PC still playing Amiga catchup

[amigaksi]

...

You're right, I've not replied, because others, with greater skill and knowledge than myself have already explained it to you earlier in this thread.

They haven't either.

>No, the Amiga has partial hardware compatability.

Wrong.  AGA is compatible with OCS.  But again you miss the point that hardware compatibility is better than being forced to go through APIs.  I wasn't talking about what it is now.  Just another case of you twisting things around in an attempt to miss the main point of discussion.

>It is not the job of others to prove you wrong, which btw is indicative of fundie thinking. It is your job to prove your point correct.

I already did.  Logical deduction is superior to experimentation and I gave both.

>No, you misunderstand, I do that when people start blatantly lying to me, or if I'm bored. Since you're both boring and either wilfully ignorant or just flat out trolling, you get the full service.

You can't understand is the problem.  Where's the lies?  Go time the joysticks yourself and go see the timing for yourself.  It's not that hard to do.

[amigaksi]

Hi,

@Amigaski,

...it work. The software that shipped with it was bad.  OK case in point API's do have faults, but not only for PC's.

Buggy code is prevelent in all computers.

smerf

I was speaking about all APIs not just for PCs.  See post #570.  My main point is that it's better to have compatibility on the hardware level so person has option of going through API or using hardware directly.  Now the circular reasoning presented to me is well "nobody in their right mind would go directly to hardware on modern systems since it may not work on another system."

[amigaksi]

No, it isn't. If it were, a sizeable chunk of OCS games would still work on AGA systems without the need for hacks and patches. Again, this is well documented.

...

As I said before, I write something using OCS hardware registers and it will work on OCS, ECS, and AGA-- nothing to modify between the machines.  Incompatibilities were not caused by these hardware registers.

>The problem with your point is that it only works in your magical fairyland.

No, it works right now.  If people use hardware standards rather than APi standards, you have better computers to program.  You are in some fairyland because you don't even understand what is being discussed.

>When you state that the Amiga is superior to the PC, you are talking about now.

Straw-man argument.  I stated that because of having hardware compatibility, Amiga will do better in certain real-time programs.

>No, you supplied data that showed nothing.

Bullcrap.  Go re-read the data.

>You were actually given a suggestion by Karlos on how you could actually test just how sensitive the Amiga was thus proving one way or the other, with no room for doubt if your hypothesis was correct. You chose instead stuck to your flawed data.

The data is REAL data as sampled from REAL joystick used in a REAL game on a REAL computer.  Go learn what a debounce switch is and analyze the data.  Your thinking is flawed.  I did do another test where I just press fire button and let go and there's no multiple hits registered in the recorder (just two states).

>I think I understand the problem better then you do.

You think you do.

>...say well played to you, you're right the joystick is capable of responding to hits at X speed quicker then a USB based approach.

That's not even the point.  Joystick on Amiga is faster even if you do one sample every 1/60 second.  And why are you narrowing to just USB; Gameport is also a valid joystick port for millions of PC owners.

>...that and repeat. Lies was perhaps the wrong choice of word, wilful ignorance would probably be a better fit.

You're in ignorance.

[amigaksi]

On a fixed platform be it one that's discontinued (Amiga) or an embedded or industrial controller, having those sorts of options is great and depending on the hardware again, hitting the hardware might be your only way of acomplishing something.

...

Some cases hardware access is the only way, but in some cases you have both options (API or hardware access) and hardware access is superior method.

>There are, just for (m)ATX boards 23 different variations. That's even before we look at the offerings from AMD. 23...

Even when vendors make VGA cards using VGA standard (which required hardware level compatibility), you had several ATI card variations-- some faster than others but they maintained hardware compatibility not API level compatibility.

[amigaksi]

I believe this was already responded to as to why you were wrong then too.

...

No, OCS registers are compatible with AGA.  Give link where it was responded.  I have so many OCS applications (going directly to hardware) that run fine on AGA.  Applications relying on processor timing or using different ROM APIs may have problems.

>Without being able to show that the Amiga can distinguish and react to your output, your data is meaningless.

>Not disputing that the data isn't real, just that it's meaningless unless you can show that the computer can react to the input at those speeds.

It's as simple as writing an application to read joystick and move a sprite around and this sort of loop is present in many programs.  The loop runs as fast as machine allows it.

>That is not a sentence.

It has a subject and predicate; therefore, it's a sentence.

[amigaksi]

Hi,

@Amigaski,
...
Sorry to tear you up like this, but the PC did have all kinds of special stuff made for it that was comparable or faster than the Amiga.

smerf

Looks like you got your "quote" "/quote"s mixed up, but I'll address your points: (1) Yeah, you can build a custom joystick interface for your PC that's faster than Amigas-- but what's standard out there-- gameport and USB port based joysticks are inferior.  Nor are PCs headed toward that direction of building PCI digital joystick cards nor parallel port based joystick interfaces.  (2) Regarding going directly to hardware on PCs-- that's still a fantasy since modern PC hardware is NOT compatible on the hardware level.  It's only compatible on API level.  And that's the guts of my current argument-- if PC had hardware compatibility instead of API compatibility, it would allow for better more efficient software.  Only legacy ports are giving you that option currently.

[amigaksi]

You haven't answered Protracker 1 vs Octomed 4 vs Deluxe Music  2.0 interactions.

On modern GPU and using NVIDIA's Cg shaders

const static float3x3 m = float3x3(
    0.2209, 0.3390, 0.4184,
    0.1138, 0.6780, 0.7319,
    0.0102, 0.1130, 0.2969);

inline float4 PS3_LogLuv_Encode(in float3 rgb)
{
    float4 res; // float4(Ue, Ve, LeHigh, LeLow)
    float3 Xp_Y_XYZp = mul(rgb,m);
    Xp_Y_XYZp = max(Xp_Y_XYZp, float3(1e-6, 1e-6, 1e-6));
    res.xy = Xp_Y_XYZp.xy / Xp_Y_XYZp.z;
    float Le = 2 * log2(Xp_Y_XYZp.y) + 128;
    res.z = Le / 256;
    res.w = frac(Le);
    return res;
}
Running this code through NVShaderPerf gives 5 cycles for 9 instructions. When inserted at the end of a longer shader where there is plenty of room for instruction pairing, the total overhead for the LogLuv conversion will be less than this, perhaps around 3 cycles.

This code snippet is use to enable HDR and hardware AA on PS3. The other exercise is to do the conversion from LogLuv back to RGB.

This type of optimisation works on Geforce 7. I like PS3 devs for taking care of Geforce 7 and other DirectX9c class GPUs.

If you have any modern GPU enquires, one should visit Beyond3D's forums i.e. you have professional game developers lurking in that particular forums.

On Amiga, without OpenGL shaders it's difficult to test shader code snippets from PS3 and XNA forums.

Now how does above relate to palette setting using a Windows APi call?

[amigaksi]

Well, Paula didn't change much.

It would be a joke to compared CBM's OCS/ECS/AGA's evolution rate to NVIDIA's NV20/NV30/G70/G80/G200/G300(soon).
...

Paula didn't change much is not the point.  The other custom chips that did do enhancement are also backward compatible with OCS.  Evolution rate should not impede people for making them backward compatible on hardware level.  The point is that the methodology of going about it is inferior-- they are already targeting only API level compatibility.

[amigaksi]

USB multifunction modules that provides 1 MHz sampling speed .
http://www.iotech.com/products/pdaq3s.htm

USB modules that provides 2 MHz sampling speed.
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-15005752_ITM

I know anyone can build hardware for any computer to do anything computer is able to do.  But we are looking at standards.  If all I did was talk about Video Toaster features on Amiga 4000, it wouldn't be talking about the general Amiga audience.

>There's Catweasel IV. It's too bad it's not in ExpressCard format.

Yeah, some Atari people also built joystick interface using parallel port but PC games out there aren't using it nor does having many different non-standard joystick interfaces give you ability to do low-level programming.

>I don’t know why you are addicted to this joystick thing?

It was one of the things mentioned that is superior on Amiga, but some people can't understand that so the argument keeps going on and on.

>What market are you targeting?

Most of the audience.  In amigas case, if you use the joystick interface $DFF00A, it works on all Amigas.

[amigaksi]

Correct, and that is all to the good.

...

That's bad that modern PCs aren't hardware compatible with each other.  

>No, what it would usher in would be a whole new round of I/O, IRQ and DMA conflicts as different programs fought for control of hardware, oblivious to one another. As well as very painfully kludged hardware.

No, if hardware was compatible like earlier VGA cards, they would use SAME I/O ports, same IRQs, same MEMORY MAP areas, etc.  And even if you had multiple boards in the same system (in rare cases), there's the plug-n-play hardware that allows you to remap the I/O ports.  Take another good example-- parallel ports are always mapped to 378h, 278h, 3BCh and using plug-n-play you can have 3 parallel ports and each one can be mapped to any of the standard I/O port locations.

[amigaksi]

I'm fairly certain that was more or less along the lines of what Karlos suggested... How many pages ago?

...

That test is not needed if you understand the logic.  I'll do it when I feel like it and have time.

>That is not a sentence.

>You cannot use the word ignorance as you did. It is gramatically incorrect and as such is invalid. It is not a sentence.

"You're in ignorance" is perfectly valid sentence and also reflects reality.

[amigaksi]

What about A1 and SAM?

I'm only considering Amigas w/either OCS/ECS/ or AGA.

On what basis are those called "Amigas"?

[amigaksi]

fix'd.



Pithy. Amusing given that you're the one whose backside has been handed back to them on a plate on pretty much every single point you've made thus far too.

Can't understand English.  Just declaring them false statements won't help.  Every statement I made is correct.
Even DirectX is flawed which is irrelevant to my point is correct.  Before DirectX 1.0, I had video cards that supported OpenGL, 3D rendering, MPEG4, VGA standard, hardware accerated rendering, etc.  You are so biased, you only read those who reply to me and refuse to understand simple logical statements that are true regardless of what you say.

[amigaksi]

Again, I have to disagree with you. More on this in a sec.

>No, what it would usher in would be a whole new round of I/O, IRQ and DMA conflicts as different programs fought for control of hardware, oblivious to one another. As well as very painfully kludged hardware.



As I said in a previous post, that's all great for the very basics, but once you get into multiple layers of this and things become more complex, the hassle of maintaining this hardware compatability becomes emense, not to mention pointless - no desktop built in the last few years has a serial or parallel port, ISA hasn't been seen for over a decade and PCI has (largely) been discontinued, this is true especially of fast evolving things like graphics.
...

Complete rubbish-- didn't even address the point.  I gave an EXAMPLE of parallel port.  You can have hardware level compatibility for ANY DEVICE.

Re-read:
"No, if hardware was compatible like earlier VGA cards, they would use SAME I/O ports, same IRQs, same MEMORY MAP areas, etc. And even if you had multiple boards in the same system (in rare cases), there's the plug-n-play hardware that allows you to remap the I/O ports. Take another good example-- parallel ports are always mapped to 378h, 278h, 3BCh and using plug-n-play you can have 3 parallel ports and each one can be mapped to any of the standard I/O port locations."

>Now consider how much extra logic would have to be built into a modern gpu so as to include hardware compatability with just the major jumps in gpu design over the years...

When you add a brand new feature, you assing new standard I/O ports-- you maintain the previous ones.  Like they maintained CGA/EGA when making VGA.

Get a clue.

[amigaksi]

So you want it to be mainstream eh? I can do that...

USB2 Soundblaster Audigy2.

Ok perhaps that one too is a little OTT, but there are a great many other USB cards at much lower prices, and I'd bet good money that they too can sample at far, far higher rates then 1khz. I pointed to this one simply because it was the first one I found that had the sampling rate capabilities printed out up front. The other cards I looked at briefly are available to view here. Note that as laptops are becoming more and more popular, these sorts of external usb based expansions are becoming ever more mainstream.

In a way the above box is almost as though the hardware has gone full circle - many old soundcards included a gameport, now they're including usb ports...

You just stated something that doesn't even address the joystick 1Khz sampling.  It's a NEW piece of audio hardware.  I think they are plugging in USB 2.0 cards in Amigas as well.

[amigaksi]

Re-target capability.

...

If most of planet is PC-based, retarget capability is minor in comparison to what you get with hardware level compatibility:

(1) Faster code
(2) Faster response time (worst case analysis) and exactly knowing what is happening (for real-time stuff)
(3) No drivers required; they all use same driver (like VGA standard)
(4) Smaller and efficient code means less resources are used.
etc.

>Less efficient when dealing complex abstract objects.

I have yet to see someone here to prove to me that API is required once you make a piece of hardware have more functionality.  Making a piece of hardware more complex has no realtionship to whether it uses API-based compatibility or hardware compatibility.

>My CUDA GPU is faster than Amiga's changing palette capabilities i.e. the compute wavefront is larger. The purpose pixel shader is .... pixel processing.

"My" is the keyword.  Is it generic enough?