Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: CGX 4 and P96 SDK  (Read 18838 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16879
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • Show only replies by Karlos
Re: CGX 4 and P96 SDK
« Reply #14 on: April 03, 2010, 03:30:21 PM »
Quote from: Cosmos;551039
Yes, Karlos !

I didn't say I was going to do it... I paid good money for CGX4 :-)

It was pretty obvious that neither development camp would allow free redistribution of the drivers themselves, but if someone has a copy of the relevant SDK, I take it they can still apply for approval to release a driver they've developed for a new card? Or does the license of the RTG system cover all drivers written for it?
« Last Edit: April 03, 2010, 03:37:58 PM by Karlos »
int p; // A
 

Offline Fats

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 672
    • Show only replies by Fats
Re: CGX 4 and P96 SDK
« Reply #15 on: April 04, 2010, 12:52:41 PM »
Quote from: Karlos;551028
Perhaps it's time to create a free RTG system that supports P96/CGX library calls.


One word: AROS
Staf.
Trust me...                                              I know what I\'m doing
 

Offline wawrzon

Re: CGX 4 and P96 SDK
« Reply #16 on: April 04, 2010, 01:36:55 PM »
@fats: thats actually four words.
but yes, i suppose so. dont know much of aros but the cgx system is said to be api compatible. i do not understand why none takes look at it.
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16879
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • Show only replies by Karlos
Re: CGX 4 and P96 SDK
« Reply #17 on: April 04, 2010, 02:08:34 PM »
I don't know for sure, but I imagine that AROS's implementation of CGX is a thin layer around the HAL and that perhaps you'd end up having to recreate the latter, which may be quite difficult.
int p; // A
 

Offline Gulliver

Re: CGX 4 and P96 SDK
« Reply #18 on: April 04, 2010, 06:24:31 PM »
@Piru
Thank you for trying! :)

@All
I believe that Karlos has hit the nail. We need a new freely available open source rtg system, preferably one that can support both P96 and CGX functionality. The CGX layer AROS has can perhaps be a starting point.
 

Offline kolla

Re: CGX 4 and P96 SDK
« Reply #19 on: April 04, 2010, 06:39:37 PM »
This just shows, again, the obvious. Old amiga devs these days, are mostly a bunch of arses. All the more reasons not to support neither MorphOS nor OS4, since they will just follow this good old tradition :)
« Last Edit: April 04, 2010, 06:42:06 PM by kolla »
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC
---
A3000/060CSPPC+CVPPC/128MB + 256MB BigRAM/Deneb USB
A4000/CS060/Mediator4000Di/Voodoo5/128MB
A1200/Blz1260/IndyAGA/192MB
A1200/Blz1260/64MB
A1200/Blz1230III/32MB
A1200/ACA1221
A600/V600v2/Subway USB
A600/Apollo630/32MB
A600/A6095
CD32/SX32/32MB/Plipbox
CD32/TF328
A500/V500v2
A500/MTec520
CDTV
MiSTer, MiST, FleaFPGAs and original Minimig
Peg1, SAM440 and Mac minis with MorphOS
 

Offline kolla

Re: CGX 4 and P96 SDK
« Reply #20 on: April 04, 2010, 06:47:31 PM »
Quote from: Gulliver;551333
@Piru
Thank you for trying! :)

@All
I believe that Karlos has hit the nail. We need a new freely available open source rtg system, preferably one that can support both P96 and CGX functionality. The CGX layer AROS has can perhaps be a starting point.


Why bother? It's better to get AROS in better shape than to waste time "backporting" AROS' RTG to 68k. RTG on 68k is at a dead end.
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC
---
A3000/060CSPPC+CVPPC/128MB + 256MB BigRAM/Deneb USB
A4000/CS060/Mediator4000Di/Voodoo5/128MB
A1200/Blz1260/IndyAGA/192MB
A1200/Blz1260/64MB
A1200/Blz1230III/32MB
A1200/ACA1221
A600/V600v2/Subway USB
A600/Apollo630/32MB
A600/A6095
CD32/SX32/32MB/Plipbox
CD32/TF328
A500/V500v2
A500/MTec520
CDTV
MiSTer, MiST, FleaFPGAs and original Minimig
Peg1, SAM440 and Mac minis with MorphOS
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16879
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • Show only replies by Karlos
Re: CGX 4 and P96 SDK
« Reply #21 on: April 04, 2010, 06:55:29 PM »
I wouldn't say that. Adding an RTG card to my A1200 was one of the single most significant upgrades I ever made. It made a very big difference to my everyday use and prolonged the life of my A1200 as my "primary machine" by several years.
int p; // A
 

Offline kolla

Re: CGX 4 and P96 SDK
« Reply #22 on: April 04, 2010, 07:15:58 PM »
Quote from: Karlos;551341
I wouldn't say that. Adding an RTG card to my A1200 was one of the single most significant upgrades I ever made. It made a very big difference to my everyday use and prolonged the life of my A1200 as my "primary machine" by several years.

Sure, but that is not relevant at this point. The developers of the software in question are not interested in anyone continuing to use it, on the contrary, they rather see that noone use their software at all anymore. That's the only conclusion one can draw from this, as I see it.
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC
---
A3000/060CSPPC+CVPPC/128MB + 256MB BigRAM/Deneb USB
A4000/CS060/Mediator4000Di/Voodoo5/128MB
A1200/Blz1260/IndyAGA/192MB
A1200/Blz1260/64MB
A1200/Blz1230III/32MB
A1200/ACA1221
A600/V600v2/Subway USB
A600/Apollo630/32MB
A600/A6095
CD32/SX32/32MB/Plipbox
CD32/TF328
A500/V500v2
A500/MTec520
CDTV
MiSTer, MiST, FleaFPGAs and original Minimig
Peg1, SAM440 and Mac minis with MorphOS
 

Offline warpdesign

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Feb 2008
  • Posts: 256
    • Show only replies by warpdesign
    • http://www.warpdesign.fr
Re: CGX 4 and P96 SDK
« Reply #23 on: April 04, 2010, 07:28:20 PM »
Why is everything so closed ?
Most stuff haven't been used for 10 years, isn't used anymore... but still, it must be kept secret :(

I guess I'll never understand... I know it's their IP and they can do whatever they want. But since it could help and interest people I don't get why it's not released for free... They'd have nothing to lose by doing so.
 

Offline wawrzon

Re: CGX 4 and P96 SDK
« Reply #24 on: April 04, 2010, 07:29:20 PM »
Quote from: kolla;551339
RTG on 68k is at a dead end.



neither you will convince me on this nor i will try to prove the contrary. improving 68k may be a objectively a waste of time yet some are interested in this. you will have to live with it.


and i do not believe the former amiga devs are ars*s jusst because theý refuse to release something for free. it is their good right to do so. even now there might be interested parties who would like to license from them for money although not very likely so why are they not allowed to stick to their ip?

anyway cooperation between aros and 68k might be fruitful for both, not to mention other branches.
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16879
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • Show only replies by Karlos
Re: CGX 4 and P96 SDK
« Reply #25 on: April 04, 2010, 07:31:56 PM »
@kolla

I think it's more "political" than that. CGX and P96 have become the respective RTG standards for MOS and OS4, thus all development of each API has become tied to each platform.

Nobody ever installed RTG software for it's own sake, rather they installed it to allow them to run all their existing software in higher resolutions and/or greater colour depths. Just because the developers of the existing standards aren't interested/able to continue support doesn't mean the original motivation behind RTG has gone away. People still want to be able to use higher resolution screen modes with faster refresh rates etc.
int p; // A
 

Offline wawrzon

Re: CGX 4 and P96 SDK
« Reply #26 on: April 04, 2010, 07:32:39 PM »
Quote from: warpdesign;551348
Why is everything so closed ?
Most stuff haven't been used for 10 years, isn't used anymore... but still, it must be kept secret :(

I guess I'll never understand... I know it's their IP and they can do whatever they want. But since it could help and interest people I don't get why it's not released for free... They'd have nothing to lose by doing so.


ok. right, but lets stop blaming people. this will not change their minds. this way is closed. better think of constructive ideas.

@karlos: exactly.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2010, 07:34:44 PM by wawrzon »
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16879
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • Show only replies by Karlos
Re: CGX 4 and P96 SDK
« Reply #27 on: April 04, 2010, 07:42:55 PM »
Personally, I was never entirely happy with either RTG system on 3.x (I've used both for years). Whilst they worked, every system I ever used felt as if they only accelerated the most basic functions using the available hardware. On my CGX 4.2/Permedia 2 install, for example, it was obvious that scaled/transparent blits weren't remotely accelerated, despite the fact the hardware is perfectly capable of it.

Other than basic integration, what I'd always wanted to see was a retained mode graphics library (basically one where you'd queue up some rasterization commands, then have them issued inside a hardware lock using whatever acceleration exists) designed especially for RTG hardware. Instead all we ever really got was a few chunky pixel copy functions.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2010, 07:45:42 PM by Karlos »
int p; // A
 

Offline kolla

Re: CGX 4 and P96 SDK
« Reply #28 on: April 04, 2010, 07:53:05 PM »
Quote from: wawrzon;551349
neither you will convince me on this nor i will try to prove the contrary. improving 68k may be a objectively a waste of time yet some are interested in this. you will have to live with it.
Sure, everyone is free to waste ones time on whatever one likes.

Quote
and i do not believe the former amiga devs are ars*s jusst because theý refuse to release something for free. it is their good right to do so. even now there might be interested parties who would like to license from them for money although not very likely so why are they not allowed to stick to their ip?
Ofcourse they are allowed to do so, I dont suggest that they arent allowed to do it, but it does render them a bunch of arses in my view.

Quote
anyway cooperation between aros and 68k might be fruitful for both, not to mention other branches.
Ofcourse, please go ahead.
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC
---
A3000/060CSPPC+CVPPC/128MB + 256MB BigRAM/Deneb USB
A4000/CS060/Mediator4000Di/Voodoo5/128MB
A1200/Blz1260/IndyAGA/192MB
A1200/Blz1260/64MB
A1200/Blz1230III/32MB
A1200/ACA1221
A600/V600v2/Subway USB
A600/Apollo630/32MB
A600/A6095
CD32/SX32/32MB/Plipbox
CD32/TF328
A500/V500v2
A500/MTec520
CDTV
MiSTer, MiST, FleaFPGAs and original Minimig
Peg1, SAM440 and Mac minis with MorphOS
 

Offline kolla

Re: CGX 4 and P96 SDK
« Reply #29 from previous page: April 04, 2010, 07:55:44 PM »
Quote from: warpdesign;551348
Why is everything so closed ?

Most stuff haven't been used for 10 years, isn't used anymore... but still, it must be kept secret :(

I guess I'll never understand... I know it's their IP and they can do whatever they want. But since it could help and interest people I don't get why it's not released for free... They'd have nothing to lose by doing so.

It's because they are arses, that's what I'm saying :laughing:
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC
---
A3000/060CSPPC+CVPPC/128MB + 256MB BigRAM/Deneb USB
A4000/CS060/Mediator4000Di/Voodoo5/128MB
A1200/Blz1260/IndyAGA/192MB
A1200/Blz1260/64MB
A1200/Blz1230III/32MB
A1200/ACA1221
A600/V600v2/Subway USB
A600/Apollo630/32MB
A600/A6095
CD32/SX32/32MB/Plipbox
CD32/TF328
A500/V500v2
A500/MTec520
CDTV
MiSTer, MiST, FleaFPGAs and original Minimig
Peg1, SAM440 and Mac minis with MorphOS