Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Adoom fps counter, is it reliable?  (Read 1672 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline zx6r6Topic starter

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Feb 2005
  • Posts: 63
    • Show only replies by zx6r6
Adoom fps counter, is it reliable?
« on: April 26, 2005, 10:45:19 AM »
Just wondering if the fps (frames per second) counter on Adoom is reliable? I'm only getting 17ish full screen @320x200 on my a1200 with Apollo 060 66mhz 32mb,mediator sx with voodoo 3 etc etc.
 

Offline Piru

  • \' union select name,pwd--
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2002
  • Posts: 6946
    • Show only replies by Piru
    • http://www.iki.fi/sintonen/
Re: Adoom fps counter, is it reliable?
« Reply #1 on: April 26, 2005, 11:14:05 AM »
Yes it is accurate. Mediator is very slow when you access the video memory with CPU.

If the game would use 3D acceleration it would be much faster.
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16868
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • Show only replies by Karlos
Re: Adoom fps counter, is it reliable?
« Reply #2 on: April 27, 2005, 01:00:26 AM »
17fps for 320x240 sounds very low, even for mediator.

What settings are you using? IIRC there are several methods of video access possible. The basic writepixelarray is pretty damn slow.

All my old experiments indicate that a typical mediator 1200 maxes out at around 7MB/s for fast ram -> VRAM copies (32-bit aligned). Direct CPU to VRAM 32-bit aligned writes reach 9MB/s.

30fps at 320x240 8-bit wouldn't need more than 2.2MB/s, assuming this is the limiting factor (there's usually always plenty of other things competing for the CPU, however).

Since VRAM is non cacheable and Doom renders 8-bit vertical columns, the logical solution as I see it would be to render say 4 vertical spans in a fast ram buffer, then shovel this to VRAM using a good 32-bit copyloop.
int p; // A
 

Offline TjLaZer

Re: Adoom fps counter, is it reliable?
« Reply #3 on: April 27, 2005, 07:43:47 AM »
Try AGA 320X200 and should get around 35!!!
Going Bananas over AMIGAs since 1987...

Looking for Fusion Fourty PNG ROMs V3.4?

:flame: :banana: :banana: :banana:
 

Offline zx6r6Topic starter

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Feb 2005
  • Posts: 63
    • Show only replies by zx6r6
Re: Adoom fps counter, is it reliable?
« Reply #4 on: April 27, 2005, 01:55:49 PM »
Hmmmm...Tried aga 320x200 and it was even slower. Out of curiosity I booted from a plain 3.1 install, with exactly the same options I'm getting around the 30fps mark!
My 3.9 setup has boing bag 1&2 installed,mediator & powerflyer drivers and a couple of other bits of proven software(mui etc) on it. Other than that its a new vanilla install. Any ideas of what the problem may be or is this all part and parcel of the mediator setup and I've got to live with it? If the latter then the mediator sucks!!
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16868
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • Show only replies by Karlos
Re: Adoom fps counter, is it reliable?
« Reply #5 on: April 27, 2005, 03:06:07 PM »
Try this on your system and let me know what the results are:

pixeltest

Run it on a basic 16-bit workbench screen and it should give an indication of wether or not your basic direct VRAM access is the issue. Frankly, I expect it isn't and it is more likely a configuration problem.
int p; // A
 

Offline TjLaZer

Re: Adoom fps counter, is it reliable?
« Reply #6 on: April 27, 2005, 05:01:18 PM »
Try this, remove the Mediator monitor drivers and boot up 3.9 and try it again.  If not I would remove all patches, tweaks and try one at at time until it works.  Also try to go back to BB1 patch file, I was having some problems with that one some setups.  (AmigaOS ROM Update)
Going Bananas over AMIGAs since 1987...

Looking for Fusion Fourty PNG ROMs V3.4?

:flame: :banana: :banana: :banana:
 

Offline zx6r6Topic starter

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Feb 2005
  • Posts: 63
    • Show only replies by zx6r6
Re: Adoom fps counter, is it reliable?
« Reply #7 on: April 27, 2005, 09:55:38 PM »
Nice one! Problem found, it was the boing bag 2 rom update!
I'm now getting high 20 fps. :)

Pixeltest result
VRAM->RAM     : 5222.44 K/sec
VRAM->RAM(16) : 6279.73 K/sec

-------------------------------

Conversion    : 9668.25 K/sec [output bandwidth]
Conversion    : 4950142.18 pix/sec

Conversion attained   99.34% copy speed

I haven't a clue what any of this means but I guess these figures would be about right?

Thanks for your help guys. MUCH appreciated
 

Offline AmigaMance

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Posts: 1278
    • Show only replies by AmigaMance
Re: Adoom fps counter, is it reliable?
« Reply #8 on: April 28, 2005, 03:38:29 AM »
 What is the problem with the BB#2 exactly? I'm using it and i can't see any problems, so far. In your case, the slow down was probably caused by the new exec.library being loaded in the chip-ram instead of the fast-ram. What do you think guys?
A1200 PPC user.
 

Offline platon42

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2002
  • Posts: 573
    • Show only replies by platon42
    • http://www.platon42.de/
Re: Adoom fps counter, is it reliable?
« Reply #9 on: April 28, 2005, 06:31:52 AM »
That's one of the main problems of BB2. Use the AVOIDMEMFKICKFORPATCHES flag at the SetPatch command line or avoid updating critical libraries altogether (like exec.library, ram-handler).
--
Regards, Chris Hodges )-> http://www.platon42.de <-(
hackerkey://v4sw7CJS$hw6/7ln6pr7+8AOP$ck0ma8u2LMw1/4Xm5l3i5TJCOTextPad/e7t2BDMNb7GHLen5a34s5IMr1g3/5ACM
 

Offline AmigaMance

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Posts: 1278
    • Show only replies by AmigaMance
Re: Adoom fps counter, is it reliable?
« Reply #10 on: April 28, 2005, 06:51:09 AM »
Although, your advice to use the AVOIDMEMFKICKFORPATCHES is a good one, the other advice not to use the newer ram-handler is not good. Since the old version of the device is buggy and it needs to be replaced.
A1200 PPC user.
 

Offline platon42

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2002
  • Posts: 573
    • Show only replies by platon42
    • http://www.platon42.de/
Re: Adoom fps counter, is it reliable?
« Reply #11 on: April 28, 2005, 08:31:32 PM »
There is no need to replace the old ram handler. I never had any problems with it. The new ram handler is *dead* slow. And when I say dead slow, I mean it. Try copying big files to RAM: -- slower than my harddisk.
--
Regards, Chris Hodges )-> http://www.platon42.de <-(
hackerkey://v4sw7CJS$hw6/7ln6pr7+8AOP$ck0ma8u2LMw1/4Xm5l3i5TJCOTextPad/e7t2BDMNb7GHLen5a34s5IMr1g3/5ACM