Amiga.org

Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Marketplace => Topic started by: redrumloa on November 23, 2004, 02:41:15 AM

Title: The last Graffiti GFX Box produced, now available for $35.
Post by: redrumloa on November 23, 2004, 02:41:15 AM
HERE (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5142022026)

Last chance, get 'em while their hot:-) Only 15 left.
Title: Re: The last Graffiti GFX Box produced, now available for $35.
Post by: bloodline on November 23, 2004, 07:38:05 AM
Quote

redrumloa wrote:
HERE (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5142022026)

Last chance, get 'em while their hot:-) Only 15 left.


I have  strange urge to get one, though I have no use for it what so ever.
Title: Re: The last Graffiti GFX Box produced, now available for $35.
Post by: redrumloa on November 23, 2004, 05:07:22 PM
Quote

bloodline wrote:
I have  strange urge to get one, though I have no use for it what so ever.


Resistance is futile:-D

2 down, 13 to go!
Title: Re: The last Graffiti GFX Box produced, now available for $35.
Post by: Karlos on November 23, 2004, 05:29:14 PM
Looks kinda fun for the old 1200D, but I have no idea what I'd do with it :-)
Title: Re: The last Graffiti GFX Box produced, now available for $35.
Post by: redrumloa on November 23, 2004, 05:37:20 PM
Quote

Karlos wrote:
Looks kinda fun for the old 1200D, but I have no idea what I'd do with it :-)


Ever wanted to run Mac software on your A1200D? It really shines with AGA machines running shapeshiftr. In 256 color mode Graffiti is 30X faster than AGA alone, running shapeshifter.
Title: Re: The last Graffiti GFX Box produced, now available for $35.
Post by: c64_d0c on November 23, 2004, 07:02:56 PM
if they only could make this one support amiga screens at 640x and make the aga better for workbench on a1200 desktop maschines, it would be a hell of a product... but nooo its for the crappy shapeshifter that no one have use for...  :pissed:
________
Digital Vaporizers (http://digitalvaporizers.info)
Title: Re: The last Graffiti GFX Box produced, now available for $35.
Post by: Robert17 on November 23, 2004, 07:28:33 PM
I agree with the above... why the extra speed for Shapeshifter... but not Amiga OS? 30x faster than AGA would be cool for surfing  :-)

Robert
Title: Re: The last Graffiti GFX Box produced, now available for $35.
Post by: Karlos on November 23, 2004, 08:25:00 PM
@Red

So do you know if there are any standard devkits for it? I googled a bit and found some stuff by Jens on how to hit the hardware for it but I was hoping there might be some sort of basic link library or something that allows easy use from C.

I guess there must be...?
Title: Re: The last Graffiti GFX Box produced, now available for $35.
Post by: bloodline on November 23, 2004, 08:31:33 PM
Quote

Karlos wrote:
@Red

So do you know if there are any standard devkits for it? I googled a bit and found some stuff by Jens on how to hit the hardware for it but I was hoping there might be some sort of basic link library or something that allows easy use from C.

I guess there must be...?


You should be able to write your own library, it a really simple peice of hardware.

You just treat the frame buffer as a chunky buffer rather than bit planes (probably best to have them sequential in memory to make writes fast)... oh you have to set up the grafitti palette... :-D
Title: Re: The last Graffiti GFX Box produced, now available for $35.
Post by: Karlos on November 23, 2004, 08:34:45 PM
@bloodline

Saw that, but as it's such a simple thing I imagined there'd be one already?

Only reinvent the wheel when you can make it rounder ;-)
Title: Re: The last Graffiti GFX Box produced, now available for $35.
Post by: redrumloa on November 23, 2004, 08:37:44 PM
Quote

Karlos wrote:
@Red

So do you know if there are any standard devkits for it? I googled a bit and found some stuff by Jens on how to hit the hardware for it but I was hoping there might be some sort of basic link library or something that allows easy use from C.

I guess there must be...?


There is developer documentation available, I can email it to you if needed. I'm not a programmer so i really have no idea if it's what you are looking for. :-(
Title: Re: The last Graffiti GFX Box produced, now available for $35.
Post by: bloodline on November 23, 2004, 08:47:05 PM
Quote

Karlos wrote:
@bloodline

Saw that, but as it's such a simple thing I imagined there'd be one already?

Only reinvent the wheel when you can make it rounder ;-)


I'm sure you'd enjoy making a gfx library for it... I know I would, that's the only reason why I'm interested :-)

Actually it might be fun to write a P96 driver for it :-/
Title: Re: The last Graffiti GFX Box produced, now available for $35.
Post by: redrumloa on November 23, 2004, 08:52:24 PM
Quote
Actually it might be fun to write a P96 driver for it :-/


That would make alot of Amiga 500 users very happy!
Title: Re: The last Graffiti GFX Box produced, now available for $35.
Post by: Karlos on November 23, 2004, 08:57:41 PM
P96?

Without support for 640 wide modes wouldn't it be of limited use to intuition applications?

By the looks of the documentation I so far found I'm not sure it can happily coexist with the existing graphics.library routines (although I could be very wrong about this).

It struck me more as a bit of a hardware hack to get chunky modes for game/multimedia type stuff :-?

-edit-

Quote
I'm sure you'd enjoy making a gfx library for it


Yeah, I have to admit, you got me there :-D
Title: Re: The last Graffiti GFX Box produced, now available for $35.
Post by: CU_AMiGA on November 25, 2004, 10:22:46 AM
@redrumloa

I like the way you make your ebay auctions sound so dramatic:

"LAST ITEM FOR SALE, NEARLY EXTINCT, VERY LAST ITEM PRODUCED EVER!"  

:lol:
Title: Re: The last Graffiti GFX Box produced, now available for $35.
Post by: Robert17 on November 28, 2004, 02:31:40 PM
It can do 720 wide in AGA I think... Yes Please pretty please with a cherry on top, write a P96 Driver for Graffiti!

Robert
Title: Re: The last Graffiti GFX Box produced, now available for $35.
Post by: Karlos on November 28, 2004, 02:57:23 PM
Quote

Robert17 wrote:
It can do 720 wide in AGA I think... Yes Please pretty please with a cherry on top, write a P96 Driver for Graffiti!

Robert


Can it?

If it can do 640x480 or a similar resolution on AGA then I stand corrected. Still, I'm not totally sure how well it gets on with graphics.library, but as a P96 driver (which patches the graphics.library to support the hardware anyway) things are different :-)
Title: Re: The last Graffiti GFX Box produced, now available for $35.
Post by: Karlos on November 28, 2004, 04:41:16 PM
From Jens' site

Quote
maximum resolution with AGA chipset: 768x576 at 256 colours out of 262144 (interlace)


Rock on :-D

In that case I am sure that it is possible to create some sort of 8-bit p96 driver (akin in some respects to CGX-AGA, only without the need for any C2P), although I'm still highly dubious about the way it works with the existing graphics.library...

-edit-

One problem you get is that to use the 640 wide mode, you need a 4-bitplane SHRES arrangement, which means that you no longer have a linear arrangement of pixels. Adjacent pixels literally rotate through each of the bitplanes, so pixel 0 is in bitplane 0, pixel 1 in bitplane 1 ... pixel 4 in bitplane 0 and so on.

This does take the fun out of it slightly :-(
Title: Re: The last Graffiti GFX Box produced, now available for $35.
Post by: bloodline on November 28, 2004, 07:39:50 PM
Why 4bit plane...? AGA allows 8bits in S-hires!
Title: Re: The last Graffiti GFX Box produced, now available for $35.
Post by: Karlos on November 28, 2004, 07:48:51 PM
It's just the way the thing works, apparently.

Each bitplane stores a run of 8-bit pixels. If you use a single bitplane you get a 160 width screen, with linear access to the pixel data. If you want a 320 screen you use 2 bitplanes, alternate bytes on each plane. For a 640 screen, you end up with four bitplanes, alternating pixels on each plane.

All of these are using SHRES displays on AGA. I can actually see that a 160 wide screen composed of 8 bit pixels would appear as a 1280 wide bitplane since there are 8 bits to each pixel. No doubt in order to be displayable you need to use the other bitplanes to bump up the resolution since 1280 is the widest displayable width you can have.

At least that's how I understood it.