Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?  (Read 70486 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mauidj

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Feb 2008
  • Posts: 126
    • Show only replies by mauidj
    • http://www.raymasters.com
Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #164 from previous page: May 03, 2008, 06:39:49 PM »
Quote

persia wrote:
Absolutely yes, who needs old hardware?  Emulation is fast, simple and doesn't take more space on your desk and you can have as many Amigas as your memory allows!





Damn...how'd you do that?
I want it! :headwall:
MacBook Pro 17" 2.33GHz, e-uae, WB3.9.
 

Offline bloodline

  • Master Sock Abuser
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 12113
    • Show only replies by bloodline
    • http://www.troubled-mind.com
Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #165 on: May 03, 2008, 06:46:34 PM »
Quote

mauidj wrote:
Quote

persia wrote:
Absolutely yes, who needs old hardware?  Emulation is fast, simple and doesn't take more space on your desk and you can have as many Amigas as your memory allows!





Damn...how'd you do that?
I want it! :headwall:


I don't mean to sound rude... well ruder than I already have been, but are you quite sure you are up to the task of using a computer?

http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/unix_open_source/hitoro.html

Offline mauidj

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Feb 2008
  • Posts: 126
    • Show only replies by mauidj
    • http://www.raymasters.com
Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #166 on: May 03, 2008, 06:53:20 PM »
For someone not wanting to sound rude you are not doing a very good job.
Thanks for the put down.  :-(
All I wanted was some help.
Obviously came to the wrong place.
MacBook Pro 17" 2.33GHz, e-uae, WB3.9.
 

Offline bloodline

  • Master Sock Abuser
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 12113
    • Show only replies by bloodline
    • http://www.troubled-mind.com
Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #167 on: May 03, 2008, 07:00:18 PM »
Quote

mauidj wrote:
For someone not wanting to sound rude you are not doing a very good job.
Thanks for the put down.  :-(
All I wanted was some help.
Obviously came to the wrong place.


Ok... follow the link I provided, and download the Hi-Toro program... It really should be self explanatory from there on... If you have troubles then you might want to read the supplied documentation...

Offline Damion

Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #168 on: May 03, 2008, 07:26:36 PM »
@bloodline

Yeah, you guys were lucky... all the "good stuff" was PAL, especially the last few years of decent A500 software. I remember having to use silly degraders/PAL booters ("Banzai" PAL reset FTW) at every boot. Sometimes the software would arbitrarily kick the machine back to NTSC, requiring some tricky usage of degraders to finally get it working. (This was after my machine recovered from a "friend" using Rev 5 motherboard docs to try and perform the Agnus mod on my Rev 6 board... last time I let someone else touch my hardware... :nervous:)

Though I'm now wondering if the PITA factor of the Amiga wasn't part of its charm... :lol:
 

Offline AmigaHope

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2006
  • Posts: 41
    • Show only replies by AmigaHope
Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #169 on: May 04, 2008, 08:43:54 AM »
The differences are probably due to slight clock differences. Remember there really are *TWO* kinds of "NTSC Amiga" and "PAL Amiga".

An NTSC Amiga running in PAL mode runs at a slightly different speed than a PAL Amiga running in NTSC mode. This is because the bus in NTSC machines was clocked slightly differently.

I'm not entirely sure which of these UAE emulates. Either way, there will be occasional missed frames because it will not exactly sync to your 60Hz video display -- especially if your video display is "NTSC-style" 60Hz, which is really 59.94Hz. Amigas tend to put out a 60Hz signal that is not *exactly* 59.94 unless you installed a genlock, but it was close enough such that NTSC displays could handle it.

If you installed a good, real Amiga genlock something cool happened -- it threw out the internal clock and synced the machine to the NTSC clock. If you played a game while synced the difference in speed was noticeable. xD
 

Offline shoggoth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Dec 2004
  • Posts: 223
    • Show only replies by shoggoth
Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #170 on: May 05, 2008, 01:42:12 PM »
Quote

amigaksi wrote:
As an example, try putting an instruction like $009C,$8010 into the copper list and write an interrupt routine (pointed to by location $68) that does something time critical like writing to joystick ports and there your emulator won't work.  The PC timer goes only as accurate as 1.19318Mhz whereas the copper is timing the color clocks at 3.57954525Mhz.


This is weird, because you don't need hi-res timers to do accurate emulation. Usually it's a matter of accurately interleaving CPU- and hardware emulation, not synchronizing emulation to the host hardware. In theory, nothing prevents perfect emulation of the Amiga hardware today, including copper timing.
 

Offline MASACREWILL

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Apr 2002
  • Posts: 134
    • Show only replies by MASACREWILL
Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #171 on: May 05, 2008, 03:49:35 PM »
..well, for me the real thing is just better.. as far as my usage of Amiga is limited to watch demos, I think that nothing can  beat that experience of watching a demo being generated by that poor old hardware without any 3D hardware support (Mnemonics for example, or Abecedarian.. and tons more).. for me, this means Amiga.. and watching demos runnig under emulation would be without any charm (almost like watching a videos of them)..    :-)
..A1200/ElBOX Tower/Blizz1240-40/64 MB/Mediator LT4/VooDoo3/4xEIDE/80GB HDD/Realtek 8xxx/Samsung 17\\" SM711MP LCD TV monitor with SCART-IN for 15kHz stuff.. OS 3.5 + A600 HD new!  
Old things can not get obsoleted.. ;-)
 

Offline amigaksi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Dec 2006
  • Posts: 827
    • Show only replies by amigaksi
    • http://www.krishnasoft.com
Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #172 on: May 07, 2008, 02:12:19 AM »
Quote:


    amigaksi wrote:
    As an example, try putting an instruction like $009C,$8010 into the copper list and write an interrupt routine (pointed to by location $68) that does something time critical like writing to joystick ports and there your emulator won't work. The PC timer goes only as accurate as 1.19318Mhz whereas the copper is timing the color clocks at 3.57954525Mhz.


>This is weird, because you don't need hi-res timers to do accurate emulation. Usually it's a matter of accurately interleaving CPU- and hardware emulation, not synchronizing emulation to the host hardware.

Depends on what you are emulating.  The case above won't work on your emulator as the frequency of bits being toggled on the joystick port won't be what the emulator will output assuming it even emulates a joystick port.  I like my clocks running at the same speed even on faster CPUs just like the copper sets bits at the same exact color clock on the A500 or A4000 w/higher CPU speed.  [aside: that vector should be $6C for Copper and $68 for CIA timers.]  

>In theory, nothing prevents perfect emulation of the Amiga hardware today, including copper timing.

Nice joke but you should have corrected yourself by now (if you had read all the posts).  It should read "In theory (software-wise), not even an Atari 800 can be perfect emulated what to speak of Amiga."  I just gave a simple example that's not doable although it may seem like it's doing it.  A fake diamond and a real diamond are different in molecular structure/density although they may look the same.  Your emulator cannot be doing timing at 3.579545Mhz if it's timer is only accurate to 1.19318Mhz where reading the tick count itself takes more time than the quantum of the timer.  You may need new hardware graphics card or joystick card when we start discussing writing to overscan areas of the screen, hi-speed reading joystick ports (for periperhals or other reasons), other port emulation, etc.  The Commodore 64 can read a joystick port faster (@ $DC01) than a modern PC (@ 201h).  Here-- I posted this before somewhere on this forum (see if you can get an interrupt to occur consistently on some color clock then we can discuss further):

;*** Test timer accuracy on Atari 400/800 by Krishna Software Inc. without using DLIs.
      TIMERFREQLSB = 53760
      TIMERFREQMSB = 53762
      WSYNC = 54282
      VCOUNT = 54283

      DOSVEC = 10
      CASINI = 2
      WARMSTART = 58484
      VMIRQ = 534   ;hardware irq ptr

      ORG = 600h  
      ;DW 0FFFFh
      ;DW StartAdr
      ;DW LastOffset-1
      DB   0,3   ;# of sectors to load 1..255
      DW   ORG
      DW   StartAdr
      Rts
StartAdr:          Lda       #MyReset,L
      Sta       CASINI
      Lda       #MyReset,H
      Sta       CASINI+1
      Lda        #0
      Sta   580
      Lda       #2
      Sta       9
      Jmp       WARMSTART
MyReset:           Lda       #2
      Sta       9
      Lda       #MyReset,L
      Sta       CASINI
      Lda       #MyReset,H
      Sta       CASINI+1
      Sei
      Lda   #0      ;no VBIs nor DLIs for maximum performance
      Sta   54286
      Sta   53774      ;disable all IRQs
      Sta   54272      ;turn off screen
      Lda       #TimerTwoIRQ,L   ;general IRQ routine but we use only for timer #2
      Sta       VMIRQ
      Lda       #TimerTwoIRQ,H
      Sta       VMIRQ+1
      Lda       #80  ;40 for join channels 3,4; +80 for channels 1+2 @1.79Mhz
      Sta       53768   ;join channels at 1.79 Mhz
      Lda       #165   ;lsb 165
      Sta       53760   ;timer #2 freq = 1789790/[A+1]
      Lda       #116   ;msb for rate divisor A
      Sta       53762
      Lda   #2     ;2=timer interrupt
      Sta       53774       ;enable IRQ #2
NotMidScreen:   Lda   VCOUNT
      Cmp   #65
      Bne   NotMidScreen
      Sta   WSYNC
      Sta       53769   ;start timer counter
      CLI
      Lda       #34
      Sta       54272
IdleLoop:      ;put your code here
      Jmp   IdleLoop

TimerTwoIRQ:          Pha
      Lda   #255
      Sta   53272   ;change register (like color for example)
      Lda       #0   
      Sta       53774
      Lda       #2   
      Sta       53774   ;send ack to timer irq
      Nop
      Nop
      Lda   #96
      Sta   53272   ;change register (like color for example)
      Pla    
      Rti

;LastOffset:   DW 2e0h,2e1h,ORG
--------
Use PC peripherals with your amiga: http://www.mpdos.com
 

Offline Wibbly

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jun 2004
  • Posts: 58
    • Show only replies by Wibbly
Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #173 on: May 16, 2008, 02:05:46 AM »
I think (as it seems many others do) that both have their place. Emulation is my quick and dirty fix when I can't be arsed to find a plug socket and a dust rag (because as useful as a dust cover is, the dust cover itself has no ability to protect it's own self from gathering a half inch of dust, and unless I want to dust the whole room, a careful dusting of the dust cover is in order)

Nothing though, can beat the satisfaction, of finding old bits and pieces and actually getting your old hardware to display a high res image to a vga monitor, and play things like doom or quake. Sure those are infinitely old by todays standards, but I don't know why, there's just something very cool about seeing them running knowing that your PC is firmly turned off.

In fact, I was kind of excited the first time I got my amiga  connected to the internet. It was years after I'd done it with my PC, and despite the fact that the browser I was using with the Amiga looked a little clunky, it was almost like discovering the net all over again. I went to page after page, just to see how the amiga handled it.

Pointless maybe, but enjoyable nonetheless.
 

Offline persia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2006
  • Posts: 3753
    • Show only replies by persia
Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #174 on: May 16, 2008, 02:21:16 PM »
I have an uncle with an extensive classical record collection, I've digitised part of his library, in the process cleaning up the sound - eliminating all the record noises etc.  He still prefers to listen to the record.  The digital music is "too clean."  

I think emulation can be that way, emulation is too clean, too pure for the retro feel.  My MacPro is rock solid, it can run rings around an Amiga, but some might find E-UAE running on it too pure, it isn't the 80's feel.

Me I just want to reminisce about old games I used to play, but it's not the old push your equipment to the limit feel, E-UAE almost makes the Amiga look too easy.  The E-UAE process barely shows up on my system usage while running faster than any Amiga ever made.

In a way the Amiga experience was about doing a lot with a little.  Pushing technology almost to the breaking point.  I don't do that with m MacPro, video, high resolution images, 3D rendering, nothing even gets the machine "warm."  In some ways it's like cheating compared to the Amiga.  

Retro has it's appeal, I was once an amateur radio operator, I used to make contacts with people using 5 watts and an antenna thrown over a tree branch.  The morse code was barely distinguishable over the noise.  Now I use Skype and talk with people half a world away by clicking a button.  It's better but it's not the same.  India, the US, somewhere else in Oz, it's all the same.  There's no thrill in it.  This is why there will always be classic equipment lovers.

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

What we\'re witnessing is the sad, lonely crowing of that last, doomed cock.
 

Offline shoggoth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Dec 2004
  • Posts: 223
    • Show only replies by shoggoth
Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #175 on: January 20, 2009, 05:13:28 PM »
Quote

amigaksi wrote:
Depends on what you are emulating.
Quote


No, as long as the individual systems in the device being emulated is cadenced by clock signals, you can emulate it through software.

Quote

In theory, nothing prevents perfect emulation of the Amiga hardware today, including copper timing.
Quote

Nice joke but you should have corrected yourself by now (if you had read all the posts).  It should read "In theory (software-wise), not even an Atari 800 can be perfect emulated what to speak of Amiga."


Nice insult. The Atari 800 can also be perfectly emulated, just like the Amiga. Just because current solutions doesn't offer what you want, that doesn't mean these things are impossible to emulate.

Quote
I just gave a simple example that's not doable although it may seem like it's doing it.  A fake diamond and a real diamond are different in molecular structure/density although they may look the same.  Your emulator cannot be doing timing at 3.579545Mhz if it's timer is only accurate to 1.19318Mhz where reading the tick count itself takes more time than the quantum of the timer.


Funny, because that's not even applicable. You generally don't use timers when emulating stuff this way. To put it simple, tou interleave the code for each subsystem. Granularity is then dictated by the number of cycles spend on each "interleave". No timer. In theory that means you can emulate just about any device cadenced by a clock.

The Atari 800 and the Amiga are cool machines, but there is nothing "magic" about the hardware which makes it impossible to emulate. The 2600 is notoriously difficult to emulate, even though it's a really simple design.
 

Offline amigaksi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Dec 2006
  • Posts: 827
    • Show only replies by amigaksi
    • http://www.krishnasoft.com
Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #176 on: January 21, 2009, 09:59:55 AM »
You replied to this after about 1 year.  I never stated anyting "magical"-- just bare bone facts about hardware differences.  You do need timing to emulate things that rely on it.  Atari 800 has 8 POT counters that increment at exact cycle positions on the scanline; it has a fast pot scan that increments every 558 ns.  A Vcount that increments at exactly 2 scanlines (228 CPU cycles) on an exact cycle consistently.  Atari 800 has an IRQ that can cause an interrupt to occur at exact pixel points on the screen without flickering or diverging.  It has a DLI which can also be stabilized w/o requiring WSYNC register.

Amiga can also use VHPOSR which to emulate by itself requires a 3.58Mhz timer or better.  If I start doing I/O based on Copper timing or even IRQ timing triggered off of Copper, your buffer-based emulators will go bonkers because there won't be any standard PC resources that can do that accuracy (assuming you even have the 1.19Mhz timer availabe since OS usually hogs that up as well).  

Perhaps, you want to wait another 5 years or so before you reply so that there's some chance that more people have HPET timers in their machine and OSes are allowing direct access to their hardware.  
--------
Use PC peripherals with your amiga: http://www.mpdos.com
 

Offline darksun9210

Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #177 on: January 21, 2009, 11:46:13 AM »
on a side note, if you want 1.19Mhz, just install vista.
*ba-dom tish!*

also noted in theoretical circles. anything can emulate anything given an infinite amount of time and understanding. like running windows on a babbage engine.  :lol:

A500, A600, A1200x3, A2000, A3000, A4000 & a CD32.
and probably just like the rest of you, crates full of related "treasure" for the above XD
 

Offline shoggoth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Dec 2004
  • Posts: 223
    • Show only replies by shoggoth
Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #178 on: January 21, 2009, 11:53:24 AM »
Quote

amigaksi wrote:
You replied to this after about 1 year.  


Yeah. I remembered having this discussion once before and I was right. And you're just as misinformed now as you were one year ago, aparently.

Quote
I never stated anyting "magical"-- just bare bone facts about hardware differences.  You do need timing to emulate things that rely on it.  Atari 800 has 8 POT counters that increment at exact cycle positions on the scanline; it has a fast pot scan that increments every 558 ns.  A Vcount that increments at exactly 2 scanlines (228 CPU cycles) on an exact cycle consistently.  Atari 800 has an IRQ that can cause an interrupt to occur at exact pixel points on the screen without flickering or diverging.  It has a DLI which can also be stabilized w/o requiring WSYNC register.


Nope. You interleave code for each subsystem, and that's what makes it cycle accurate. The internal state of each emulated part is correct in relation to eachother. That's what cycle-accurate means. You don't use timers for that. You're simply misinformed about this.

Quote

Perhaps, you want to wait another 5 years or so before you reply so that there's some chance that more people have HPET timers in their machine and OSes are allowing direct access to their hardware.  


Again - this is bull. You don't need high res timers to achieve high res emulation. You seem to think so, but that's not how you do it.
 

Offline bloodline

  • Master Sock Abuser
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 12113
    • Show only replies by bloodline
    • http://www.troubled-mind.com
Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #179 on: January 21, 2009, 12:06:06 PM »
@amigaski

You really have no idea how an emulator works do you!?

The timing of operations within the emulator must be consistent within the emulator world, not the real world. That is to say operations must be performed within the documented number of emulator cycles... If this is true, then software running on the emulator will function perfectly. Secondly, if the host CPU can run the emulated cycle faster than a real hardware cycle (thus the emulator can then wait until a real cycle would complete), the user will experience will be perfect.

Now which bit don't you get?

-Edit- bah! Shaggoth said it better :-D