CyberGraphX 4.0 or Picasso96?

[patrik]

@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

[Crumb]

@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 ;-)

[tokai]

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

[FuZion]

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.

[Kronos]

@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).

[Acill]

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.

[Karlos]

@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...;-)

[lempkee]

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..

[bloodline]

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.

[Kronos]

@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.

[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  

Maybe you should be more active :-)

And yes, C++ shouldn't be a problem any more :-D

[mpiva]

   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?

[Karlos]

@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... :-)