Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Software Issues and Discussion => Topic started by: patrik on November 26, 2003, 10:45:55 AM
-
Hi everyone!
I have bought myself an A4000/030 and as it looks I will soon have a CyberVision64 for it :). I wouldnt be surprised if this has been discussed before, but as I couldnt find a thread I have to ask (just point me to the thread if it already exists :)):
For this configuration (030@25MHz, 16MB FAST maximum and CyberVision64-4MB), what would be the best RTG-software - CyberGraphX 4.0 or Picasso96?
/Patrik
-
Hi!
Hmm, it doesn't really matter, both work fine. And you can run CyberGraphX using programs on both.
Myselves I prefer P96.
Steffen
-
You can try Picasso96 first to see if you like it. I used it with my CV64 and it worked quite well.
There aren't many differences between P96 and CGX. CGX4 may have better compatibility. But if you later buy a mediator for example you may use the P96 licence and CGX wouldn't work.
-
I have got the latest CGFX v4 but would like to know if it would be possible if P96 would work with my Blizzardvision?
-
Are there any differences speedwise?
/Patrik
-
I used both and I can't report any noticeable difference. They are about the same, IMO. Originally I used CGX4, but I switched to P96 only because Voodoo 3 won't work in Mediator with CGX4.
-
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think CGFX has draggable screens, but P96 does not. I had a heck of a time installing/configuring CGFX 2/3, but P96 was duck soup.(except for PicassoMode, *whew*)
-
@Lo:
Correct, however your GFX card must support screen-dragging, otherwise it's useless (e.g. Voodoo 3).
-
The CV64 DOES support dragging.
-
I've never used P96 since I don't have any cards that are supported by it. I prefer the feature set in CGX4 anyway.
Betatesting in #AmigaZeux we find that P96 users often have weird graphical bugs that we can't track down in code. P96 may be buggy, or its emulating of CGX may be buggy. And then again it could just be because our stuff is written for CGX in mind.
-
I quite like both systems. For the moment I use CGX on my amiga since my BVision isnt supported by P96. I use P96 under WinUAE.
As for feature sets, there's actually very little to choose between them. P96 runs most CGX code OK, and both systems do most of their work by patching the graphics.library routines anyway.
The things that irritate me immensely about both is that neither system really makes use of any real acceleration beyond basic blitting and viewport scrolling (sometimes).
Many cards support things like transparent blits, strectched blits (ideal for BlitBitMapScale()) and have hardware drawing operations that could be used to accelerate most stuff used in the OS (lines, polygons, bitmap text rendering etc.). None of this is really utilised fully in either system. I am sure they are capable but the drivers are just not optimized I guess.
Something that *absolutely* should have been introduced but never was, is a truecolour graphics.library clone that uses absolute colour definitions instead of pens. The original graphics.library is ok for 8-bit RTG screens but it's a total pain in the bum (and a complete waste) for high/true colour. That was an almost criminal oversight and the original developers should be rounded up and shot for this :lol:
-
Karlos wrote:
Something that *absolutely* should have been introduced but never was, is a truecolour graphics.library clone that uses absolute colour definitions instead of pens.
What you say ? That stuff has been available for over 2 years :-D :-P :-o :-D
(And if I'm not mistaken we may also have some more accelarition)
-
@Kronos
Well, cybergraphics 5 may indeed have these features, but that's of no use to AmigaOS 3.x users whatsoever, will be likely no use to OS4 or AROS either unless ports are sanctioned. So basically its as good as useless to the amiga developer community as a whole.
Irrespective of this, my actual point is that it should have been there since the first day the 8-bit screen depth limit was exceeded and there is simply no reasonable excuse why it wasn't.
-
Well, cybergraphics 5 may indeed have these features, but that's of no use to AmigaOS 3.x users whatsoever, will be likely no use to OS4 or AROS either unless ports are sanctioned. So basically its as good as useless to the amiga developer community as a whole.
Does Picasso96 support these features too?
-
@Karlos:
Its a shame so little acceleration is implemented. It shouldnt have been a big deal for the people who wrote the drivers to implement the usage of those hardware accelerated operations. Must just say this: grrrarg! ;)
Btw, does P96 support the planar-to-chunky chip roxxler of the CV64?
/Patrik
-
@CU_AMiGA
"I have got the latest CGFX v4 but would like to know if it would be possible if P96 would work with my Blizzardvision?"
Not without OS4 ;-)
-
For a CyberVision64 i strongly suggest to use CGX3.x or 4.x (better 4.x :)
I also have a CyberVision64 and Picasso96 was in some cases _a lot_ slower than CGX!
regards,
tokai
-
Hi Patrik,
I think CyberGraphX is the better of the 2 in your situation. I have P96 now simply because the are no Mediator drivers for CyberGraphX 4 :-(
FuZion.
-
@jahc
No.
But AFAIR it is on the "planned" list for OS4.1 or 4.2.
@Karlos
Both P96 and CGX patch graphics and layers.library but to get real 24bit
you would have to completly rewrite both and a great portion of intuition too.
Wasn't really worthwhile at times when 16/24 bit were only useable up to
640x480 (Picasso2, original CV, Picollo/Spectrum), wasn't really worthwhile
when the market went to a point where 1000 units are considered alot.
But there was no way around such a rewrite for MorphOS and AROS, and
thats why they have it (I'm quite sure AROS does have something to allow direct
24bit).
-
I use P96, but have used CGX when I had an older card in my mediator that supported it. I like P96 better, but both are equal in quality as far as I can tell.
-
@Kronos
Kronos wrote:
Both P96 and CGX patch graphics and layers.library but to get real 24bit you would have to completly rewrite both and a great portion of intuition too.
Well, not especially. I am saying they should have introduced a parallel system for graphics rendering that was a graphics.library like API. Since a gfx card would be required to use it anyway software needing to use 15/16/24 bit gfx stuff could use it instead of graphics.library for rendering.
As long as you ensure that stuff can be hooked into intuition and so on, it would be no more work than was required to patch into intution and layers anyway.
Oh well...;-)
-
i would use p96 on a cv64 ...since cgx is a pain to install, i know...many never had problems...but i sure have had ..
p96 speed vs cgx ..more or less the same but p96 is faster in some places and cgx is faster in other..
cgx supports dragging though... p96 doesnt, but then again who use screen dragging theese days? i use my middle button as a "TAB" (shuffler) and i can exactly its slow as it aint slow at all..
-
Karlos wrote:
@Kronos
Kronos wrote:
Both P96 and CGX patch graphics and layers.library but to get real 24bit you would have to completly rewrite both and a great portion of intuition too.
Well, not especially. I am saying they should have introduced a parallel system for graphics rendering that was a graphics.library like API. Since a gfx card would be required to use it anyway software needing to use 15/16/24 bit gfx stuff could use it instead of graphics.library for rendering.
As long as you ensure that stuff can be hooked into intuition and so on, it would be no more work than was required to patch into intution and layers anyway.
Oh well...;-)
AROS does indeed do such a thing, you really should join up to the dev list you and your skills would be most welcome.
-
@Karlos
Remember the EGS-System ? It did just that, and it even had a Workbench-
replacement, but it flopped the momemt when simpler to use systems like
the one the came with the Picasso2 (nothing to do with P96) took over.
These were less powerfull, but alos allowed to just code for normal AOS,
and have the 24bit-stuff deactivated easily when used on OCS/AA.
Heck I even remember running EGS on my plain A1200 (60MB HD), what
a bugger :-o
@bloodline
I'm on the list (just lurking).
Tried that once but miserably failed when I realized that I couldn't link
all that C++ code I brought through the compiler in sweet and tears :-x
Shouldn't be a prob today, but I have eversince decided not to release
anything that is too beta to be usefull. Maintaining 2 versions just for the
sake of it doesn't make me go WOW either ;-)
Probraly gonna try a oneoff port in mid 2004 when things have matured
a bit.
-
I'm on the list (just lurking).
Tried that once but miserably failed when I realized that I couldn't link
all that C++ code I brought through the compiler in sweet and tears
Maybe you should be more active :-)
And yes, C++ shouldn't be a problem any more :-D
-
I tend to like CGX a little better but for some reason I can get higher resolutions on my Cybervision64 with P96. Under CGX, I can only get 1024x768 in 16bit, whereas with P96 I can get it in 24bit. Anybody else notice similar?
-
@Kronos
Just because EGS was pants doesn't mean the idea is. EGS problem was that it was a bit too different from the rest of the system.
Still, this argument is totally academic anyway since CGX5 has true colour rendering, as does AROS, as will have OS4;x's AG2...
The fat crying shame, of course is that they will all evolve in different directions scuppering developers who want to run their apps on all 3 systems.
An abstraction layer for true colour graphics implemented on each system would be a nice idea...
bloodline wrote:
AROS does indeed do such a thing, you really should join up to the dev list you and your skills would be most welcome.
Thanks. I am kind of busy with some work for the forseeable, even my own developer projects are on hold...
Still, once that is done, get yourself an extremely large carrot and dangle it just ahead of me... :-)