressed, I watch Hotstyle >Takeover or The Castle
 
I did not read any reason yet why we should use
slower Hardware which is less available.
   
>Oh well, maybe I'm just a crazy "oldschool" guy  

No I think just that many people with an attitude
like you have prejudices against OS-clean coding.
That's the matter to what it comes down in the end... and if they don't know something they don't want to have anything to do with it. At least many of them are like this.

Steffen

[carls]

@MagicSN

First an example:
Q[r]COV - intro contribution to Flag2001 by Industry and Pas Maters. This runs on both AGA and CGX with some quite simple chunky effects.

I have an A1200/060 50MHz with a Z-IV busboard and a CV64/3D, and one A1200 with AGA and an 030 28MHz. This intro operates best on 060 using AGA, while 060+CGX is not remarkably faster than on the 030+AGA. It runs in 8-bit lowres on all three combinations. Oddly, all games written for both CGX and AGA works like this too, while for example ImageFX, Voyager and the Workbench itself is amazingly fast on the graphics card - not to mention TVPaint!

Now, the Z-IV busboard does not have the same bandwidth as true Zorro-3 slots but at least it should be a LITTLE bit faster than AGA?

And I didn't say I don't like people coding for graphics cards I just said I can understand them - I wouldn't want to develop a demo on my graphics card if it was slower than on AGA! I'm guessing a lot of demo coders have a HW setup similar to mine.

A lot of the old PC DOS-demos work just fine (Second Reality is a beauty!) and I guess these are using a technique similar to the one you describe (using the graphics card as a chunky buffer) since they had to work on a lot of different cards.

As for hardware availability, AGA is available to any A1200 or A4000 owner by hooking it up to a TV set - no need for a 15kHz monitor.

But on the A1 the situation will have to change. I'm certain that wonderful demos will be produced for it (otherwise I'll be very sad :-(), and they will _have_ to use RTG.

Anyways, I don't think me ranting will change the demo scene :-) But I'm sure of one thing: The A1 needs something similar to AMOS or Blitz Basic if any "newbie" coders are going to get interested in it. It will also need a good 2D pixelpainter and some nice tracker- sample- and MP3-software if it's going to attract a full demo group.

[MagicSN]

Hi!

>Q[r]COV - intro contribution to Flag2001 by Industry >and Pas Maters. This runs on both AGA and CGX >with some quite simple chunky effects.

>I have an A1200/060 50MHz with a Z-IV busboard >and a CV64/3D, and one A1200 with AGA and an 030 >28MHz. This intro operates best on 060 using AGA, >while 060+CGX is not remarkably faster than on the >030+AGA. It runs in 8-bit lowres on all three

But it does not run faster on AGA either,
right ? The point is not the faster speed on GFX Boards (though it exists, see discussion below), the point is that most people just CANNOT view anything which uses AGA, while they can, if it supports RTG.
And it is not really as if one of AGA/RTG would be
cooler/easier-to-do-demo-effects-with or whatever.
It is just a simple choice what to use. And to use the
one people cannot use anymore (and which also definitely won't run on A1 even IF people have still a 1084 monitor) sounds stupid to me.

As to the speed: Try a 16 Bit Display on AGA and compare this then in speed to a 16 Bit Display on GFX Board (We tried this on Heretic II, but the AGA version is really remarkable slower...). Or try 640x480 on AGA... this is also very slow (which is
why Freespace requires a GFX Board). Even in Lowres though GFX Boards are faster. Of course in cases where 90% of speed is for the calculation and only 10% for the screen refresh even a 2x as fast GFX Board won't make much of a difference.

BTW: The CV/3D used for Chunky-Copy is not one of the fast ones... even the old Piccolo SD64 is faster.
But still my point is: It is not SLOWER than AGA, so there is no point in using AGA which only few people can use, and which does not run on A1 anymore.

>And I didn't say I don't like people coding for >graphics cards I just said I can understand them -

I cannot... after all don't you want to make it possible for as many people as possible to run your demo ? And that it also runs on future machines ?

>A lot of the old PC DOS-demos work just fine >(Second Reality is a beauty!) and I guess these are >using a technique similar to the one you describe >(using the graphics card as a chunky buffer) since >they had to work on a lot of different cards.

Exactly. And my point is Amiga Demos these days should go this route exactly (I also don't have much love for present-day Demos which are just DivX-Animations rendered with some 3D Package )

>As for hardware availability, AGA is available to any >A1200 or A4000 owner by hooking it up to a TV set - >no need for a 15kHz monitor.

Who hooks a TV to his computer ? Maybe 5 years ago Also you need a fitting cable for this (don't have this either). Most people just say "If it requires AGA I cannot run it".

>(otherwise I'll be very sad > ), >and they will _have_ to use RTG.

Exactly. And people could prepare for this already now

> I'm sure of one thing: The A1 needs something >similar to AMOS or Blitz Basic if any "newbie"

I do not think so. I never liked Basic in any forms.
Well, and if you want functions which can do quick
effects without much coding - use MesaGL, which
will be with OS 4 !!! (That's again the "cheap" trickery with 3D Hardware then, of course).

>coders are going to get interested in it. It will also >need a good 2D pixelpainter and some nice tracker- >sample- and MP3-software if it's going to attract a >full demo group.

As 2D or sample-software is not exactly very CPU-intensive you could use some of the same old 68k software (not DPaint of course, as it does not run on RTG). If I remember right there was some Sound-Package planned for OS 4.

Steffen

[Crumb]

@darkcoder&carls
There's no difference between the way coders make demos for AGA and RTG these days... most of the demo is 3D stuff, and the only thing the coder does with AGA is a chunky2planar, and that's all. So the simplest way to add RTG support is to copy that chunkybuffer to the gfx ram. The first method unexperienced coders will use will be WritePixelArray()... but that's quite slow (but usually faster than AGA). If the coder has a clue about RTG coding he will get the address of the screen as MagicSN has described and write directly to the graphic mem, boosting the speed. I do a trick that sometimes speeds up quite a lot some effects, I use a 32 bit to store the 4 8bit pixels I'm going to write and I put pixels in that variable until it has the 4 pixels, then I copy it to the gfx ram, as I only do one access to write a 32bit number instead of writing 4 times, the speed is higher. Yes, that works (at least with rotozooms), and it's fast.

But what's the point in forcing my friends with a 2060/CV3D to sell their equipment to see AGA demos if I can make them compatible with both really easily?
I don't care if it's a bit slower or faster, that's not going to change the quality of the production. Some people may say ooohh but it's designed for AGA+060... so what? some 040/40 users try to run 060 demos, they run slowly but they are happier than if the code was 060 only and they couldn't watch the demo at all. And I have an A4060 with a picasso4, why can't I see the effects more smoothly if my computer can really do it?
 If you don't want to do tricks like storing 4 pixels in a variable, there's no problem, just write to the gfx ram instead of your fast-ram chunkybuffer.
Ummm one, note, the only OS functions you will use will be those used to get the address of the gfx ram and ScrollVPort for the double buffer. That's all. I think that those demos still will be amazing stuff. The demo can be designed/optimized for AGA but at least it should run in RTG hardware.
Mankind for example does that with some of their productions and they run in 68k and are RTG compatible.
Just my thoughts...

ummm yes, if you are a bit lazy the group Mankind has uploaded their init&c2p code to aminet (it supports RTG and AGA) I can't remember the name of the archive... :-( you'll have to search a little :-/

[Crumb]

Ummm what I have said also applies to sound... demos should be Paula AND AHI compatible...

[darkcoder]

@carl
Yes that's also my opinion. The spirit won't die.
There are many interesting platform!
Optimizing for the 68k emulator can be a good idea. But one should have any insight on how the emulator works..and ..which emulator? the Pegasos one? the A1? the WinUAE?
Any way I really would like to do demos for some console.

[Desler]

Carls wrote

Any decent graphician and musician can create the right audiovisual feeling in a demo, but not every coder can make it look as intended using 2MB graphics memory and a 50MHz 060.

Ive heard arguments like this before. It seems like you cannot be a decent coder unless your program pushes the envelope, hence the "I cant belive its 50 mhz" experience. With the new hardware being made available people tends to think that coding is becoming to easy. What people forget is that there is limitations for the new system aswell. The new demos shouldnt be comparable to the old ones.
The target for coding on the new hardware should be: "wow I cant belive its only 800 mhz"

[carls]

First of all: YES, QrCov IS faster on AGA than on CV3D on my machine. As is Doom and Heretic. Again: C2P in games & demos is faster than native chunky on my computer (maybe I'm doing something wrong with CyberGraphX?). I'm sure this isn't a problem on for example the BVision.

I can enjoy a good demo on any platform, no matter how fast the CPU is, and I sure understand that creating good code isn't easy no matter how fast your hardware is. It just seems to me like the faster the hardware gets, the lazier the coder gets (hence the bad operation of many PC demos).

I also get more impressed by a good-looking picture if it's pixeled in 256 colours using for example PPaint, than by a similar-looking 24-bit picture made in Photoshop with a Wacom board, where you get all your antialiasing, shading etc. for free.

To put it short: I like nerdy show-offs :-)

And the Amiga scene is moving towards RTG. A lot of new demos even multi-task correctly.

[Kronos]

My take:

Demos should show what the HW can do and how good it is
understood by the coder.

So REAL demos only run on fixed HW like C64,A500,A1200 or
Phase5-PPC+Permedia. Consoles of every type are also quite good
for it. Demos on PC or CGX/P96 sounds even more useless than
demos allready are.

Don't have th HW ? Use a emu, or watch the mpg.

[darkcoder]

@crumb & magicSN

First of all I don't understand why you (and also Elwood who started this post)
want to force people do what you want. I am sure that you are all nice guys but
you sound a little bit arrogant. A little like Bill Gates.
(oops..hope you won't be offended to be compared with him..just joking :-))

Everyone can code as he\she prefers, the only rule are those of the programming
language.
The question is not planar vs. chunky. As you know there are several technique to render
chunky gfx on OCS and AGA. Since magicSN seems consider me stupid, I state that I know the staff well since I
coded several c2p (and copperchunky screen) by myself (i.e. not using the latest routine found on aminet).
It is true that I never coded for RTG, but I used OpenGL, the Amiga graphics library and SDL, the multi
platform library ported on the Amiga by Gabriele Greco. SDL in particular is very similar to what you describe
(and I imagined) just a set of functions to open a screen and copy a block of memory into a frame buffer.
What you call "a simple copying of data into a screen" is crucial for the speed of the demo. And it
differs from one board to another. I don't think that you would obtain the same speed and the same visual
apperence from a PicassoIV and a Radeon 7000. What RTG is missing, is *a clear limit*. Without a clear limit
you cannot reach the limit.

Said that, I am not *against* RTG demos. If you like to do them, please do them. I will enjoy looking at it.
But for me it makes no sense and no fun to produce one, because I don't have a limit to reach. Please note, as
I already wrote in previous messages that I really think that RTG is a VERY good thing for the Amiga, which
could have helped a lot if it would be ready on 92 (C= started speaking of an RTG system but never did
anything). And if I wanted to program a game or a gfx application I would certenly use RTG, and propably I
would have fun using it. Because there the aim is different. But a demo for me makes sence only with a well
defined architecture. So I thank Steffan for his kind offer but I am not interested in having my demos run on
RTG. By the way, you know the programs Extreme and Supreme, by darkage Soft? You can do very nice demos using
them, 100% RTG compatible (I helped them a bit with Extreme's copperlists .

>And why should this not be possible on RTG, having fun with coding ? Remember - many people (me included) don't have the
>HARDWARE anymore to display OCS/ECS/AGA. So if a demo does not support RTG we cannot watch it !

I am sorry for you, but we are not speaking of sofware wich is necessary for using the computer.
If, for example, LHA required AGA, well it would be a real problem but I think you can survive without
watching a demo. BTW, UAE should run OCS and ECS stuff without any problem. And I think that latest
WinUAE versions support AGA, or at least try. And concerning the monitors problem there exist cheap
devices called scandoublers, you know?

>On the other hand they should go sure people can actually WATCH their demos. And with requiring
why should I go sure? As I said I code to have fun, not to "impress people with my coding skills".
Anyway let's talk about compatibility: MagicSN wrote:

> Most people will not be able to view a Demo without RTG Support



which people? If I am right since 1986 about 6*10^6 Amigas were sold. All of them can run OCS stuff.
I think at least 2*10^6 AGA Amigas exist. All these can run AGA stuff. So only A1 are left. How many did they
sell? (and there is UAE for A1 also)
I have many friends who used to have an Amiga. None of them has an Amiga anymore. hence they can't watch
my demos, RTG or not (well there is WinUAE but I think more or less it supports AGA..) Anyway when they come
to visit me, I show them some demos, including mine :-)

But most of all, how many people in the world own an Amiga? Unfortunately, very few.
So I won't say that your argument is stupid because I always respect other's opinion, dear Steffen,
but I do say that it is definitly not convincing. It could be a good argument for PC demo-coding.
If my primal concering was to have my production watched by many people, I would code them for the PC.
Even better I could code them using Java. Java scene exists. Or I could even code them using Mathematica
which is a very nice program for many platform, unfortunately not Amiga. You can very easily experiment
nice formulas with mathematica. Of cource the render is very slow, but I have seen used it on an SGI,
and it's acceptable. (no limit=> I can use an SGI.)

But for the same reason as for RTG, for me
demo coding on PC or using Java makes no sense. Demo coding on Xbox or PS2 or gameBoy advance, that
I find really interesting. I suspect that the most part of the great Amiga coders more or less
thinks like me. In fact, they went to PC...to produce games!!! :-)

@crumb (about the group Mankind). I met at Spoletium 4 a Mankind coder. We had a pizza together.
I think he is the coder of that c2p. Anyway he gave me sourcecode of his nice demo, which of cource
 run on RTG, so I should even have an internal version.

Ok, finished for today. I really apologise if I was a bit though but when someone "order" me to do something
against my will, I get a little bit upset.

Friendship RULEZ!
The Dark Coder

[iamaboringperson]

my oppinion is this:
regardless of which is faster for demo makers, - native or rtg
the whole point of demo making is to show off, and practice
so its certainly up to the demo maker as to which hardware they use, the hardware does play a vital part in demo making

the demos IMO are for them, not us!
let THEM decide what hardware to support!

[mdwh2]

1) When Amiga demos will be GFX mode compatible ? I mean, I would like to see some demos in UAE using the P96 emulation, i.e. in full screen mode. But as long as all (all ?) demos are AGA, they can be viewed in window mode only.

I'm not sure how you mean - WinUAE at least can display non-RTG stuff in full screen mode (Display tab, tick 'Full Screen'). And I have seen a few RTG demos around, at least.

(Is anyone else unable to log into amiga.org using Opera btw?)

[mdwh2]

darkcoder wrote:
And because this extra requirment you introduce, you need to specify an hardware
which gives you some limits and you have to reach the limit of the hardware by coding. If you don't fix a limit to the hardware (and with RTG you have no limit) it's useless to use coding, just use gfx applications and an hardware powerfull enough.

It's true that when comparing the skill of coding a demo, one needs to look at the hardware it runs on, which is easier if you have a fixed level of hardware. But still, even on the PC, I think it can be appreciated that some games/demos/engines are better than others, either in terms of speed or features. I'm not sure what you mean by it being useless to use coding. And demos were popular back in the days when the Amiga's CPU speed was not fixed/limited.

@Karlos you gave a good point. However, I still don't see the sense of RTG demos for the following argument: with RTG you can use many differeent gfx boards having very different features (which IS a good thing for everything but demo-coding). If you want a demo running on all the gfx cards, you have to consider the slow ones and you don't use the most powerful features of the others. On the other hand, if you say "this demo requires ATI Radeon card" then you are forcing the use of a particular hardware.

Or you can say "this demo requires a graphics card that supports x feature". You don't have to choose between either supporting all cards, or only supporting one particular brand.

So IMHO, with these cards there's nothing left to code. For example, a 3d demo could be something like this (I am actually NOT a RTG coder so I invent function names)

First of all, as others have said, making something RTG compatible doesn't mean you have to use the card's 3D features.

I admit that I haven't kept too up to date with graphics card features in the last couple of years, but I don't think they do everything for you. Generally, they'll do things like the rasterisation for you, but other things such as hidden surface removal, particle engines, realistic physics still require coding. In your example of code, there is no magic ComputeVisibleSurfaces function (well you could send everything to the card anyway, but then it'd be slow..)

Of course yes, a simple scene done in OpenGL requires little skill, where as it's a lot of work to do in software, but more complex stuff takes a lot of skill even with OpenGL.

I understand that things like software rendering (which I have done) and AGA 'hardware-banging' (which I haven't) can be fun and require skill - but it can also be that when utilising 3D hardware.

why use programming at all? Just use Photoshop and concentrate your efforts just on the aestetical aspect.

Well some people do do that, they're called artists;) But some people prefer coding - and some of those prefer working with 3D hardware and exploring programming of areas other than low level things like rasterisation.

[mdwh2]

darkcoder wrote:
which people? If I am right since 1986 about 6*10^6 Amigas were sold. All of them can run OCS stuff.
I think at least 2*10^6 AGA Amigas exist. All these can run AGA stuff.

AIUI, the problem is not whether Amigas come with Amiga chipsets, but that either a TV or 15kHz monitor is needed. Unfortunately things like multisync monitors are rare (are there any still in production? I remember trying to get hold of one in 1998 with no luck), and things like scandoublers are expensive (if they work at all.. mine didn't), so I can imagine a lot of people preferring to use a standard monitor with their gfx card, and forgetting about chipset output (of course, it's difficult to know how many people actually do this).

[Crumb]

@Darkcoder:
> First of all I don't understand why you (and also Elwood who started this post) want to force people do what you want.

No one is forcing you with a gun to add support, we are expressing our opinions. In my opinion the effort needed to add RTG support is so small that it is a pity that it's not included in most of demos. (that sounds better for you ummm? as english is not my native language I didn't want to make it sound like "everyone should code rtg-compatible stuff or be executed". I mean that it's a good idea because it requires very little effort)

>I am sure that you are all nice guys but
you sound a little bit arrogant.

well, now read again the first lines of your first post in this thread.

You say that demos are not made to impress. Well they are made for fun and to impress. Isn't impressive to see how much can be done with little resources? And one of many people all-time-favourites, State of the Art was designed to impress, not showing the machine limits but a great design. I think that SOTA only moves a little polys most of times and that a A500 can do that without many problems (World Of Commodore for example was made to impress with its code more than its design, for example the rotozoom of the horned demon head is quite impressive for an A500)

You say that you don't know where are the limits. One of the limits is the bandwitch to the graphic card. As Carl has said in his system it's slower than AGA in most of programs, well the Zorro2 bandwitch is a limit, isn't it? As the Zorro3 is (you won't get more speed of pci cards with mediator or prometheus because it goes through the zorro3 bus). But for example most of things (eg games) are faster using Zorro3 cards than AGA.

With 68k systems the main limit from my point of view is the raw cpu power. Of course, the bandwitch to fast ram and to gfx ram are big bottle necks. But now demos are mostly 3D and that needs raw cpu power. For example ppc games like quake run a lot faster even thought that they are using AGA. With AGA and a good c2p you can put 25fps at 320x200 without too much effort. The problem is the 3D stuff you want to show. Some demos run almost equally with AGA or gfx cards because the cpu is the biggest limit now.

>What you call "a simple copying of data into a screen" is crucial for the speed of the demo. And it
differs from one board to another. I don't think that you would obtain the same speed and the same visual apperence from a PicassoIV and a Radeon 7000. What RTG is missing, is *a clear limit*. Without a clear limit you cannot reach the limit.

well, the little tests I've done run at more or less the same frame rates in every graphic card. I've tested with my program a 060 my Picasso4, a Voodoo5 and a CV64. The fastest of the three was the CV64 because it uses Zorro3 to the limit. But it was only slighly faster. The clear limit for AGA and RTG stuff is (90% of times) the CPU. Well I haven't tried a CybervisionPPC, in theory it should be the fastest (but only slightly)

What I call simply copying is that: simple copying. Your graphics will look the same in a Ateo Pixel 64, in a CV3D, a CV64, a Picasso4, a Voodoo3 if you use a 8bit screen. With >8bit ones you will need to check the screenmode to see if its RGB BGR or whatever.

 I admit that with 16bits it is more complicated. But many AGA demos only use 8bit. And it's easy to support.

I repeat that no one is ordering you anything, just saying that adding RTG support is quite easy. But that not implies that RTG coding is done with functions (if you use functions it will be faster than AGA but not as fast as it can be)

don't get upset so easy

I have fun coding RTG stuff, the only reason I'm adding AGA supportis for erm tradition, compatibility and well, because it's easy and I can, and some people still don't have a gfx card and I found a bit arbitrary to stopping them from watching what I want to do. I mean that it's easy if you use a chunkybuffer and a c2p routine (like me) because sprites and bitplanes aren't used much these days. If you do demos that use bitplanes etc... well that's harder than a gfx card for most of effects.

DISCLAIMER: I've only expressed my opinion, people who don't agree MUST NOT be fussilated ;-D