Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Hardware Issues and discussion => Topic started by: giZmo350 on May 10, 2016, 06:34:58 PM
-
You guys seen this? I take it that this is NOT a scan doubler? Could this be used with an Indie ECS?
I.E., "A special internal connector allows for direct connection to internal VGA flicker fixer board for Denise."
Anyone on a1k.org that might be able to give a few more details? :)
http://webstore.kryoflux.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=56
Thanks!
-
It's a RTG Graphics card with Cirrus GD5434 chip and 2 MB of RTG memory. Just like PicassoII etc but with a faster chip.
-
You guys seen this? I take it that this is NOT a scan doubler?
Indeed, this is not a scan doubler, nor does it have a scan doubler on board. If you want to use native Amiga video out with a VGA monitor, you need an additional scan doubler. Could this be used with an Indie ECS?
In addition to an Indie ECS, yes. It has a plug on its video in that can be directly connected to the Indie ECS. It does have a "special connector" in that sense - except that it's not very special. Anyone on a1k.org that might be able to give a few more details?
It's based on the Cirrus GD5434 chip, with 2MB graphics memory. It is approximately equivalent to the Piccolo SD64 card if you want to look this up. This gives you a 1280x1024x8 as a native resolution, or 1024x768x16, or 800x600x32. As such, it is a nice replacement for my aging GVP Spectrum - it does not reach similar resolutions.
-
It is approximately equivalent to the Piccolo SD64 card if you want to look this up.
So it's seen by P96 as a Piccolo SD64? Or it requires additional drivers?
-
So it's seen by P96 as a Piccolo SD64? Or it requires additional drivers?
I think the whole point of using that chip is that a driver already exists.
http://eab.abime.net/showpost.php?p=999281&postcount=4
-
I think the whole point of using that chip is that a driver already exists.
http://eab.abime.net/showpost.php?p=999281&postcount=4
Thanks. Doesn't answer the question. Is it supported by this?
http://lilliput.amiga-projects.net/Picasso96.htm
Or do you need to download something else? The kryoflux website doesn't mention anything about software. I found this link:
http://www.a1k.org/forum/showthread.php?t=52795
But it's in German and requires membership to read it. :(
Am feeling super-grumpy today, I wish Amiga users were better at giving full details of stuff. How hard is it to say "Yes, it works with Picasso96 using the blahblahblah driver. Or, yes, it works with CyberGraphX"? It's like working in IT, a user tells you they're having a problem with something, but when you try to ask for more details it's like their mouth is suddenly full of bananas, haha. :banana: :banana:
-
http://www.a1k.org/forum/showthread.php?t=52795
But it's in German and requires membership to read it. :(
Use Chrome on a ssupported platform for auto-translation, that's how I read it.
Then you can read what you need in order to register for free login to the forum site.
Works great...
If you must use an Amiga computer, then learn German, or port Chrome and translation capability over for all of us to use.
-
Thanks. Doesn't answer the question. Is it supported by this?
http://lilliput.amiga-projects.net/Picasso96.htm
Or do you need to download something else? The kryoflux website doesn't mention anything about software.
Yes you need the GBAPII++.card file that is hosted as an attachment in that german board (put it in LIBS:Picasso96/), and when you install Piccasso96 you must select the PiccoloSD64 as the graphics card. After that you need to change the PiccoloSD64 monitor´s file tooltype to BOARDTYPE=GBAPII++
-
"Yes, it works with Picasso96 using the blahblahblah driver."
The blah... driver is here, either of them:
http://www.amibay.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=82100&d=1421846702
http://www.a1k.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=100184&d=1421847118
Hi (Amiga)Bill - I remember you!
-
Yes you need the GBAPII++.card file that is hosted as an attachment in that german board (put it in LIBS:Picasso96/), and when you install Piccasso96 you must select the PiccoloSD64 as the graphics card. After that you need to change the PiccoloSD64 monitor´s file tooltype to BOARDTYPE=GBAPII++
Excellent! Thank you sir. This response makes me much less grumpy today. :lol:
-
Thanks for the great replies!
So, I gotta ask 'cause I just don't know... probably obvious to some...
When using this board with an Indie ECS does it provide a "scan doubled" Cirrus GD5434 video output? I think Thomas already stated that would be true but I would like to make sure as I want to order one ASAP. :)
I think someone needs a beer!! :roflmao:
(http://www.buymikeabeer.com/BEER0704.jpg)
-
Stupid question: would this new graphic card work with my A3000 w/A3640?
How does this card compare with the VA2000 Zorro II Video Card (FPGA based gfx card) being developed by Lukas Hartmann. There is a separate thread about this one here http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=69972&highlight=FPGA+graphic+card
-
Stupid question: would this new graphic card work with my A3000 w/A3640?
Presumably if it physically fits (no reason it shouldn't that I can think of, since it looks like it was designed for A2000) and you can figure out the drivers (comments above should help). But it's Zorro II, so you won't get the advantages of your faster bus.
Plenty of folks use a PII in A3k and are happy with it. If it were me, I'd hold out for a Zorro 3 graphics card. ;)
-
When using this board with an Indie ECS does it provide a "scan doubled" Cirrus GD5434 video output? I think Thomas already stated that would be true but I would like to make sure as I want to order one ASAP. :)
I think someone needs a beer!! :roflmao:
Presumably it would work the same as any other Amiga with an Indi + a graphics card would. Native screenmodes are doubled by the Indi (prior to the pass-through), P96 modes are handled exclusively by the graphics card.
I like the concept of this, need some time to look into it a bit further. Currently my Indi output is in one of the slots of my A2000, fed back in through a separate cable into my Spectrum, then back out to my monitor. If this card makes that connection internally it would be a bit cleaner. Hooray for fewer wires on my desk, and all that. ;)
I'll take that beer now! :pint:
-
Also:
-
Presumably it would work the same as any other Amiga with an Indi + a graphics card would. Native screenmodes are doubled by the Indi (prior to the pass-through), P96 modes are handled exclusively by the graphics card.
I like the concept of this, need some time to look into it a bit further. Currently my Indi output is in one of the slots of my A2000, fed back in through a separate cable into my Spectrum, then back out to my monitor. If this card makes that connection internally it would be a bit cleaner. Hooray for fewer wires on my desk, and all that. ;)
I'll take that beer now! :pint:
This is exactly what I'm looking for if what you state is true Mike! Plus it's available right now. Waiting around for an RTG card to fall into my lap ain't gonna happen! I'm not getting any younger and neither are Amiga RTG cards! :lol:
Watch overhead for that beer Mike - I'll send you one via my FPGA drone!!!!!
(http://www.bestdronedepot.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/shocktop_drone_large-1024x512.jpg)
-
Presumably if it physically fits (no reason it shouldn't that I can think of, since it looks like it was designed for A2000) and you can figure out the drivers (comments above should help). But it's Zorro II, so you won't get the advantages of your faster bus.
Plenty of folks use a PII in A3k and are happy with it. If it were me, I'd hold out for a Zorro 3 graphics card. ;)
But, I don't have an Indivision. I use the native VGA port in the A3000; if this is relevant.
-
Eh, what the He!!..... Just ordered one! :)
I figure this is the only way I can come close to matching Mikey's A2K Beast! :hammer:
I'll do a write up of the install when I get it..... :rtfm:
giZmo
-
But, I don't have an Indivision. I use the native VGA port in the A3000; if this is relevant.
Good call on the purchase, Giz! I'm too busy facepalming and making dumb pictures in Photoshop. OBVIOUSLY I don't own the card. But looking at the picture for 30 seconds makes it pretty clear how it would be installed, whether you HAVE or DO NOT HAVE an Indivision.
Aaaand, I'm done here for the day. It's Beer 30 time! ;)
-
Stupid question: would this new graphic card work with my A3000 w/A3640?
How does this card compare with the VA2000 Zorro II Video Card (FPGA based gfx card) being developed by Lukas Hartmann. There is a separate thread about this one here http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=69972&highlight=FPGA+graphic+card
I met Lukas Hartmann by chance on irc this past weekend.
He told me he was having troubles with the P96 driver development (crashes when switching to 16 bit modes), and I pointed him to the right people to search for the help he was requiring. So it is yet too early to compare this new device with anything else.
He seems to be a nice and friendly guy.
-
LOL Thanks for the most excellent illustration Mike! :lol:
Enjoy that coooooool one... or 10! :pint:
-
I met Lukas Hartmann by chance on irc this past weekend.
He told me he was having troubles with the P96 driver development (crashes when switching to 16 bit modes), and I pointed him to the right people to search for the help he was requiring. So it is yet too early to compare this new device with anything else.
He seems to be a nice and friendly guy.
Well, is this card gonna work when I get it! :confused:
I mean, I just ordered this for kris sakes!
disclaimer: I know you wouldn't know Gulliver..... :)
-
Well, is this card gonna work when I get it! :confused:
I mean, I just ordered this for kris sakes!
disclaimer: I know you wouldn't know Gulliver..... :)
Y'all are talking about two different cards. This is the Lukas Hartmann card: http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=69972&highlight=FPGA+graphic+card
;)
-
Y'all are talking about two different cards. ;)
Yes, it seems gizmo350 already drank the flying beers ;)
-
Yes, it seems gizmo350 already drank the flying beers ;)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! No, but I'm getting ready to! Whew!
-
So, I gotta ask 'cause I just don't know... probably obvious to some...
When using this board with an Indie ECS does it provide a "scan doubled" Cirrus GD5434 video output?
Short and simple: Yes. The Indie does the scan doubling, the card does the video pass-through.
-
Stupid question: would this new graphic card work with my A3000 w/A3640?
Yes. But note that it is a Zorro-II card, i.e. transfer to the graphics RAM (and back) is slow.
How does this card compare with the VA2000 Zorro II Video Card (FPGA based gfx card) being developed by Lukas Hartmann. There is a separate thread about this one here http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=69972&highlight=FPGA+graphic+card
A horse of a different color. Matze's card is based on a standard old stock VGA chip that goes up to true-color in 800x600. Lukas card is a design from scratch, work in progress. AFAIK, it currently does hi-collor (16 bit) only and has still a couple of problems with interleaving CPU access with DMA video access.
-
I like the concept of this, need some time to look into it a bit further. Currently my Indi output is in one of the slots of my A2000, fed back in through a separate cable into my Spectrum, then back out to my monitor. If this card makes that connection internally it would be a bit cleaner.
Yes, it does have an internal video-in plug you can connect to the indie.
-
How hard is it to say "Yes, it works with Picasso96 using the blahblahblah driver.
Probably a case of copyright paranoia. They didn't pay any picasso license, did they? :lol:
-
Probably a case of copyright paranoia. They didn't pay any picasso license, did they? :lol:
You as "correspondence degree attorney" should probably know that copyright is nothing to laugh about, and that it requires a more careful background check to understand the situation in total.
It is in this particular case not quite the same as for the Apollo and the rights (or lack thereof) on the driver development package of P96 is derived (or supposed to be derived) from a completely different route - in particular, it is not derived from the UAE driver. In the end, I cannot give a complete legal waterproof argument what is correct and what is not (I do not have any degree in this field, just what I need in my daily work), but at least I talked to many people on this issue (for this card, and for the Apollo) to get a better picture of where we are. It's not really that easy, and the two cases are not identical.
-
Ha, sure it's not the same case. It's exploiting the license somebody else paid for. Not sure why that is morally any better than writing a driver without using any licensed material and relying on the shareware model the picasso authors offer. Wait a moment, that sounds less legitimate than what apollo did but somehow there is no public uproar about it...
-
Ha, sure it's not the same case. It's exploiting the license somebody else paid for. Not sure why that is morally any better than writing a driver without using any licensed material and relying on the shareware model the picasso authors offer. Wait a moment, that sounds less legitimate than what apollo did but somehow there is no public uproar about it...
See? That's precisely why I say that you haven't done your job properly. Background check. You speculate where you should *know*. Copyright is not a matter of speculation.
Actually, I talked to Alex on this matter, and with the makers of said graphics card. So here are some hard facts (not speculations):
First, the license model for P96 is not what you think what it is. There is no "shareware fee" for graphic card drivers. There is a shareware fee for the existing "old stock" graphics card drivers that come with P96, i.e. what you find in the archive of P96 (cards such as the GVP Spectrum). These drivers can be registered for a shareware fee from the owners of P96 - which are at this time still Tobias and Alex.
Second, if you develop a new graphics card, such a shareware fee does not apply. You need to negotiate and obtain a license. Village Tronic did exactly that, and for this reason, owners of such cards can use P96 for free - it was already paid for, and the license fee for the development kit and the graphics card driver was paid for by the corresponding hardware vendor.
Gunnar always expressed the believe that it is sufficient of users register the Apollo driver for a shareware fee, but that's not the case. There is no possibility to write a new driver and let users register. The vendor has to. Yes, Apollo need to get a license from Tobias and Alex, and yes, I did check with them. That's the opinion of the authors and owners, and not based on some second guessing or sloppy background checking.
Third, Cloanto does not hold a license for P96 at this point either. They paid Tobias and Alex a "lump sum" on a good will basis for "missed income", but there is no contract, and there is no "perpetual license agreement" between them. So in that sense, the UAE driver seems to be in legal limbo as well.
How did this driver come into living: Alex shared some details on the P96 internals with Brian King, who, however, neither obtained a license from Tobias and Alex. Whether the file in question (the UAE picasso96.c file and the corresponding header) is under GPL is a very delicate question as well. The header says "Copyright Brian King", but it does not say what the license conditions are. So it's probably shared "as is", for the single purpose to be used within UAE. A GPL header is missing, and it is arguably whether you can derive from that that the author provided the source under GPL. Given that there is no license on the corresponding header (which is close to the copy of the picasso96 private includes header), and that there is no licensing agreement between Brian and Alex, this is probably not very surprising. In particular, as far as *I* read it, it does not grant anyone any rights to use this driver outside of UAE.
As far as the licenses for this graphics card is derived: This came from a completely different route and goes back to another private agreement with Alex, by email. It is not derived from an UAE driver, or somebody elses work. It was based on "let's simply ask and see what we get". This is probably good enough to get away with for a hobby project, whether this is all sufficient for commercial development I do not know.
So in the end, I really wonder how seriously you take your job, and how easily you defend your position without having done your homework. I tried my very best to research the backgrounds here, and my research method is the most basic one I can recommend to everyone else: Why not simply ask the people that should know? For example, the authors.
-
Interesting claims, alas unsubstantiated. Let's quote the readme of picasso96.lha uploaded by Tobias Abt himself for some facts:
"Picasso96 is ShareWare. Requested fee US$20 or DM30, free to use for PicassoIV and Pixel64 users (the manufacturers of those cards already paid for these licences) and the really few ones that already have sent us a donation."
Clearly Picasso96 is shareware for users. I don't see anything about any fees for people who write additional drivers. And why should I not be allowed to write any software of my own and publish it? I'm also allowed to build LEGO bricks compatible with the original LEGO bricks and sell them (there is a long history of LEGO case law). If I want to have my driver included with the original package, yes, that's something for which the authors could demand a license fee.
Making a card compatible to the two cards mentioned in the readme and exploiting the licenses that were paid for the two original cards seems to be an anticompetitive action but I'm pretty sure the original license hold won't mind. And if the picasso right owners don't mind, who would?
-
I "Picasso96 is ShareWare. Requested fee US$20 or DM30, free to use for PicassoIV and Pixel64 users (the manufacturers of those cards already paid for these licences) and the really few ones that already have sent us a donation."
And this package is shareware indeed. The DDK is not, and never was. So, instead of guessing, or reading something you'd like to read into a license agreement that does not apply to your form of usage, why not simply talk to the people that should know - the owners?
You try to wiggle around your obligations instead of clarifying the situation. You really should know better how this works. I don't see anything about any fees for people who write additional drivers.
Indeed not, because the package does not include the driver API or licenses for it. Which means that you simply don't have rights there. Unless you negotiate. That's how the things work - just because a package doesn't say something means that it is free access. And why should I not be allowed to write any software of my own and publish it?
This is not about "writing your own software". It's not a "free standing software" we're talking about which, of course, you can do. Your software requires interfacing to a non-public API for which a development kit exists which you need to license. Again, you're talking to the wrong guy here. If you want to understand the legal situation, ask the owners. I'm also allowed to build LEGO bricks compatible with the original LEGO bricks and sell them (there is a long history of LEGO case law). If I want to have my driver included with the original package, yes, that's something for which the authors could demand a license fee.
P96 is a bit more than a LEGO brick. It is a complete RTG system, a substantial requirement for your work to be useful. C'mon, this is not a comparable case. Making a card compatible to the two cards mentioned in the readme and exploiting the licenses that were paid for the two original cards seems to be an anticompetitive action but I'm pretty sure the original license hold won't mind. And if the picasso right owners don't mind, who would?
Actually, they *do mind*, feel ensured. Alex made a pretty clear statement what he thinks about your activity, without any possibility to misinterpret it by my side.
They just don't have enough financial backing to go to court, which currently safes your neck. But that's as far as it goes.
Before I forget: No, the licenses on this graphics card are not derived from "because it is compatible". You should have read my post more carefully.
-
Well, the DDK was not used for writing the vampire driver. The driver was written and is maintained by Jason McMullan who never had any access to the DDK. While we are very happy about his contributions, he isn't even part of apollo or vampire.
-
If the P96 authors care so much, it is about damn time they start _do_ something, and not just whine about it. Lawsuits already!
-
with no public first hand statements, and all but hearsay and guessing, p96 ecosystem will always be a legal burden or at least a can of worms, as much as so called "amiga os" or whatever kickstart. such entities of uncertain status should simply be avoided, and replaced by open alternatives, but since people fail to cooperate on such solutions and simply prefer to continue the way of least resistance at least as long as not seriously threatened, noting will change about it, whether we discuss it or not.
-
There is more pleasure to be found in bitching about it than settling it once and for all. Various similar court cases that have been settled suggest that P96 authors have very little legal ground to stand on when it comes to third party drivers made simply by studying how their own drivers function and operate. They can be unhappy and whine about it by proxy as much as they want, but it only puts themselves in a bad light.
Instead of all this mindboggling nonsense, they _could_ have chosen a different route, to be supportive, to open up P96 for anyone to use and develp for, and set up a donation account for people who simply want to show their gratitude. They could chose to become "good guys" in Amiga world and even make some money from it. But nah, that would mean changing attitude, and if there is one thing old grumpy amiga developers are not good at, it is changing attitudes.
-
And this package is shareware indeed. The DDK is not, and never was. So, instead of guessing, or reading something you'd like to read into a license agreement that does not apply to your form of usage, why not simply talk to the people that should know - the owners?
You try to wiggle around your obligations instead of clarifying the situation. You really should know better how this works. Indeed not, because the package does not include the driver API or licenses for it. Which means that you simply don't have rights there. Unless you negotiate. That's how the things work - just because a package doesn't say something means that it is free access. This is not about "writing your own software". It's not a "free standing software" we're talking about which, of course, you can do. Your software requires interfacing to a non-public API for which a development kit exists which you need to license. Again, you're talking to the wrong guy here. If you want to understand the legal situation, ask the owners. P96 is a bit more than a LEGO brick. It is a complete RTG system, a substantial requirement for your work to be useful. C'mon, this is not a comparable case.
Actually, they *do mind*, feel ensured. Alex made a pretty clear statement what he thinks about your activity, without any possibility to misinterpret it by my side.
They just don't have enough financial backing to go to court, which currently safes your neck. But that's as far as it goes.
Before I forget: No, the licenses on this graphics card are not derived from "because it is compatible". You should have read my post more carefully.
I cannot make any judgements about the legal situation on certain Amiga APIs and drivers (mostly it was a legal mess back in the time) but looking at certain forum discussions from "real world" it is a little weird... noone outsides cares about anymore for a long time and here people make lengthy discussions about it
-
I cannot make any judgements about the legal situation on certain Amiga APIs and drivers (mostly it was a legal mess back in the time) but looking at certain forum discussions from "real world" it is a little weird... noone outsides cares about anymore for a long time and here people make lengthy discussions about it
Well, there's a quite a difference between "I just want to play with it for my private pleasure" and "I'm running a project and earn some money". When it comes to copyright, owners are usually forgiving as far as the first type of activity goes - simply because there's nothing to loose anyhow. In the second case, of course, all trouble begins.
Amiga has been - in the last years - mostly a type of activity of the first kind. Strangely enough (or wonderfully enough) it has migrated into some retro type activity which makes some people believe again that their work has some value (larger than zero, that is). Without any doubt, Vampire has a value (people are paying for it) and this graphics card also has a value (people are again paying for it).
What I do not understand is the average attitute here that "oh well, I pay for the hardware because I want it", but "software is worthless, I don't care, let's just steal what I need".
A lot of work went into P96, probably at least as many work hours that went into the vampire, and I believe it's just fair to return something to those that made P96 possible.
Anyhow, I also have reasons to believe that all this trouble might probably go away soon anyhow, and the situation will likely clear up in the near future. There *is* still some good will in this universe, besides what many people believe, and despite that people just try to ignore authors rights and the many work hours they spend in projects.
All I'm asking for is just pay a little bit more respect to those that made the software and hardware you use.
-
Actually the work and skill that went into picasso is respected a lot. How much would they want to release all picasso sources under the GPL?
-
What I do not understand is the average attitute here that "oh well, I pay for the hardware because I want it", but "software is worthless, I don't care, let's just steal what I need".
A lot of work went into P96, probably at least as many work hours that went into the vampire, and I believe it's just fair to return something to those that made P96 possible.
Anyhow, I also have reasons to believe that all this trouble might probably go away soon anyhow, and the situation will likely clear up in the near future. There *is* still some good will in this universe, besides what many people believe, and despite that people just try to ignore authors rights and the many work hours they spend in projects.
All I'm asking for is just pay a little bit more respect to those that made the software and hardware you use.
as far as i gather unlikely other cases we are talking here, with the vampire there was a will and approach to honour the developers. in monetary terms. however it looks like someone stepped in between and broke the deal. the developers do not comment on the situation. all we are given are your vague suggestions. so i dont understand properly what you expect to happen now?
-
Why is it every time someone want to improve and give great hardware the developers of an outdated system cry foul? When was the last time P96 was even updated, I think the last version was released in like the late 90's? People don't release new cards for Amiga because of this stupid crap. Open up a damn donation site and start allowing others to pay them. Its that simple. If they write an update, charge for it. How hard is that to understand?
We have so many examples of people wanting to pay for software and new hardware on the Amiga platforms and just as many examples of developers not allowing for a way to pay them or worse yet they ignore customers wanting to pay.
-
reminds me of a guy who offered another a can of fixative in my first semester in the art school. the other refused. i dont do business with bonkers like you, he said, either you will give me it for free or you will demand my life for it. one thing you will never accept is a reasonable reward.
-
Why is it every time someone want to improve and give great hardware the developers of an outdated system cry foul? When was the last time P96 was even updated, I think the last version was released in like the late 90's? People don't release new cards for Amiga because of this stupid crap. Open up a damn donation site and start allowing others to pay them. Its that simple. If they write an update, charge for it. How hard is that to understand?
We have so many examples of people wanting to pay for software and new hardware on the Amiga platforms and just as many examples of developers not allowing for a way to pay them or worse yet they ignore customers wanting to pay.
Simply because it is easy money. They are not interested anymore and will not invest any time in it and do not care about amiga anymore but when you get money from something that was wortless before just by requesting then you do it... that lack of common sense partly killed the platform because it was typical for most members of the community with everyone sueing everyone
-
I believe it's more a case of irrational behaviour caused by hurt feelings because the work, skill and idealism that went into picasso was never recognised. And then doing something takes more effort than just ignoring the entire situation.
-
Just wondering why clone Picasso II? There are much faster Graphics cards wich has schematics lying around, chips availlable and support for Zorro III.
As I have understand it is possible and actually very easy read chips data?
-
With a GD5434 it's merely a Piccolo clone, just a plain ZorroII version. And that's why something much faster has no use with ZorroII 3.5 MB/s max "speed" which isn't enough even for 640x480 at good fps.
-
I believe it's more a case of irrational behaviour caused by hurt feelings because the work, skill and idealism that went into picasso was never recognised. And then doing something takes more effort than just ignoring the entire situation.
Legally, nothing has to be done. Anyone who wants can legally develop drivers without using the original DDK and distribute them as they see fit. An effort could be put into making a third party open and available DDK for P96, based on studying and reverse engineering existing drivers, and legally there is nothing the original authors can do about it (though I would love to see them try.)
-
With a GD5434 it's merely a Piccolo clone, just a plain ZorroII version. And that's why something much faster has no use with ZorroII 3.5 MB/s max "speed" which isn't enough even for 640x480 at good fps.
That was excatly my point. Why to limit it to Zorro II? Why they choosed poor chip and support only for Zorro II?
Tseng Labs ET4000W32 offers some FPS more for Quake even with Zorro II bus, compared to Cirrus Logic GD5434. Easiest to found amiga supported chip is however S3 Virge.
-
Because it's made primarily for A500 and at a low price.
Actually it started from Georg Braun's Amiga 1000 GBA060 replacement motherboard.
-
That was excatly my point. Why to limit it to Zorro II?
Essentially because Zorro-III is a can of worms. There are multiple Buster revisions around, ranging from "less working" to "more working", and nobody can currently affort to provide sufficient service for the card and work out all the tweaking necssary for Zorro-III. It's also a matter of the complexity of the design. Zorro-III needs to run both Zorro-II slots and the handover to Zorro-III, then native Zorro-III support. Why they choosed poor chip and support only for Zorro II?
Because the GD5434 is still available in quantities, unlike many other chips of similar age. The GD5446 (from the P-IV) is, for example, certainly a more powerful chip, but you simply do not find it in sufficient quantities for reasonable prices.
The GD5434 is certainly an old chip, but it supports a couple of features that makes it interesting, like a true hardware sprite and a blitter (both of which are supported by P96). Tseng Labs ET4000W32 offers some FPS more for Quake even with Zorro II bus, compared to Cirrus Logic GD5434. Easiest to found amiga supported chip is however S3 Virge.
And where to buy them from for prices that allow to sell the cards for end-user friendly prices?
-
Legally, nothing has to be done. Anyone who wants can legally develop drivers without using the original DDK and distribute them as they see fit. An effort could be put into making a third party open and available DDK for P96, based on studying and reverse engineering existing drivers, and legally there is nothing the original authors can do about it (though I would love to see them try.)
This is exactly what ends up happening. People want something, are willing to invest money into it and yet the developers don't care. In the end they will make it work without them and a good opportunity for the developers is wasted.
I would put money towards seeing P96 revived and developed for newer hardware and more features.
-
Actually the work and skill that went into picasso is respected a lot. How much would they want to release all picasso sources under the GPL?
Please let me make a couple of statements here:
First, I don't think this forum is the right spot to start negotiations. Yes, I do have contact to the authors, and yes, I know the figure they expect. But please understand that I'm not the right partner to negotiate with, as I have no rights on the actual code. I can at best moderate.
However, if you want to take my personal observations: From what I learned from Alex, I would *personally* consider it unlikely that they are willing to provide P96 under LGPL terms, even if you would want to pay for this right. But that is, as said, my observation, and something you should discuss with them.
I believe you have the email address, but - to be completely frank again - their willingness to talk to the Apollo team given what happened before seems not to be "overly enthusiastic", to put it mildly. I would assume that you - your team - should make some first step, probably to make them understand that you accept their rights.
Anyhow, just my two cents. I am neither with them nor any other party, that's just my opinion and my observation.
-
Please let me make a couple of statements here:
First, I don't think this forum is the right spot to start negotiations. Yes, I do have contact to the authors, and yes, I know the figure they expect. But please understand that I'm not the right partner to negotiate with, as I have no rights on the actual code. I can at best moderate.
However, if you want to take my personal observations: From what I learned from Alex, I would *personally* consider it unlikely that they are willing to provide P96 under LGPL terms, even if you would want to pay for this right. But that is, as said, my observation, and something you should discuss with them.
I believe you have the email address, but - to be completely frank again - their willingness to talk to the Apollo team given what happened before seems not to be "overly enthusiastic", to put it mildly. I would assume that you - your team - should make some first step, probably to make them understand that you accept their rights.
Anyhow, just my two cents. I am neither with them nor any other party, that's just my opinion and my observation.
And we want a clean P96 installation for the Indivision ECS, Mediator 3dfx and Radeon...
-
And we want a clean P96 installation for the Indivision ECS, Mediator 3dfx and Radeon...
You forgot Amithlon, GBAPII++, VampireV2 (SAGA), Arcade Replay, etc
But that is fairly easy to achieve. :)
I am working on it.
-
OK, after returning from almost 1 month of business travel, and reading this thread, I jumped in the wagon and bought my own Matzes a1k.org Graphics Adapter.
So question, and I should have asked this before my purchase: Do I need any additional accesory(ies) to install the card in my A3000D, w/A3640? My video/gfx Zorro slot (the very top one in my setup) is free since I don't have any gfx card at this moment.
-
So question, and I should have asked this before my purchase: Do I need any additional accesory(ies) to install the card in my A3000D, w/A3640? My video/gfx Zorro slot (the very top one in my setup) is free since I don't have any gfx card at this moment.
Doesn't look like it from the pictures. ;) FYI most video cards only use a Zorro slot, with the exception of cards like the PIV (that requires the video slot for it's scandoubler module).
-
OK, after returning from almost 1 month of business travel, and reading this thread, I jumped in the wagon and bought my own Matzes a1k.org Graphics Adapter.
So question, and I should have asked this before my purchase: Do I need any additional accesory(ies) to install the card in my A3000D, w/A3640? My video/gfx Zorro slot (the very top one in my setup) is free since I don't have any gfx card at this moment.
Also post #8 and #9 in this thread have the link for the monitor file you use. Be sure to rename the files and edit the icon info as well as mentioned in post 8.
-
I am lost - what happened before between Apollo team and P96 authors? Has the Vampire2 existed long enough to make the P96 authors grumpy already? Hilarious.
-
I am lost - what happened before between Apollo team and P96 authors? Has the Vampire2 existed long enough to make the P96 authors grumpy already? Hilarious.
apparently while the general practice seems simply to silently take some driver or monitor file and rename it accordingly (it happened once, while it still seems somehow tolerated, while not welcome), tha apollo team seems to have approached the p96 people properly in order to establish an agreement. as result, there seems to be a debacle, especially that some third party entered (or ruined) negotiations.. in my eyes the whole standard (if it is a standard, that is) needs to be avoided, due to non transparent situation. there is no clear public statements of the creators of p96, as of whats their position, a lot of hearsay, accusations and the like is underway. it simply demanstrates that the affairs around amiga proprietary software need to be circumnavidated taking furthest possible distance..
-
apparently while the general practice seems simply to silently take some driver or monitor file and rename it accordingly (it happened once, while it still seems somehow tolerated, while not welcome), tha apollo team seems to have approached the p96 people properly in order to establish an agreement. as result, there seems to be a debacle, especially that some third party entered (or ruined) negotiations..
Actually, no. Appollo always negotiated with a third party, and could not come to an agreement - an agreement which would have included P96 as part of the deal, as there was also an agreement between this third party and the owners of P96. *That* by itself is not a problem. Business is business, and parties may or may not come together. I do not have a problem with *that*.
However, if you do not come to an agreement, you either need to negotiate directly with the owners (another party), or you cannot use the component you want to make use of. Just first canceling negotiations, but then still using the component is not my understatement of how business works, and certainly not "gentlemen like". I cannot first say "thank you, we don't want to make business with you", and then still use third party work as if nothing happened. If I do not want a deal, I have no deal, with all consequences.
in my eyes the whole standard (if it is a standard, that is) needs to be avoided, due to non transparent situation. there is no clear public statements of the creators of p96, as of whats their position, a lot of hearsay, accusations and the like is underway. it simply demanstrates that the affairs around amiga proprietary software need to be circumnavidated taking furthest possible distance..
Why do you need a public statement of the owners? Why do negotiations have to be run in public? Why do *you* need to care? It's not your software, it's neither your hardware. You're none of the parties involved here.
It's clear who owns P96 (Tobias Abt and Alex Kneer), and its up to them to define license conditions or sell it whomever they want to sell it to. The situation in that respect is actually quite clear - quite the opposite.
The reason why I care (if you care) is that I tried to get people together, and I also talked to Tobias and Alex, and ensured them that Gunnar is a guy they could trust, and he would respect copyright and licenses. Well, now this license breach falls now back to me by recommending someone who does not act "gentlemen like", and unlike promised, could not be trusted. Thank you.
-
Why do you need a public statement of the owners? Why do negotiations have to be run in public? Why do *you* need to care? It's not your software, it's neither your hardware. You're none of the parties involved here.
because thats the matter of issues with this community, you can never be sure if you, as a user can even consider using something legally or at least under fair conditions. just look up the history of posts considering different legal or illegal battles and accusations that have taken place around different forums. i didnt bought into apollo project nor im a part of the team, but it interests me and i would like to support it. similarly i simpatize with other amiga hardware projects, as the one on topic here. however relaying on a closed source software components appears as an inpracticable solution to me. not because i do not respect the developers, but because (de facto) i observe repeated inability to come to agreements and a tendence to simply circumnavigate such issues. in a long term none is served well in this way. neither the original developers, nor the users, nor the projects themselves.
-
Clearly they enjoy their position as one of the many Amiga hostage takers, I have zero understanding for their attitudes. Chris Hodges was in a similar position with Poseidon, and came to a much more productive conclusion.
-
Who was that third party Apollo exclusively negotiated with according to your recollection of this story? And who brought it into play?
For all I know Gunnar did have direct contact with the picasso guys. They were ok with apollo using picasso, there was something about an invitation to dinner in return and some remark stating that parties could talk again if there was any serious money involved.
-
Actually, no. Appollo always negotiated with a third party, and could not come to an agreement - an agreement which would have included P96 as part of the deal, as there was also an agreement between this third party and the owners of P96. *That* by itself is not a problem. Business is business, and parties may or may not come together. I do not have a problem with *that*.
However, if you do not come to an agreement, you either need to negotiate directly with the owners (another party), or you cannot use the component you want to make use of. Just first canceling negotiations, but then still using the component is not my understatement of how business works, and certainly not "gentlemen like". I cannot first say "thank you, we don't want to make business with you", and then still use third party work as if nothing happened. If I do not want a deal, I have no deal, with all consequences.
Why do you need a public statement of the owners? Why do negotiations have to be run in public? Why do *you* need to care? It's not your software, it's neither your hardware. You're none of the parties involved here.
It's clear who owns P96 (Tobias Abt and Alex Kneer), and its up to them to define license conditions or sell it whomever they want to sell it to. The situation in that respect is actually quite clear - quite the opposite.
The reason why I care (if you care) is that I tried to get people together, and I also talked to Tobias and Alex, and ensured them that Gunnar is a guy they could trust, and he would respect copyright and licenses. Well, now this license breach falls now back to me by recommending someone who does not act "gentlemen like", and unlike promised, could not be trusted. Thank you.
It is "your" software? Why do you care there too?
Ok you feel disappointed by Gunnar but there are two business entities, Gunnar with his project and the owners of P96. They should negotiate and come to agreement or not. If not it is their problem, not mine and not yours. If the current acting is violating copyright the owners of copyright are free to act if they think to do so. Again not mine or your problem. If I understand it right you think the apollo team is not violating in a legal sense but they are morally in duty. But moral is not the same as violating laws or copyrights. I do not know what happened during negotiations and honestly I do not really care. If the owners of P96 would be anyhow interested in the community or how people think they would make some sort of open letters to say how they see it or at least make it possible to license it again. They do not because they do not care about amiga anymore. They would have been not against taking some money of course, who could blame them for it. But again, not your or mine problem. For that reason I stay away from anything of amiga past, all cursed. There was and is no common sense by many former developers. And should I tell you a secret... noone outside cares about amiga anymore (perhaps you know already). You cannot earn money anymore and compared to the big platforms you will never earn money again. The apollo project created in several years of development something that gave back some value and opened some doors. Gunnar and others do not really earn money with it to keep it relative cheap. Now all who have left the community a long time ago are suddenly popping up again requesting money, propably more than the apollo devs now earn with it without giving any support for their products. If they do it is not our problem again but theirs.
-
It is "your" software? Why do you care there too?
Read my last paragraph.
-
Who was that third party Apollo exclusively negotiated with according to your recollection of this story? And who brought it into play?
If Gunnar doesn't tell you, why should I? For all I know Gunnar did have direct contact with the picasso guys. They were ok with apollo using picasso,
Indeed, that was the interim agreement we made a year ago, for testing and development. Actually, not "directly" at all. Indirectly, via me - which is the whole point why I'm so upset. Now things get productive, there is some serious money involved as cards are sold to end users, and look where we are. No licensing. Thank you.
-
Tobias Abt and Alex Kneer
The best solution is to put these two f*ckers in jail : no license problem anymore then...
-
Actually there is no money being made which should be obvious when looking at the vampire prices. Gunnar has not earned a single penny in all this time. If he has any interest in all this, it is about making a fast compatible core. Regarding selling boards, it's all kipper's business and he's reinvesting all he gathers from selling his handsoldered cards. No money has ever been passed around within the team.
-
However, if you do not come to an agreement, you either need to negotiate directly with the owners (another party), or you cannot use the component you want to make use of. Just first canceling negotiations, but then still using the component is not my understatement of how business works, and certainly not "gentlemen like". I cannot first say "thank you, we don't want to make business with you", and then still use third party work as if nothing happened. If I do not want a deal, I have no deal, with all consequences.
Well, I agree. This is how business should be done, with proper manners and chivalry.
EXCEPT !!!
In Amigaland where there's always some dense mofo who will block progress.
So the business in Amigaland should be done like this:
A: We're making something, wanna cooperate ?
B: No.
A: Screw you, we're doing this anyway!
And that's it.
Why do you need a public statement of the owners? Why do negotiations have to be run in public? Why do *you* need to care? It's not your software, it's neither your hardware. You're none of the parties involved here.
And just like that, we don't care about the authors. The moment they chose not to help they got on my 'go and F yourself list'.
The best solution is to put these two f*ckers in jail : no license problem anymore then...
And Cosmos has the right solution. +1 for that.
-
Well, I agree. This is how business should be done, with proper manners and chivalry.
EXCEPT !!!
In Amigaland where there's always some dense mofo who will block progress.
So the business in Amigaland should be done like this:
A: We're making something, wanna cooperate ?
B: No.
A: Screw you, we're doing this anyway!
And that's it.
And just like that, we don't care about the authors. The moment they chose not to help they got on my 'go and F yourself list'.
And Cosmos has the right solution. +1 for that.
How about this one?
I have 20 years old software that became completely worthless and I am not interested in the platform anymore
Some enthusiasts do something in several years not asking for any money because they want to develop a market anymore
I am still not interested to do something but now I can take money
And there are even users not really involved fighting for me
how about that?
People should keep them out. Lord Aga is not forced to buy or use Vampire or to use P96. Problem solved...
I do not understand why people are wasting their time with fighting for others... again noone outsides cares about it anymore
-
Actually there is no money being made which should be obvious when looking at the vampire prices. Gunnar has not earned a single penny in all this time.
If he has no money, he cannot use or depend on software that costs money. It's really that simple.
-
The best solution is to put these two f*ckers in jail : no license problem anymore then...
Hold on, who is continuously breaching copyright here... They do want to sell. For money. If that's not morally right for you, you're on the wrong planet.
Not everything is for free here, and just because you want it for free does not mean you can get it.
You act like a child who is denied a lollypop... Buy one if you want one. It's really THAT simple.
-
I have 20 years old software that became completely worthless and I am not interested in the platform anymore.
Wait a minute... so worthless I hear people here arguing all about that they want it, and use it, so worthless some third party products being developed depend on it? I don't know what I call it, but it's not "worthless". It means it has a value, and its more than fair then to sell it.
-
So the business in Amigaland should be done like this:
A: We're making something, wanna cooperate ?
B: No.
A: Screw you, we're doing this anyway!
And that's it.
Except that there never was a "No". There was a "pay for it, it has a value". It's not a decision of a single party to stop or not to stop negotiations. And it's not "We're doing this anyway", it more a matter of "We cannot pay it, so let's steal it.". And Cosmos has the right solution. +1 for that.
I my world, the thief goes into the jail, and not the owner.
-
Hold on, who is continuously breaching copyright here... They do want to sell. For money. If that's not morally right for you, you're on the wrong planet.
Not everything is for free here, and just because you want it for free does not mean you can get it.
You act like a child who is denied a lollypop... Buy one if you want one. It's really THAT simple.
I already answer at this : they make money back in the days with P96, and again few years ago with the OS4...
So now, it's extra... They can give now, the Classic are near dead...
You take us for stupid guys, and you mock us, the last Amiga fans who fight to Amiga Classic survive...
-
When it comes to FPGA systems (and emulators), many (maybe even most) users are not at all interested in RTG, heck, many aren't even interested in Amiga.
-
If he has no money, he cannot use or depend on software that costs money. It's really that simple.
No, it means that the "invitation for a dinner" agreement between Gunnar and A&T still applies.
BTW would you please stop mentioning copyrights? No copyrights have been infringed as nothing has been copied. It's really that simple.
-
Whelp, another thread on an interesting new piece of hardware derailed by people bi***ing about copyrights. Shocker! :(
-
Realistically, users haven't seen them as part of the community for the last 15 years or so. If anything, they are a thorn in our sides.
If they gave a single siht about the community, they would have released the DDK a decade or more ago.
We can't give them money, they don't update or support this software (at least on 68k, not sure on PPC) and as far as an end user is concerned, they are standing in the way of others creating new hardware.
Either take my money and give me support or don't complain when someone figures out how to write a driver that works with your 16 year old software.
-
The best solution is to put these two f*ckers in jail : no license problem anymore then...
puting them in jail does not void their copyright ownership... Problem not solved. And i am frustrated about this too. I have ddk from ages ago. (probably an old version by now with some advancements in os4 since then) I cant do anything with it. I cant help apollo or matzes or fpgaarcade teams if i wanted to. i was hopeful that p96 rights would be purchased for licensing but it sounds questionable if this will happen now. I hope I'm wrong.
I also cannot do anything with the new os4.1fe graphics driver api, since those who said to contact at a particular emailaddr dont seem to read it. Maybe they don't even connect to that addr? at least have the decency to say no... Maybe if/when they get gallium stuff released then we can just use the gallium driver stuff available elsewhere? Or decide to change up gallium for vulkan if no progress has yet been made with the former? But still no help to 3.x users/devs.
-
A question: (or questions) :D
these are the system requirements:
- System requirements: 68020, 4MB fast RAM, max. 6MB fast RAM in ZorroII address space, Kickstart 3.1, HDD
- Recommended system configuration: 68030@25Mhz with 8MB fast RAM, Kickstart 3.1, HDD
My amiga 500 specs:
CPU 030 @ 50mhz - CHECK
Kickstart - 2.04 - FAIL
Fastram - 32MB outside Zorro II space - ?
Fastram in Zorro II space = 0
HDD - CHECK
And, I got the trumpcard. it provides two Zorro II slots. half length.
one slot is occupied for the trumpcard. and one is available.
Will this GFX card work in my system?
Or do i need to upgrade kickstart and add Zorro II ram?
-
I noticed on the website that the price has gone up and that drivers are not included.
What good is the card without drivers?
-
My amiga 500 specs:
CPU 030 @ 50mhz - CHECK
Kickstart - 2.04 - FAIL
Fastram - 32MB outside Zorro II space - ?
Fastram in Zorro II space = 0
HDD - CHECK
And, I got the trumpcard. it provides two Zorro II slots. half length.
one slot is occupied for the trumpcard. and one is available.
Will this GFX card work in my system?
It seems likely, though the question is *NOT* how much RAM you have in the Zorro-II space, but how much of the Zorro-II space in total is occupied. I do not know anything about the trumpcard, so I cannot really answer.
The card itself occupies 2MB (plus IO space) in the Zorro-II space. In total, the Zorro-II allows for 8MB autoconfig space, i.e. you must have at least 2MB free.
However, I wonder how the overall construction of this on an Amiga 500 would look like. It is physically not exactly "pretty". The card is for an A2000, so it does not fit into the A500 physically. I believe the trumpcard is something external?
Or do i need to upgrade kickstart and add Zorro II ram?
No. The RAM and the CPU is required to run P96, not for the card itself.
-
I noticed on the website that the price has gone up and that drivers are not included.
What good is the card without drivers?
further consequences of tumults around p96?
-
I noticed on the website that the price has gone up and that drivers are not included.
What good is the card without drivers?
The drivers were posted on Amibay and a1k some time ago & are still there.
-
The drivers were posted on Amibay and a1k some time ago & are still there.
So the question now is, is the card worth the new price.
When is someone going to post comments on their test of this device?
-
It seems likely, though the question is *NOT* how much RAM you have in the Zorro-II space, but how much of the Zorro-II space in total is occupied. I do not know anything about the trumpcard, so I cannot really answer.
Only the trumpcard itself occupy the ZII space. By how much, i have no clue.
The fast ram on the derringer is outside zorro space.
The card itself occupies 2MB (plus IO space) in the Zorro-II space. In total, the Zorro-II allows for 8MB autoconfig space, i.e. you must have at least 2MB free.
Then it should coexist with the trumpcard, or any other disk controller for that matter.
However, I wonder how the overall construction of this on an Amiga 500 would look like. It is physically not exactly "pretty". The card is for an A2000, so it does not fit into the A500 physically. I believe the trumpcard is something external?
The trumpcard (http://amiga.resource.cx/search.pl?product=trumpcard#trumpcard2000) is simply just a Zorro II SCSI controller. and was made for the A2000. But on A500 it comes with a sidecar (http://amiga.resource.cx/photos/photo2.pl?id=trumpcard500&pg=1&res=hi&lang=en) and the hdd is mounted inside the "roof" of the case. It also includes an edge connector (http://amiga.resource.cx/photos/photo2.pl?id=trumpcard500&pg=3&res=hi&lang=en) that provides the A500 with (in my case) two zorro slots. There was made an optional ram board (http://ram board) for the trumpcard A500 version.
No. The RAM and the CPU is required to run P96, not for the card itself.
Hmm... in theory, it should work in my setup then....
I need to start saving some cash.
-
So the question now is, is the card worth the new price.
When is someone going to post comments on their test of this device?
Well, I have it, so what's your question? It is approximately equivalent to the Picollo SD64, i.e. it is based on the CirrusGD5434 chip. You can get up to 1280x1024 in 8 bit, or 1024x768 in 32 bits (IIRC). The card has a hardware sprite, a blitter, full P96 compatibility, a built-in VGA switch - video pass-through for Amiga.
It is a little bit more capable than my aging GVP spectrum as it supports a couple of additional higher resolution video modes, (GVP required interlace in 1280x1024 and maxed out at 800x600 in true color) but it is also based on an aged VGA chip. The VGA chip stems from the follow-up generation of the GVP spectrum chip series (which used the Cirrus GD5424 or 5428, I don't remember precisely which) and hence is a bit better.
Was it worth the investment? Yes, I would say so. It's not only a frame-buffer (i.e. what you find in some new FPGA designs) but is fully hardware accelerated. It's certainly a retro design and hence "fits" psychologically into the aged design of the system. (-:
-
Well, I have it, so what's your question? It is approximately equivalent to the Picollo SD64, i.e. it is based on the CirrusGD5434 chip. You can get up to 1280x1024 in 8 bit, or 1024x768 in 32 bits (IIRC). The card has a hardware sprite, a blitter, full P96 compatibility, a built-in VGA switch - video pass-through for Amiga.
It is a little bit more capable than my aging GVP spectrum as it supports a couple of additional higher resolution video modes, (GVP required interlace in 1280x1024 and maxed out at 800x600 in true color) but it is also based on an aged VGA chip. The VGA chip stems from the follow-up generation of the GVP spectrum chip series (which used the Cirrus GD5424 or 5428, I don't remember precisely which) and hence is a bit better.
Was it worth the investment? Yes, I would say so. It's not only a frame-buffer (i.e. what you find in some new FPGA designs) but is fully hardware accelerated. It's certainly a retro design and hence "fits" psychologically into the aged design of the system. (-:
That was an excellent answer.
I was not aware of the fact that the fpga was emulating a gpu that had been used in older rtg cards.
That makes me SO much more comfortable.
Thanks Thomas.
-
There is no FPGA in that card, it has a real thing.
http://webstore.kryoflux.com/catalog/images/amiga_graka.jpg
-
There is no FPGA in that card, it has a real thing.
http://webstore.kryoflux.com/catalog/images/amiga_graka.jpg
Thanks.
That makes it more attractive to me.
Definately worth consideration.
I wish I had ordered one at the original price.
-
:eek:
So the question now is, is the card worth the new price.
When is someone going to post comments on their test of this device?
Mine still hasn't arrived. I think they scuttled it via Tuna Trawler! :(
I hope 17 days and counting doesn't turn into "2 more weeks"! :eek:
(http://www.brisbaneracing.com.au/dbimage/dbase/jrnews/newsphotos/imgId/imagefile/image_mod/21533/Donkey-on-slow-boat.jpg)
Can't wait to install and post review with pics. :rtfm:
Yea, I bought this one as there is no FPGA (to dink with) and is just the real deal.
Got mine at the original price.... :)
-
Got mine at the original price.... :)
I got mine much cheaper, I built it myself. :)
-
I got mine much cheaper, I built it myself. :)
Do tell.
How about some details?
-
Yes you need the GBAPII++.card file that is hosted as an attachment in that german board (put it in LIBS:Picasso96/), and when you install Piccasso96 you must select the PiccoloSD64 as the graphics card. After that you need to change the PiccoloSD64 monitor´s file tooltype to BOARDTYPE=GBAPII++
Finally got time to install the new video card! :)
Used a VGA cable for Indi out to card in and have native video out.
I installed Piccasso96 and performed all of the above and cold rebooted.
Running SCREENMODE gives no new modes.
Running PICCASSO96MODE gives a dialog box with "Could Not Find Any Modes! :confused:
That's as far as I have got. Any suggestions?
-
@Gizmo - if you're not seeing anything new in Screenmode Prefs it's likely something isn't installed correctly. I'm not near a computer right now but this sounds like another chance to plug my "setting screenmodes with Picasso96" YouTube video again. ;)
https://youtu.be/n8lLfEuVI2Y
-
Hmmm, wellst I better check that out right now! :)
When I was installing Piccasso96, the only thing I thought I may have done wrong was something about "Install Printer Mode" or something like that...
Can Piccasso96 install just be rerun or better to check UserStartup or StartupSequence? I dunno, let me check out this vid first! :lol:
-
Here's a couple more that may help:
https://youtu.be/yBU7B_6zB3s
https://youtu.be/RSzJn9BRHIE
-
Nice Vids Mike! So, I reran Picasso install and removed the "PrinterPatch" option. Rebooted and ran Picasso96Mode. Some screen modes show up now (like in your vid) and here are some observations. (Keep in mind I would usually read the guide if this were simply a supported board - I'm using the PiccoloSD64 Monitor file reassigned to the GBAPII++.card file in Libs).
On the Picasso96Mode screen:
The Settings box shows: Not Attached : Village-31
The drop down menu shows: Mode PrinterMode and Attach Setting To: No Board.
And even though I can select different mode and deactivate or activate, all the option buttons and settings boxes are grayed out.
Does this have anything to do with something I think I read somewhere about having 128MB of mem using my Blizzard accelerator? :confused:
-
Went back thru all my procedure.... had the GBAPII++.card file in Libs:
Should be in LIBS:Picasso96/
Reboot... now the board shows up Picasso prefs and active buttons and setting boxes are live :)
Still can't set a screen mode though.... like Mike said, some modes need to be fiddled with... I understand that. My Dell monitor goes out of range though.
The only mode I can get to display in test mode is 640x480x16 but that's actuall a lower rez than my Indie ECS is currently set to.
Not understanding how the Picasso modes are even displayed at all I guess - back to Mike's video... what were those hot keys again Mike? :)
Oh, and is there anything I need to be setting in the Picasso Variable Setter program? It looks useful.
-
Went back thru all my procedure.... had the GBAPII++.card file in Libs:
Should be in LIBS:Picasso96/
Reboot... now the board shows up Picasso prefs and active buttons and setting boxes are live :)
Still can't set a screen mode though....
You need to create some, with Picasso96ModeNG. Select the card, then check the window: There is one field in the top with a box and an upward pointing arrow. This is a "create new item" field. Click on the field, keep the mouse button held down, drag with the mouse a field into the screen mode area below. This gives you a new resolution. In the gadgets below, enter the size of the resolution.
Then, again, you need to create modes. Again, click and hold onto this "box with upwards pointing arrow", drag an item out of it, drag it to the right-hand side "mode" field. There, select with check box the type of mode you want: 16 colors, 256 colors, Hicolor (16 bit) or truecolor (32 bit). The Cirrus you have does not like 24bit color very much due to the size of its data bus, so truecolor+alpha works better.
Then adkust the pixel clock with the slider below. In the buttons even further down, you can test the mode, or adjust the mode to make it fit to the monitor.
When you are done, click on "Save". The tool will the request that you reboot to have this mode activated. Do so.
Now you'll get the new mode in the workbench screen prefs as well.
some modes need to be fiddled with... I understand that. My Dell monitor goes out of range though.
Then you haven't done the fiddling to the very end.
Oh, and is there anything I need to be setting in the Picasso Variable Setter program? It looks useful.
No.
-
Hey Thomas, thanks for the insight! I never would have guessed that you drag that button into those fields! Gotta read the guide! Anyhoo, I checked to see if there were any P96 screenmodes in ScreenMode prefs again and there were some! Most freak out the lowly Dell monitor but I have a much better Dell monitor to try next. I was successful in using a 640x480x24 screen mode and WOW - colors galore! :) I know the card is working now! So then fiddled a little with the Piccasso96 prefs per your instructions and understand how this works. No time now to play all day (work sucks) but will get back to it in few days. Thanks again guys! BTW, is there a current P96 guide in PDF format? After P96 is going well, it's on to installing all the Toaster cards and FINALLY after 6 years of building this A2K might get some video editing accomplished!!!
-
Hey Thomas, thanks for the insight! I never would have guessed that you drag that button into those fields! Gotta read the guide! Anyhoo, I checked to see if there were any P96 screenmodes in ScreenMode prefs again and there were some!
Instead of adding or edititing screenmodes you can use these Picasso96setting File.... extract it to DEVS:
The only thing to do ist to attach your Board.....in p96Mode
it contains any known VESA Standard Resolution and work perfekt with this Board
have fun.... nice card
-
@Rotzloeffel
O-M-G!!!! Thanks sooooo much! :)
I can't wait to get outta work and use this!!!!
giZmo
-
@Rotzloeffel
O-M-G!!!! Thanks sooooo much! :)
I can't wait to get outta work and use this!!!!
giZmo
Your welcome my friend.... let us know, how it works for you :)
-
Not sure why, but I always need to restart my machine for this to work. Granted this is in a sort of non-standard setup: A500 with aca 500 ++ (the checkmate case came with the zorro 2 board) so I bought this card. It is great, but trying to figure out why I need to restart.
Initially I will get a message that pops up very, very quickly. I am not sure how to log that or find the command that is being run to pipe the output to a file. I caught the message:
"check your picasso96 installation" etc /etc "Assuming GBAPI..."
When WB loads I don't see the board in Picasso96 and I cannot select any modes in the ScreenModes tool. But, restart, and it works fine.
- Installed picasso96 from Aminet,
- Installed the GBAPI drivers
- Changed the tooltype info of the Picollo 64 monitor BOARDTYPE=GBAPI++