A-EON Technology secures graphic card support for AmigaOS 4

[jj]

Yeah, that is how overlay is supported on BVision but it still doesnt give overlay support to current Radeon HD drivers. My car could be a UFO if it had wings.

Think you are missing the point there

[Fab]

@Karlos

Sure, newer graphic cards have other (and more modern) ways to implement some "overlay" feature, and who cares how it's done, actually (more than a decade ago, cgxvideo supported "overlay" on cvppc/bvppc by using the permedia2 3d functions too). The point is that current applications use p96pip/cgxvideo API and without it, video players are really SLOW, since they have to fallback on RGB conversions and WPA blitting (which is apparently slowish on OS4).

The lack of overlay and fast PCIe/AGP transfers is the reason why AROS MPlayer is much slower than MorphOS MPlayer on a similar setup. Actually, on a recent machine, AROS spends much less time to decode a full 1080p frame than to blit it... That's really funny if you ask me ! On MorphOS, displaying a decoded 1080p frame takes something like 15ms on a mac mini, while on AROS, it used to take more 50ms (on much more powerful hardware).

Anyway, the problem with RadeonHD is it gets quite harder to have this "overlay" functionality since the whole 3d machinery has to be implemented first.

[slayer]

I really don't think you are missing much if you don't have a genuine overlay on anything like the HD4xxx series or above but you can leverage the 3D hardware instead.

I'm with you Karlos, we've got our eyes on the horizon :banana:

[Karlos]

Given that Hans was able to use the basic compositing system in 4.1 to implement a 3D textured demo complete with pixel shading effects for fun, are we really suggesting he won't be able to implement some form of video surface implementation?

If it's going to be video texture based (which is clearly the better solution unless you prefer the older way of doing it), then adequate 3D support has to come first.

Anyway, the problem with RadeonHD is it gets quite harder to have this "overlay" functionality since the whole 3d machinery has to be implemented first.

That's precisely my point. Please the post I was responding to.

[Terminills]

@Karlos

The lack of overlay and fast PCIe/AGP transfers is the reason why AROS MPlayer is much slower than MorphOS MPlayer on a similar setup. Actually, on a recent machine, AROS spends much less time to decode a full 1080p frame than to blit it... That's really funny if you ask me ! On MorphOS, displaying a decoded 1080p frame takes something like 15ms on a mac mini, while on AROS, it used to take more 50ms (on much more powerful hardware).

+1 Aros really needs to fix this.  

[kolla]

From reading these forums, one can conclude that all that matters in "amigaland" is video playback. Yawn already!

[buzz]

So after a quick reality check: Better HW availability has been positive for MorphOS, lower price has been positive for MorphOS, better bang for the buck has been positive for MorphOS, in short: the Mainstream path was positive for MorphOS, not negative!

from your graph, i dont think the growth is all that impressive. there were plenty of people at the time when mos became available for mac minis etc, who had old machines lying around but the price of morphos was too high for them (not to mention people questioning the licence etc). the graph could have looked significantly better imho. I think morphos could have a userbase of many times the current amount with a different model.

[woof]

>Given that Hans .. use ... compositing system in 4.1 to implement a 3D textured demo ... he won't be able to implement some form of video surface implementation?

Using compositing for scaling/filtering/rotating a square texture (a bitmap) is easy...
The only problem is that compositing dont support YUV directly... So it will remain the YUV to RGB conversion

Alain Thellier

[Crumb]

Given that Hans was able to use the basic compositing system in 4.1 to implement a 3D textured demo complete with pixel shading effects for fun, are we really suggesting he won't be able to implement some form of video surface implementation?

I doubt he implements it soon so OS4.x users with PCIe cards will suffer poor playback for a long time.

If it's going to be video texture based (which is clearly the better solution unless you prefer the older way of doing it), then adequate 3D support has to come first.

By the time that happens perhaps frogs grow hair.

Anyway, it's interesting the reaction of some users "overlay sucks, it's better to implement it as a 3D texture even thought no one knows when/if that will happen and that will curse us to have poor video playback for years"

[buzz]

you could power a raspberry pi from usb on your x1000s etc and use that for video playback ;-)

[Karlos]

>Given that Hans .. use ... compositing system in 4.1 to implement a 3D textured demo ... he won't be able to implement some form of video surface implementation?

Using compositing for scaling/filtering/rotating a square texture (a bitmap) is easy...

You missed the part about using shaders in said demos

The only problem is that compositing dont support YUV directly... So it will remain the YUV to RGB conversion

Alain Thellier

I wasn't implying such a feature would be made available via compositing, I was implying that he isn't lacking the necessary expertise to implement a feature such as video surfaces.

[jorkany]

Looks like this Storm in a teacup is over.

http://www.acube-systems.biz/index.php?page=news

You're that shortsighted or just joking?

I think ACube did the right thing, but the big picture is they should not have had to do it at all. ACube could have told their customers "wait for OS4.2"  That they did NOT do this shows that ACube has no faith in Hyperion getting 4.2 out the door with functional drivers.

Heck, the whole reason A-Eon paid for these drivers is because they didn't want to wait for Hyperion. The fact that these drivers exist is a no-confidence vote against Hyperion.

I think A-Eon had the resources and did what they thought they needed to do. ACube had a choice and made the right one. But these decisions had to be made because Hyperion doesn't appear to be capable of doing these things, at least not in a timely manner. Think about it - what's the last thing you heard from Hyperion? An OS4 compatible netbook announcement made at AmiWest, "coincidentally" when the X1000 preorder was announced. This "storm in a teacup" is looking more and more like just a rain band from a hurricane.

[woof]

> I was implying that he isn't lacking the necessary expertise to implement a feature such as video surfaces.
Perhaps yes , perhaps no : only Hans knows

Perhaps compiling such an YUV to RGB altivec code may help us ??!??
http://svn.annodex.net/liboggplay/trunk/src/liboggplay/oggplay_yuv2rgb_altivec.c

then display/resize the RGB buffer (=bitmap) with Compositing


Alain Thellier

[itix]

Think you are missing the point there

No, it is just silly. Emulating overlay using OpenGL is old story.

[Duce]

Acube did the right thing.

While it may be entirely confusing to even imagine, I've been contemplating picking up a SAM 460 board to replace my SAM 440ep.  Once the announcement came out that I'd have to pay for video drivers for the more modern cards, it soured my attitude to the point I crossed the 460 purchase off the list when this news first came out.  Merely a matter of principle.  My 440 works fine, but obviously is the low end of the SAM mobos.  I'd enjoy the 460, but by no means do I *need* the horsepower it offers

Yeah, I realize it's on'y a $30 payment, but it wasn't about the money.  Just as I would not buy a commodity PC/mobo/gfx card and readily pay a gfx card manfacturer for gfx drivers, I wasn't willing to do so with the SAM.  The things are expensive enough without having to shell out more money.  After ACube's latest announcement, I'll likely pick a 460 up in the upcoming month or so.

[AmigoSteve]

Ok, so my question is as follows...

I have a sam460 lite system bought from amigakit. I guess that means I don't get the drivers free.
 However the card I got with the machine is the 4650. Before I pay for driver support I would like to know if this card will be supported to the final version and if I will get 3d support for it without having to shell out even more money for os4.2?