Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Gaming => Topic started by: Robert17 on October 07, 2004, 05:41:02 PM
-
Hey up all anyone else tried to play Doom (back2roots) on an '030, it's okay but the screen has to be made somewhat slow, what's it like on an '060, anyone? I'd like a bit more speed, what are the Apollo '060 cards like, since they seem to be the most available..
Robert
-
On a 060 @ 320x240 it runs full speed and tops off at 35 FPS! On a 040 it runs at around 9 FPS at same res. On 060 it runs great even at 640X480 at around 10-12 FPS.
-
Yeah,
just about playable (enjoyable) on a 040 25 Mhz...
And it depends on which version/flavour of engine you load...
[color=6699CC][/color]
Does anyone have a tip, in doom 3, on how to kill the two monsters on delta-labs level four...i`ve blasted them with rocket launchers, aimed at the professor in the balcony, looked for another door...but i`m stuck...help....
[color=6699CC][/color]
-
blobrana wrote:
[color=6699CC][/color]
Does anyone have a tip, in doom 3, on how to kill the two monsters on delta-labs level four...i`ve blasted them with rocket launchers, aimed at the professor in the balcony, looked for another door...but i`m stuck...help....
[color=6699CC][/color]
If you are talking about the hell knights at the end of the level, I was able to take them out using the plasma gun and a bit of dancing around. Don't worry about using ammo at this point *cough*
-
I ran ADoom on my a1200 with a '030 50 MHz at 320x240 and it worked ok in PAL screen refresh. (Using a slower refresh rate frees up some bandwidth on the Chip RAM.)
What I did to get it to go faster is: If you have 32 megabytes of fast Ram create a soft link in your doom directory named doom.wad pointed to RAM:doom.wadd (after you rename the real doom.wad to doom.wadd) and copy the wadd file to the RAM disk before you run it. It will still be slow but at least it won't waste time accessing the hard drive while it is playing. And (unlike copying the whole directory to RAM:) the save games still go to the hard drive. NOTE: In order to create a soft link you will need a replacement for the makelink command because the one that comes with 3.0 doesn't support soft links.
-
I used both ADoom and DoomAttack on an 060 setup. I have to say that DoomAttack is probably the better option. As it runs at the maximum speed and also has tons more features such as the customed music (reall cool!). However, for compatibility, ADoom is top. The choice is yours! :-)
Regards,
-
someone made a crappy conversion? I remember playing DOOM full speed on my 486DX2/66 with 8MB ram and a yamaha sw20pc soundcard (GM midi card + sbpro) and it rocked! full 35fps everywhere... isn't the 68040 similar in power with a 486DX ??? why need a 060 to play doom? This is similar to pentium/66 ...
-
keropi wrote:
someone made a crappy conversion? I remember playing DOOM full speed on my 486DX2/66 with 8MB ram and a yamaha sw20pc soundcard (GM midi card + sbpro) and it rocked! full 35fps everywhere... isn't the 68040 similar in power with a 486DX ??? why need a 060 to play doom? This is similar to pentium/66 ...
Yeah. I remember in the Alien Breed 3D 2 / Blizzard 1260 advert, that the Blizzard 1260 is compared to a Pentium processor. Infact i still have the advert! :-) The average FPS for Doom 2 on an 060 is around 20. I am not sure why it is slower on Amiga than PC, my only guess is that either the 680x0 is not able to calculate instructions as well or the graphics setup of the Amiga was designed for 3D graphics (at the time).
Regards,
-
I beleve that the main problem when you want to run a "Doom-like-game" on an amiga is:
All the 3D functions (texture mapping and so on) make a chunky-bitmap insted of a bitplane, and because of that the amiga processor has to spend ALOT of time in converting it from chunky to bitplanes so the amiga chipset can handle the graphics. I think it is about 60-80% of the processors time is/can be spend on this conversion.
To put it in another way, then it should be possible to run "Doom-like-game" in full speed when comparing the amiga processor to a PC processor (x86) if you have a chunky-pixel graphicscard like the CyberVision, Picasso BVission and so on. (The game has to support thoes graphics cards! otherwise it will still make the conversion a then a reconversion to the graphicscard!)
ps: correct me if I'm wrong :-)
-
nex4060 wrote:
I beleve that the main problem when you want to run a "Doom-like-game" on an amiga is:
All the 3D functions (texture mapping and so on) make a chunky-bitmap insted of a bitplane, and because of that the amiga processor has to spend ALOT of time in converting it from chunky to bitplanes so the amiga chipset can handle the graphics. I think it is about 60-80% of the processors time is/can be spend on this conversion.
To put it in another way, then it should be possible to run "Doom-like-game" in full speed when comparing the amiga processor to a PC processor (x86) if you have a chunky-pixel graphicscard like the CyberVision, Picasso BVission and so on. (The game has to support thoes graphics cards! otherwise it will still make the conversion a then a reconversion to the graphicscard!)
ps: correct me if I'm wrong :-)
Correct! :-) But when i ran Doom on my PPC Blizzardvision (we are talking the PPC version of Doom here), i didn't get that much of a speed increase. 060 with Bvision got around 30fps, the PPC one got 40fps on average. So i was a little disappointed. The PPC version also had a few bugs init that caused it to crash so i stuck with DoomAttack on the 68k.
-
@CU_AMiGA
Did it run in real chunky-mode? or did it do the bitplane conversion? Some grraphics cards have hardare support for this conversion and that becomes an bottleneck, it sounds like that it was this you experinced.
btw: A hope that i have time this weekend to run the ADoom on my Amiga (A4k 060@50Mhz CV3D)
-EDIT-
I have just found this information ADoom1.3
"ADoom puts up an ASL requester for the ScreenMode.
The -directcgx option causes scene rendering directly to the gfx-card (instead of using a chunky buffer in fastmem). This can provide a significant speed-up with a fast gfx-card."
-
nex4060 wrote:
@CU_AMiGA
Did it run in real chunky-mode? or did it do the bitplane conversion? Some grraphics cards have hardare support for this conversion and that becomes an bottleneck, it sounds like that it was this you experinced.
btw: A hope that i have time this weekend to run the ADoom on my Amiga (A4k 060@50Mhz CV3D)
-EDIT-
I have just found this information ADoom1.3
"ADoom puts up an ASL requester for the ScreenMode.
The -directcgx option causes scene rendering directly to the gfx-card (instead of using a chunky buffer in fastmem). This can provide a significant speed-up with a fast gfx-card."
I am not sure which mode i used. I remember that requester coming up and just picking one. (I think 320 x 240). I remember selecting the -directcgx and the memory buffer, but this ran unreliably and caused graphic glitches. So i went back to default mode. I might have used bitplane conversion like you said.
Regards,
-
keropi wrote:
isn't the 68040 similar in power with a 486DX ???
040 is much Faster! at least if you compare how many MIPS it does at the same clock speed (MHZ).
But the GFX hardware on Amiga is quite different to your PC. To play doom on amiga, the chunky data must be converted to blit. I don't feel like going into detail, many others have already explained the difference between Chunky and Blit.
Play any game ported from the amiga to MSDOS or Windows, and marvel at how jerky and blocky it is!
-
actually gods,turrican2,pinball fantasies,trolls,chaos engine,stormlord look a lot nicer on a 386sx pc, based on my experience... more colors and in some cases better crappy (hint: Gods) scrolling... I could name a few others, but I am bored now...
-
keropi wrote:
actually gods,turrican2,pinball fantasies,trolls,chaos engine,stormlord look a lot nicer on a 386sx pc
!!!!!!
Infidel! :-P
-
of course, 320x256 looks a LOT more blocky on VGA monitor then on TV.
-
I played Doom with my old 030 Blizzard and everything run fine! It depends from the engine that you are using.. I suggest you to look to Aminet to find the best engine for your sistem ! I played doom with a 030+fpu+mmu and 32 Mbfast with aga and it was ok ! :-)
-
nex4060 wrote:
@CU_AMiGA
Did it run in real chunky-mode? or did it do the bitplane conversion? Some grraphics cards have hardare support for this conversion and that becomes an bottleneck, it sounds like that it was this you experinced.
"ADoom puts up an ASL requester for the ScreenMode.
The -directcgx option causes scene rendering directly to the gfx-card (instead of using a chunky buffer in fastmem). This can provide a significant speed-up with a fast gfx-card."
I found Doom to be perfectly playable on my '040 25Mhz system, and you're absolutely right - the bottleneck in speed is due to the Amiga's native chipset having to covert chunky to planar graphics on the fly.
When I first fitted a Mediator, together with a ViRGE card and CGX 3, I tried the -directcgx option and was blown away by the speed increase. This was lost when Mediator went to P96 and even overclocking my CPU to 40Mhz couldn't restore the smoothness.
As pointed out, moving the WAD file to RAM would eliminate disk access issues (guess who forgot to run the "Addbuffers HD2: 350" command first time out!).
-
@keropi
ADoom and DoomAttack really are not any crappy conversions. They are actually much better than original Doom engines on PC :)
Don't forget that if you play doom in one of the AGA screenmodes, then games like doom must do chunky2planar -conversion (C2P). C2P conversion is needed because Amiga chipsets use planar style graphics when PC gfx card chipsets use chunky style graphics. Games like Doom are usually designed to use chunky style graphics. C2P conversion ofcourse takes some time and slows game down.
If you have Amiga with GFX-card, and if you run Doom in one of the RTG screenmodes, then Doom runs MUCH faster. If you have GFX card then c2p conversiuon is not needed, and gfx cards are much faster than AGA anyway.
-
ADoomPPC (run with the ppclibemu) runs fine on my 603e card / bvision. It's lightning fast in the default 320x200 and comfortbly so in 320x400. 640x400 is noticably slower but still playable. You need to use directcgx and double / triple buffering for the best performance.
Pity the 603/604 cards had no L2 (hardly feasable given they share the memory with the 680x0 of course) cache - that would have helped enormously.
-
I've read that the C2P takes up less than 5% of CPU time in Amiga Doom. There are other reasons for the Amiga version being slow.
When I had an A4000 I had the 68k version running on my 060-50 about 23FPS in AGA, around the same as my old 486 SX PC.
On the PPC (150Mhz 604e) and mediator + Voodoo 3 I reached 46FPS, about the same as a P90.
-
What on earth are you people talking about?
I run DoomAttack on My CD32/SX32 pro 030 @50Mhz and it runs pretty fast! and very playabe!
looks to me like at least 25 FPS
maybe its due to Akiko? I dont know.....but GLoom also works darn good!
Im talking about 320 x 200 NTSC 256 colors
-
@leirbag28
It's probably due to Akiko. Most versions of doom at least support an option to use the WritePixelArray8() function which is the AmigaOS chunky to planar function.
It's probably also due to the resolution. I ran ADoom at 320x200 on my '030 50 MHz in PAL resolution on my A1200 and it could just barely keep up playably (although running the .WAD file from the RAM disk helped ;-) )
-
@Lando
That's pretty odd. In the default resolution, ADoomPPC hits the refresh rate of my monitor on the 603e :-/
Were you using directcgx?
On the whole, the lack of L2 cache is one of the biggest problems
-
DoomAttack was always my "DooM of Choice" when I had my Blizzard '030. It ran just fine! :-)
-
@leirbag28
I run DoomAttack on My CD32/SX32 pro 030 @50Mhz and it runs pretty fast! and very playabe!
looks to me like at least 25 FPS
maybe its due to Akiko? I dont know.....but GLoom also works darn good!
I didn't realise that any versions of DooM supported the Akiko chip in the CD32...? Cool!
-
For the best frame rate (depending the type of cpu) you can install some patches to your system and you can look the speed up of all, system, games, demos etc
best set up is this:
1- Install blizkick with all modules
2- if you have mediator & voodoo, put the mediator in mmu mode and the voodoo to 172mhz
3- Install MMUlibs and his tools
4- Install oxypatcher too
5- Install MCP 1.41 or similar version
6- -Only for AGA-, install FBLIT
With all the system is a lot of extra speed (requires 68030/040/060 with mmu & fpu)
and now, play doom =)
-
leirbag28 wrote:
What on earth are you people talking about?
I run DoomAttack on My CD32/SX32 pro 030 @50Mhz and it runs pretty fast! and very playabe!
looks to me like at least 25 FPS
maybe its due to Akiko? I dont know.....but GLoom also works darn good!
Im talking about 320 x 200 NTSC 256 colors
How much memory is in that CD32 of yours, if I may ask?
-
Karlos
downloaded ADoomWOS1.7, 2 days ago.
It uses chunkyppc.library too.
Very very smooth even at 640x480 :-)
ftp://de.aminet.net/pub/aminet/game/shoot/ADoomPPC.lha
-
DaNi wrote:
For the best frame rate (depending the type of cpu) you can install some patches to your system and you can look the speed up of all, system, games, demos etc
best set up is this:
1- Install blizkick with all modules
2- if you have mediator & voodoo, put the mediator in mmu mode and the voodoo to 172mhz
3- Install MMUlibs and his tools
4- Install oxypatcher too
5- Install MCP 1.41 or similar version
6- -Only for AGA-, install FBLIT
With all the system is a lot of extra speed (requires 68030/040/060 with mmu & fpu)
and now, play doom =)
Good tip there DaNi, i will follow them :-)
-
@Speelgoedmannetje
I have 128Mb of RAM in my CD32, but it ran just fine when I had 32Mb.
I believe it was DoomAttack that I used...........I cant get it to run anymore............not sure why.............maybe due to OS3.9.
hmmmmmm I should try running WADs from RAM, then I will really fly :-)
-
leirbag28 wrote:
but it ran just fine when I had 32Mb.
I guess that mostly did the trick
I tried running Doom on a 486DX, 66Mhz, with 4Mb, and it was kinda too slow (but I'm not easily satisfied)
-
@PMC:
If CGX v3 was much faster than Picasso96, why not use it instead?
/Patrik
-
Worked fine on my old A1200 030/40. I managed to get 15 - 20 FPS full screen with low detail by using a couple of shell commands before running it. I can't remember what they were but I do remember reading about them in a copy of AF that had a guide on how to make Quake faster. It was something like open cache... maybe someone else can remember.
-
patrik wrote:
@PMC:
If CGX v3 was much faster than Picasso96, why not use it instead?
/Patrik
AH! You wonder why! :-)