Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Hardware Issues and discussion => Topic started by: pondosinatra on May 22, 2011, 11:35:59 PM
-
Ok, so I managed to get Quake, and just installed it.
My setup is an A2500 with a Blizzard 060 card, 32mb of ram, a Picasso II+ vid card and OS 3.9.
Quake runs ok but is really only playable at 320x240.
My question - I also have a Picasso 4. How much more would it improve things? Ie. would I be able to play at 640x480?
-
Give it more RAM. And yes, a Picasso 4 will speed things up. I have a Cybervision 643D and I can do 800x600 on my 060, I think I run it in a 15bit mode.
-
I belive that you are playing it with A4000? It has a Zorro III slots, when A2000 has a Zorro II. Zorro II limits speed, so I belive that he woun't get big speedup with picasso 4.
I would appreciate if you could tell what kind of FPS you get with Picasso II and Picasso 4?? Start new game, press ¨to get console and write to it timerefresh
With 060 66mhz I get 11 fps with Spectrum 16/24 and 14 fps with AGA. Screen size is 320x200 and 100%. Spectrum is quite much same card than Picasso II.
My system is A1200 with Micronic Zorro II extender. Zorro II bus speed limit is about 4,2mb/s when with AGA it is 5mb/s. Zorro III is about 19mb/s???
Do you have found Clickbooms 060 specified exe? It gives you 2fps more, compared to original exe.
Here some test I've made
http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=57812
-
I got 6.4 FPS....I'll swap in the Pic4 and see what I get tomorrow.
-
With 060 66mhz I get 11 fps with Spectrum 16/24 and 14 fps with AGA.
Im somewhat surprised you get more FPS with AGA. I thought it was supposed to be slower? Anything obvious I am missing?
-
Hi,
I play Quake at 35 to 41 frames per second using Cloanto's Amiga Forever at the resolution, I believe 1280 by 1024.
smerf
-
At 320x200, you're limited by the CPU, graphics card vs AGA and Zorro bus have very little influence. In fact, my A2000 and A4000, both with 060/50 and Picasso IV performed _identical_ in the timedemo benchmarks. At 66MHz the 4000 was 1 FPS quicker IIRC.
You might notice a few FPS difference at higher resolutions, but they are generally unplayable anyway. 640x480 is somewhat doable if the screensize is set very small.
-
Runequest: It is because Zorro vs. AGA bus speed. 4,2 vs. 5
With Mediator it si possible to get quite much higher FSP with quake I belive?
Try to find Clickboom Quake060.exe it is 2 fps faster than original exe
-
Man, i have only 6 FPS on A1200 060@50MHz and AGA. Don't know the resolution but screensize is set to one level below the max.
It is rather playable though.
-
Xanxi: so do you have clickboom latest 060 exe? What pathces are you running?
You get 6 fps in startscreen when you type timerefresh to console? Reolution 320x200 and screen size 2 steps below max? Screen depth 8bit?
Damion: Is it possible that you have forced your Picasso 4 to Zorro II with jumper? And actually used it with your A4000 as a Zorro II card?
-
Damion: Is it possible that you have forced your Picasso 4 to Zorro II with jumper? And actually used it with your A4000 as a Zorro II card?
Nope. Results were where they should have been, around 9 FPS at 50MHz and 12 at 66MHz, using Clickbom Quake. It does help that the Picasso IV uses the Z2 bus very efficiently - 3.5 MB/s for writes (bustest), around the maximum possible. Other cards (the CV64/3D for example) are quite a bit slower. I'm sure there's a greater difference at higher resolutions, but I never tried.
-
More FPU capacity? and polygon/texture processing capable graphics card?
-
Give it more RAM. And yes, a Picasso 4 will speed things up. I have a Cybervision 643D and I can do 800x600 on my 060, I think I run it in a 15bit mode.
Are you sure this is right? I can hardly run the game at playable speed in that resolution yet Im using the PPC/Warp3D version.
-
Xanxi: so do you have clickboom latest 060 exe? What pathces are you running?
You get 6 fps in startscreen when you type timerefresh to console? Reolution 320x200 and screen size 2 steps below max? Screen depth 8bit?
Damion: Is it possible that you have forced your Picasso 4 to Zorro II with jumper? And actually used it with your A4000 as a Zorro II card?
I have Quake68k port for AmigaOS3.X by Frank Will and Steffen Hauser, version 2.30.
This runs with 040 or 060, but is really made for the 060.
-
Give it more RAM. And yes, a Picasso 4 will speed things up. I have a Cybervision 643D and I can do 800x600 on my 060, I think I run it in a 15bit mode.
Wait, what? You are running a 68060, software-rendered version of quake, in 15-bit at 800x600 ?
Are you sure?
-
I'll check when I get home tonight.
-
OK. Something happened to my install of Quake. I reinstalled off the CD, the game launches but I still see my workbench and can hear the audio.. wtf?! Any ideas people?
-
Wait, what? You are running a 68060, software-rendered version of quake, in 15-bit at 800x600 ?
Are you sure?
Yeah, no I wasn't! LOL. It was 15 bit 320x200. Best I got was 14 FPS.
-
Yeah, no I wasn't! LOL. It was 15 bit 320x200. Best I got was 14 FPS.
Now that sounds more like it :-P . I ran it on a CSPPC with a 060 and a Voodoo 4 and it was never playable at any resolution above 320x200 or 320x256. The 15-bit mode are pretty cool though.
-
Hi,
I play Quake at 35 to 41 frames per second using Cloanto's Amiga Forever at the resolution, I believe 1280 by 1024.
smerf
Bully for you. And this helps the discussion how ?
-
Are you sure this is right? I can hardly run the game at playable speed in that resolution yet Im using the PPC/Warp3D version.
From memory I had quake running on PPC with bvison at like 1024 x678 , cant remeber the fps but was very playable.
-
Wait, what? You are running a 68060, software-rendered version of quake, in 15-bit at 800x600 ?
Are you sure?
Must be running in Warp3D, not possible to render at that resolution at over 1fps in software! (unless via Winuae! in JIT)
Warp3D version will give 7-10fps at this res with 50mhz 060 which is very playable. Runs very nice indeed on my 72mhz 060 :)
-
Runequest: It is because Zorro vs. AGA bus speed. 4,2 vs. 5
With Mediator it si possible to get quite much higher FSP with quake I belive?
Try to find Clickboom Quake060.exe it is 2 fps faster than original exe
4.2MB/s on ZorroII is quite an optimistic value, 3.5MB/s is probably more accurate :-) On AGA in optimal conditions you can transfer data to chipmem at 7MB/s. On OCS machines it's probably around 3.5MB/s with a good cpu accelerator.
I guess that games like Quake would benefit quite a lot killing the OS and writting to chipmem when there's no display and also crunching numbers while the c2p is being done.
-
Yeah, no I wasn't! LOL. It was 15 bit 320x200. Best I got was 14 FPS.
I was about to say, someone must have gone in and optimised the hell out of it since I last looked, then. In reality 800x600 at 15-bit would need 937.5KiB per frame to be transferred over the bus. So, even with an infinitely fast CPU (where rendering and game logic takes no time at all), the best you could get out of for example the BVision would be about ~15fps. A mediator 1200 based graphics card would probably max out at about 8-9fps under the same conditions.
-
Im probably getting confussed with running glquake on an old pc or something
-
I did find a patch on Aminet and used it. It gave me an extra 2 or 3 fps. I played around with the different screen modes, and for me, the 200X320 8bit Cybervision was slower (but not by much) to the 200X300 AGA mode. Maybe I was thinking of when I had a PPC card.. *shrug*
-
I think it's best to realize that given bus speed limitations and CPU clock issues that an Amiga with 68k (even a souped up one) can't push textured polys around at any acceptable resolution.
Now with that said, yeah, you can get some screaming speeds out of UAE+Quake, or Doom on 68k based systems.
But Quake is after the Amiga's time, and "getting it to play" at tiny, tiny screensizes and tiny resolutions is an iffy prospect at best, assuming you want consistent FPS in double digits.
-
Can someone explain to me the different rendering options under quake? There was c2p, double and even triple modes. Normal 3.1 routines and 040-060 routines depending on what screenmode was in use.
-
From ClickBOOM FAQ:
So, is there anything I can do to improve speed other than to buy better hardware?
Sure there is. You can use some or all of the options listed below (not in any particular order):
- Reduce the size of displaying area by using "-" key.
- Use odd , oddx2 , 1x2 or 2x2 screen modes.
- Choose a different "blur distance" value.
- Choose a different "detail" value.
- If you are playing it on AGA, don't use slow Multiscan, DBLNTS or DBLPAL modes.
- Choose not to display your weapon.
- Turn sound off.
- Play with a mouse.
- Choose "always run" option.
- If you have 060 be a real man and overclock it to 66MHz!
- Stick to 8-bit mode. 16-bit looks better but is slower.
- If you have an 060 board in your A4000 put memory simms on it rather than the motherboard.
- Disable water warping.
I didn't see a higher FPS rate with my Cybervision. Weird huh? Maybe if I got a faster 060 it would help. MIne is 50MHZ.
-
in my experience in 3d shooter' games ....AGA is always faster than any gfx card...even compared with the fastest zorro 3 cards like the picasso 4 or the cybervision 64 /3d
AGA in PAL mode or NTSC beats any gfx card
the few exceptions are of course if the game uses warp3d libraries where the 3d engine of the gfx card do all the work....for example GL quake
-
I was about to say, someone must have gone in and optimised the hell out of it since I last looked, then. In reality 800x600 at 15-bit would need 937.5KiB per frame to be transferred over the bus. So, even with an infinitely fast CPU (where rendering and game logic takes no time at all), the best you could get out of for example the BVision would be about ~15fps. A mediator 1200 based graphics card would probably max out at about 8-9fps under the same conditions.
Theoretically! :) The best I could squeeze out of GLQuake in 800x600 was around 6.5fps. 1024x768 was totally unplayable. it seems Quake1 wasnt really optimised, compared to Quake2 which does run a lot faster. (timerefresh up to 30fps)
See http://amigaspeed.de.vu
edit: whoops, sorry. just realised that you were talking about an infinitely fast cpu. I guess my ppc doesnt count :)
-
Surgeon made quite a few optimisations.
http://surgeon.users2.50megs.com/quake/patches/Qboost4.txt
"Recomended config for DM (68060/66):
NTSC, viewsize 80, fov 100, pixelmode 2, d_mipcap 3, snd_frequency 5513
Remember to use the parameter -particles 1, when starting Quake!
This config gives me 21.80 FPS with timedemo demo2."
-
in my experience in 3d shooter' games ....AGA is always faster than any gfx card...even compared with the fastest zorro 3 cards like the picasso 4 or the cybervision 64 /3d
AGA in PAL mode or NTSC beats any gfx card
the few exceptions are of course if the game uses warp3d libraries where the 3d engine of the gfx card do all the work....for example GL quake
That's what I've seen. The best performance I got was with PPC quake running with AGA screen. This was way before any AOS4 stuff. There was some illegal port or something I got hold of and that thing worked great, back in the day.
Kinda sad, that we can't get it to work better on an 8 Meg graphics card like B-Vision...
-
That's what I've seen. The best performance I got was with PPC quake running with AGA screen. This was way before any AOS4 stuff. There was some illegal port or something I got hold of and that thing worked great, back in the day.
Kinda sad, that we can't get it to work better on an 8 Meg graphics card like B-Vision...
You can, you just need to leverage the card's 3D features rather than doing it in software.
-
You can, you just need to leverage the card's 3D features rather than doing it in software.
Yep. I get ~16 fps with GLQuake/BlitzQuake "timedemo demo1" the 2nd time (textures cached) at 640x400x16 with CSMK3 68060@75MHz, Mediator with Voodoo4 and tweaked Warp3D drivers. The 68060 can push descent frame rates even with a slow Mediator bus but the 68k Warp3D drivers are very poorly optimized. No, the 3D card does NOT do all the work! GLQuake/BlitzQuake is fairly well optimized, especially considering it's mostly C and uses the FPU.
-
Interesting thread. I tried messing around with the console as suggested by lionstorm. All of that made quake look really bad. So I guess just run the AGA mode in 300x200.
-
I did some testing of all Quake ports on my heavily optimised 603e/240mhz+060+bvision. Here are my results:
1) BlitzQuake (68k+Warp3D)
320x200 18.6fps (ppc version doesnt work)
2) GLQuakeWOS (WarpOS+Warp3D)
320x240 29.3fps (31.6 with r_fullbright set)
800x600 6.5fps
3) QuakePPC (PPC+CGX)
320x240 24fps
800x600 6.5fps
4) WarpQuake (WarpOS+CGX)
320x200 24fps
800x600 5.4fps
5) AwinQuake (PPC+CGX)
320x240 20fps
6) 'Clickboom' Quake (68K+CGX)
320x200 11fps
7) Coolquake (68K+CGX)
320x240 ..fps (still have to find this one. help?)
-
I did some testing of all Quake ports on my heavily optimised 603e/240mhz+060+bvision. Here are my results:
1) BlitzQuake (68k+Warp3D)
320x200 18.6fps (ppc version doesnt work)
2) GLQuakeWOS (WarpOS+Warp3D)
320x240 29.3fps (31.6 with r_fullbright set)
800x600 6.5fps
3) QuakePPC (PPC+CGX)
320x240 24fps
800x600 6.5fps
4) WarpQuake (WarpOS+CGX)
320x200 24fps
800x600 5.4fps
5) AwinQuake (PPC+CGX)
320x240 20fps
6) 'Clickboom' Quake (68K+CGX)
320x200 11fps
7) Coolquake (68K+CGX)
320x240 ..fps (still have to find this one. help?)
Pitiful.
With PPC Quake, in the GUI, I could see no screen options for 640x480, was using CGX.
-
@LaserBack
AGA is always faster than any gfx card...even compared with the fastest zorro 3 cards like the picasso 4 or the cybervision 64 /3d
AGA in PAL mode or NTSC beats any gfx card
with A1200 perhaps but not with A4000. Real ZorroIII cards like CV64 (not the 3D model)+Buster11 give a pair of frames more in games like Doom (using EDoom instead of ADoom for example)
-
Tell us your quake fps with that system? I belive that Picasso 4 is one of the best cards made for amiga. It is proven that it doesn't give any performance increase compared to zorro 2 vs. zorro 3
-
Pitiful.
With PPC Quake, in the GUI, I could see no screen options for 640x480, was using CGX.
So you can get a higher framerate using AGA? Please let me know how much!
Its easy to config PPC Quake, its all in the docs.
-
Come one guyz, I finished quake on 040/25 several years ago ;) Some one was telling me that he finished quake on 030 - crazy guy..
-
@LaserBack
with A1200 perhaps but not with A4000. Real ZorroIII cards like CV64 (not the 3D model)+Buster11 give a pair of frames more in games like Doom (using EDoom instead of ADoom for example)
yes I believe you
sometimes a gfx card wins AGA for a pair of frames
but in most of cases AGA wins also for a pair of frames
sincerely I don't know why because the zorro 3 bus is faster than AGA chip memory speed and Workbench is lot faster on a GFX card than on any AGA screen
so...it is a mystery for me
I think is something related to a good speed in AGA low resolutions like the PAL 320x256 and NTSC 300x200
-
Where can i get Quake? I bought it on steam and treid to transfer it to my amiga. But it sems to be a file missing, pak0.pak it was caled i think. Dont know why im missing this. I can run the game fine on my PC.
-
Where can i get Quake? I bought it on steam and treid to transfer it to my amiga. But it sems to be a file missing, pak0.pak it was caled i think. Dont know why im missing this. I can run the game fine on my PC.
The Quake data files such as pak0.pak are located in the ID1/ folder in your Quake installation. This folder is what you need to copy to your Amiga to use with the source ports.
If it is installed via Steam it is probably located in the steam\your@account\common\quake\ folder or some location close to that.
-
The Quake data files such as pak0.pak are located in the ID1/ folder in your Quake installation. This folder is what you need to copy to your Amiga to use with the source ports.
If it is installed via Steam it is probably located in the steam\your@account\common\quake\ folder or some location close to that.
Have tried to find it but i cant, have even used the "search" function and still cant find it :(
-
Have tried to find it but i cant, have even used the "search" function and still cant find it :(
Ok, I can try to install my Steam copy of Quake and find the files for you later (I'll try to remember it). I am in the middle of an exam period and shouldn't even be posting on forums, so not right now though ;)
(If you are the same Kawazu as the one on Safir, you can PM me there or here if I forget)
-
Ok, I can try to install my Steam copy of Quake and find the files for you later (I'll try to remember it). I am in the middle of an exam period and shouldn't even be posting on forums, so not right now though ;)
(If you are the same Kawazu as the one on Safir, you can PM me there or here if I forget)
I am and i will, thank you.
-
@Laserback
It depends on the bus speed of the RTG card more than the chip used in that card:*e.g. CV64 has faster bus than CV3D. On Quake I guess cpu crunching time and bus speed are more balanced. Anyway it also depends on the way the rendering is gone. If you write directly to RTG mem instead of doing a WritePixelArray() like some games do you get a nice boost.
@utri007
There's a huge difference between ZorroII and ZorroIII in terms of speed, open WarpOS Voxel demo (you don't need PPC IIRC) and try it on a ZorroII system and compare the performance with a ZorroIII/PCI one. In Quake the bottleneck is probably the cpu+ram but if you use a faster cpu you should get nice speed up using Zorro3, PCI & Permedia2 cards.
BTW, there was a patch that syncronized screen refresh with custom chip refresh that helped with gfx cards, it would be nice to test it with these type of games.
-
Got it up and running now.
Using QuakePPC and atm in 320x200 i have 44.6fps
32fps in the starting place
I can only runt the game in 8bit, everything else gives me a very twisted picture and wierd colors.
-
Got it up and running now.
Using QuakePPC and atm in 320x200 i have 44.6fps
32fps in the starting place
I can only runt the game in 8bit, everything else gives me a very twisted picture and wierd colors.
can you type timedemo demo1 in the console? that gives a better reading than a timerefresh.
-
can you type timedemo demo1 in the console? that gives a better reading than a timerefresh.
Will try that out when i get home ( in about 3 hours)
-
Timedemo results of RTG equipped PPC Amigas, (GL)QuakeWos: http://www.alinea-computer.de/amigaspeed/q***e.html (http://www.amigaspeed.de.vu)
-
29.1 fps in the timedemo
Have treid to get GlQuake to work but no luck yet, it complains about pak2.pak-pak9.pak if you creat random files with those names you just get an error: out of handle. Snoopdos gives no errors or fails what so ever.
-
Seen this:
[youtube]8__E99l90Pw[/youtube]
-
If I remove the fastram off the mobo on my a4000t, would that speed things up? I was reading it in a FAQ for Quake, I know the fast ram on the mobo is slower, but would it affect things that much?
-
If I remove the fastram off the mobo on my a4000t, would that speed things up? I was reading it in a FAQ for Quake, I know the fast ram on the mobo is slower, but would it affect things that much?
The system always use the fastest ram first so it would probably do nothing if you removed them.
-
29.1 fps in the timedemo
Have treid to get GlQuake to work but no luck yet, it complains about pak2.pak-pak9.pak if you creat random files with those names you just get an error: out of handle. Snoopdos gives no errors or fails what so ever.
yep, that sounds just about right. I get something like that in 320x240. as for the pak files, use snoopdos to find out where its trying to load the files from, coz it sounds like a misconfiguration.
-
Seen this: vid
I did, quite dissapointing I must say. But check out the other vid of Quake 3 running on a classic, much, much faster.
-
I did, quite dissapointing I must say. But check out the other vid of Quake 3 running on a classic, much, much faster.
linky?
-
linky?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GNtOM3ZLQM
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GNtOM3ZLQM
Wow, so to me, that's pretty good. But to be a total picky pants, that was too fast; just a big jumble of explosions to me (my old eyes). I like the slower pace of the original quake I and II (ii is my favorite).
Arena crap just went retardo to me. I'll be working on my 4.1C install tonight.
-
I like the slower pace of the original quake I and II
just run it in 1024x768! :)
-
Does Quake work on Sam?
-
Only one word "YES"
-
My result demo1 are
040 40mhz 6,16fps
060 66mhz 9,36fps
Both are aga, annoying is that timedemo doesn't stop, I need to watch it so see results :(
Both are AGA, 320x200 8bit
Timedemo gives good view to general game play, but is annoying to do :(
Here are some more timerefresh benchmarks:
Clickboom 060 exe with 060 66mhz
aga 15,1
rtg 11,8 (11,82)
Clickboom original exe
aga 13,4
rtg 11 (10,98)
AQuake
aga 10,1 rtg didn't work??
So it is quite much faster with aga, but with rtg less than 1 fps?
Also 040 and 060 difference seems to be quite near mhz=fps??
IF somebody with coding skills read this? I would like to addvertice this http://mikro.naprvyraz.sk/download.htm
Atari 68k duke nukem sources, made with C, much more sophisticated than original amiga duke and more opitimized. SO would you like to check it?
-
My result demo1 are
040 40mhz 6,16fps
060 66mhz 9,36fps
Both are aga, annoying is that timedemo doesn't stop, I need to watch it so see results :(
Both are AGA, 320x200 8bit
Timedemo gives good view to general game play, but is annoying to do :(
Here are some more timerefresh benchmarks:
Clickboom 060 exe with 060 66mhz
aga 15,1
rtg 11,8 (11,82)
Clickboom original exe
aga 13,4
rtg 11 (10,98)
AQuake
aga 10,1 rtg didn't work??
So it is quite much faster with aga, but with rtg less than 1 fps?
Also 040 and 060 difference seems to be quite near mhz=fps??
IF somebody with coding skills read this? I would like to addvertice this http://mikro.naprvyraz.sk/download.htm
Atari 68k duke nukem sources, made with C, much more sophisticated than original amiga duke and more opitimized. SO would you like to check it?
it is the reality
68k cpus are slow for quake
check this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao7haFa2iQk
A1200 ppc 175mhz vodoo 3
seems 38 fps timedemo demo1
in fact there was a quake ppc version available on aminet that clickboom said was illegal
and was removed from aminet servers long time ago
that quake ppc version did between 40-50 fps on AGA....depending on the which ppc
-
in fact there was a quake ppc version available on aminet that clickboom said was illegal
and was removed from aminet servers long time ago
thats not right.. it did give a high framerate (something like 18fps on aga with ppc/166mhz) but surely not 40. I know coz I still have that port.
-
thats not right.. it did give a high framerate (something like 18fps on aga with ppc/166mhz) but surely not 40. I know coz I still have that port.
that's because you have the slowest ppc on the Amiga
I tested that on a cyberstorm with 604E 233mhz in the A4000
the 604E 233 is much faster than 603E 166 (about 2x speed or more )
I do not remember very well exact numbers and I havent the hardware anymore to confirm but if anyone with PPC hardware can post results will be great
-
Tell us your quake fps with that system? I belive that Picasso 4 is one of the best cards made for amiga. It is proven that it doesn't give any performance increase compared to zorro 2 vs. zorro 3
Sorry, I didn't get around to testing. I'll get to it this week sometime. That said, based on I read here there's no way in hell I'll get to play it a decent resolution. Which sucks. But still, the fact that it was even released for the Amiga is pretty cool IMO.
Maybe Steam will port Portal for the Amiga ;)
Which would be good because it keeps crashing on my PC :(
-
Maybe Steam will port Portal for the Amiga ;)
You know the difference between Steam and Valve?
-
that's because you have the slowest ppc on the Amiga
It was my old card :)
I do not remember very well exact numbers and I havent the hardware anymore to confirm but if anyone with PPC hardware can post results will be great
Well, if someone wants to try I can send over the executable!
One more try: does anyone have the first illegal Quake port that started this whole Quake thing on Amiga? it was called coolQuake I think.
-
It was my old card :)
Well, if someone wants to try I can send over the executable!
One more try: does anyone have the first illegal Quake port that started this whole Quake thing on Amiga? it was called coolQuake I think.
I can try it out.
Just upload the files to a filehosting site or somthing like that and PM me the link.
-
You know the difference between Steam and Valve?
Doesn't the valve let the steam out? :lol:
Careful, or you'll be explaining "valve time" :D
-
:)
One more try: does anyone have the first illegal Quake port that started this whole Quake thing on Amiga? it was called coolQuake I think.
the first illegal Amiga port of quake 68k was done in 1997 in Montevideo/Uruguay by a guy called MAX ...he done it in his A4000 + spectrum gfx card
it not was called coolquake....I still have this ancient port
but the history started in 1997 when by mistake quake sources were scattered around the web...this guy MAX download them and stared the Amiga port in 1997
in same year Clickboom contacted him and purchased his work that was almost 90% done and working
then in 1998 clickboom retouched the port and realize it legal for the Amiga
The interesting history of this is the illegal thing...because the illegal sources
in 1999 another guy made a PPC port and uploaded it to aminet
Clickboom protest to aminet cause the new PPC port interfered with own business and was deleted from all Aminet servers
but it was not illegal for me....
where is the illegality? if sources were scattered and the authors made the ports for fun?
if anyone can explain
-
I never knew the first port was done in uruguay, thanks for sharing this. It was called 'illegal' because it was based on allegedly stolen sourcecode. (at least thats what the story was back then). But I dont think ID Software made a big deal out of this, since in the end it meant more sales for them. After that first port, the PPC boards were becoming popular and several people stepped in to develop ppc ports of Quake. The first one was called QuakePPC (AKA fastQuake).
Since it was still based on the stolen sourcecode, it was, by law (which?), still illegal, thats why it was removed from Aminet after a day or two. At least thats what was told around that time. I didnt know Clickboom had a say in this. Around that time many new ports appeared, most of them finding their way onto bulletin boards or shared by people on IRC.
-
Ok, so I installed my Pic IV, ran the same timerefresh demo I did with my Pic II+
...and....
It was barely faster with 6.8fps vs. 6.4fps.
Sigh.
-
Any one else having problem with GLQuake? I just get a black screen when i try to start it. Have tried every GL quake version there is on aminet and still the same problem.
The Gears demo you get in the warp3d package works great and runs very smooth but i cant get GLQuake to run, the "normal" PPC quake runs fine but not GLQuake.
-
Finaly got that sucker up and runing!!
stack 900000
-width 640
-height 480
-nocdaudio
I made a smal quake demo movie :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pTTbLcrZf4
-
in my experience in 3d shooter' games ....AGA is always faster than any gfx card...even compared with the fastest zorro 3 cards like the picasso 4 or the cybervision 64 /3d
AGA in PAL mode or NTSC beats any gfx card
the few exceptions are of course if the game uses warp3d libraries where the 3d engine of the gfx card do all the work....for example GL quake
Correction. AGA is faster than Zorro II. Once the bus gets slow enough, C2P stops being the bottleneck. I can assure you that on the BVision, where even my 040 can shove 15MB/s to the card without any C2P required, AGA+C2P definitely slower.
-
With 060 66mhz I get 11 fps with Spectrum 16/24 and 14 fps with AGA. Screen size is 320x200 and 100%. Spectrum is quite much same card than Picasso II.
if you get faster AGA results as spectrum then i think this is only possible because AGA do pixel double.Z2 Bus is slow but 11 fps 320*200 are only 640 kb to transfer.
AGA is really slow normaly.
maybe real game run in 160*100 and it scale to 320*200 to fit the screen.
can you post a screenshot of AGA version ?
-
Trust me, screen modes are equals
-
I just purchased a super computer to play DOS games for 10 u$
and I tested quake and other games
specs:
pentium 200 mmx /48mb ram /4gb hardisk
gfx card: cirrus logic 1mb (PCI)
sound card: AA1812
ok I have tested quake on this computer.. (time demo demo 1 )
and the results
26 fps on 300x200
24 fps on 300x240
I wonder how fast quake is on a PPC 200 or 175 or 240 on a plain amiga gfx card or AGA (no GL ports)
if anyone can post authentic results to compare....cause theorically a pentium 200 is like a ppc 200
thanks
-
I just purchased a super computer to play DOS games for 10 u$
and I tested quake and other games
specs:
pentium 200 mmx /48mb ram /4gb hardisk
gfx card: cirrus logic 1mb (PCI)
sound card: AA1812
ok I have tested quake on this computer.. (time demo demo 1 )
and the results
26 fps on 300x200
24 fps on 300x240
I wonder how fast quake is on a PPC 200 or 175 or 240 on a plain amiga gfx card or AGA (no GL ports)
if anyone can post authentic results to compare....cause theorically a pentium 200 is like a ppc 200
thanks
233mhz PPC + voodoo 3
GLQuake
1024x768: 15.7fps
800x600: 25.6fps
640x480: 32.4fps
320x240: 33.1
Quake Software mode
320x200: 33.8fps
640x480: 12.6fps
-
I wonder how fast quake is on a PPC 200 or 175 or 240 on a plain amiga gfx card or AGA (no GL ports)
if anyone can post authentic results to compare....cause theorically a pentium 200 is like a ppc 200
thanks
GLQuakeWOS on PPC 240mhz+060+Bvision:
320x240:~29fps
640x480:~15fps
800x600:~6.5fps
Keep in mind Quake 1 wasnt really optimised for Amiga. Quake 2 (official) runs a lot faster:
320x240:~64fps
640x480:~39fps
800x600:~28fps
Although that is measured using Timerefresh, not Timedemo.
-
Any benchs with a 603e@300 or @330 ?
I'm curious...
-
thanks kamazu and rvo nl for posting bench results
I expected something like that results...no surprises here
btw,
rvo_nl
quake is really optimized for the amiga ....better than any other port or the original pc version
check this video runing quake on a 486 and 586 on timedemo demo1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbcFvUOGA44
486 dx2 33 mhz = 3.5 fps
586 133mhz = 8.5 fps
the 040/40mhz and 060 on the amiga are faster than those....so you can make your own conclusions if quake on the amiga is well done or not
my conclusion is that clickboom version is very well optimized
-
@Laserback
a bit late but yeah, sure Quake 1 is optimised for Amiga. But compared to Quake 2, which is a far more advanced game, Im convinced it could have been better.