Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: CyberGraphX 4.0 or Picasso96?  (Read 4133 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline patrikTopic starter

CyberGraphX 4.0 or Picasso96?
« on: November 26, 2003, 10:45:55 AM »
Hi everyone!

I have bought myself an A4000/030 and as it looks I will soon have a CyberVision64 for it :). I wouldnt be surprised if this has been discussed before, but as I couldnt find a thread I have to ask (just point me to the thread if it already exists :)):

For this configuration (030@25MHz, 16MB FAST maximum and CyberVision64-4MB), what would be the best RTG-software - CyberGraphX 4.0 or Picasso96?


/Patrik
 

Offline MagicSN

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Sep 2002
  • Posts: 145
    • Show only replies by MagicSN
Re: CyberGraphX 4.0 or Picasso96?
« Reply #1 on: November 26, 2003, 10:56:19 AM »
Hi!

Hmm, it doesn't really matter, both work fine. And you can run CyberGraphX using programs on both.
Myselves I prefer P96.

Steffen
 

Offline Crumb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 1786
  • Country: 00
    • Show only replies by Crumb
    • http://cuaz.sourceforge.net
Re: CyberGraphX 4.0 or Picasso96?
« Reply #2 on: November 26, 2003, 11:00:08 AM »
You can try Picasso96 first to see if you like it. I used it with my CV64 and it worked quite well.

There aren't many differences between P96 and CGX. CGX4 may have better compatibility. But if you later buy a mediator for example you may use the P96 licence and CGX wouldn't work.
The only spanish amiga news web page/club: Club de Usuarios de Amiga de Zaragoza (CUAZ)
 

Offline CU_AMiGA

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2003
  • Posts: 1807
    • Show only replies by CU_AMiGA
Re: CyberGraphX 4.0 or Picasso96?
« Reply #3 on: November 26, 2003, 12:06:22 PM »
I have got the latest CGFX v4 but would like to know if it would be possible if P96 would work with my Blizzardvision?
A1200D / AGA / B1260 / 64MB RAM / KS 3.1 / AOS 3.9 / 4GB HD
 

Offline patrikTopic starter

Re: CyberGraphX 4.0 or Picasso96?
« Reply #4 on: November 26, 2003, 08:48:14 PM »
Are there any differences speedwise?


/Patrik
 

Offline x56h34

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2003
  • Posts: 2921
    • Show only replies by x56h34
Re: CyberGraphX 4.0 or Picasso96?
« Reply #5 on: November 26, 2003, 08:56:29 PM »
I used both and I can't report any noticeable difference. They are about the same, IMO. Originally I used CGX4, but I switched to P96 only because Voodoo 3 won't work in Mediator with CGX4.
 

Offline Lo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 713
    • Show only replies by Lo
Re: CyberGraphX 4.0 or Picasso96?
« Reply #6 on: November 26, 2003, 08:59:25 PM »
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think CGFX has draggable screens, but P96 does not.   I had a heck of a time installing/configuring CGFX 2/3, but P96 was duck soup.(except for PicassoMode, *whew*)
[color=0000CC]GVP 060 @50 Pwr Twr [/color][color=FF0000]AMD_Amithlon_UAE[/color]
 

Offline x56h34

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2003
  • Posts: 2921
    • Show only replies by x56h34
Re: CyberGraphX 4.0 or Picasso96?
« Reply #7 on: November 26, 2003, 09:12:57 PM »
@Lo:

Correct, however your GFX card must support screen-dragging, otherwise it's useless (e.g. Voodoo 3).
 

Offline Kronos

  • Resident blue troll
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Feb 2002
  • Posts: 4017
    • Show only replies by Kronos
    • http://www.SteamDraw.de
Re: CyberGraphX 4.0 or Picasso96?
« Reply #8 on: November 26, 2003, 09:16:08 PM »
The CV64 DOES support dragging.
1. Make an announcment.
2. Wait a while.
3. Check if it can actually be done.
4. Wait for someone else to do it.
5. Start working on it while giving out hillarious progress-reports.
6. Deny that you have ever announced it
7. Blame someone else
 

Offline KennyR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 8081
    • Show only replies by KennyR
    • http://wrongpla.net
Re: CyberGraphX 4.0 or Picasso96?
« Reply #9 on: November 26, 2003, 09:20:23 PM »
I've never used P96 since I don't have any cards that are supported by it. I prefer the feature set in CGX4 anyway.

Betatesting in #AmigaZeux we find that P96 users often have weird graphical bugs that we can't track down in code. P96 may be buggy, or its emulating of CGX may be buggy. And then again it could just be because our stuff is written for CGX in mind.

 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16878
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • Show only replies by Karlos
Re: CyberGraphX 4.0 or Picasso96?
« Reply #10 on: November 26, 2003, 09:39:05 PM »
I quite like both systems. For the moment I use CGX on my amiga since my BVision isnt supported by P96. I use P96 under WinUAE.

As for feature sets, there's actually very little to choose between them. P96 runs most CGX code OK, and both systems do most of their work by patching the graphics.library routines anyway.

The things that irritate me immensely about both is that neither system really makes use of any real acceleration beyond basic blitting and viewport scrolling (sometimes).

Many cards support things like transparent blits, strectched blits (ideal for BlitBitMapScale()) and have hardware drawing operations that could be used to accelerate most stuff used in the OS (lines, polygons, bitmap text rendering etc.). None of this is really utilised fully in either system. I am sure they are capable but the drivers are just not optimized I guess.

Something that *absolutely* should have been introduced but never was, is a truecolour graphics.library clone that uses absolute colour definitions instead of pens. The original graphics.library is ok for 8-bit RTG screens but it's a total pain in the bum (and a complete waste) for high/true colour. That was an almost criminal oversight and the original developers should be rounded up and shot for this :lol:
int p; // A
 

Offline Kronos

  • Resident blue troll
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Feb 2002
  • Posts: 4017
    • Show only replies by Kronos
    • http://www.SteamDraw.de
Re: CyberGraphX 4.0 or Picasso96?
« Reply #11 on: November 26, 2003, 09:44:08 PM »
Quote

Karlos wrote:

Something that *absolutely* should have been introduced but never was, is a truecolour graphics.library clone that uses absolute colour definitions instead of pens.


What you say ? That stuff has been available for over 2 years  :-D  :-P  :-o  :-D

(And if I'm not mistaken we may also have some more accelarition)
1. Make an announcment.
2. Wait a while.
3. Check if it can actually be done.
4. Wait for someone else to do it.
5. Start working on it while giving out hillarious progress-reports.
6. Deny that you have ever announced it
7. Blame someone else
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16878
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • Show only replies by Karlos
Re: CyberGraphX 4.0 or Picasso96?
« Reply #12 on: November 26, 2003, 10:16:33 PM »
@Kronos

Well, cybergraphics 5 may indeed have these features, but that's of no use to AmigaOS 3.x users whatsoever, will be likely no use to OS4 or AROS either unless ports are sanctioned. So basically its as good as useless to the amiga developer community as a whole.

Irrespective of this, my actual point is that it should have been there since the first day the 8-bit screen depth limit was exceeded and there is simply no reasonable excuse why it wasn't.
int p; // A
 

Offline jahc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 521
    • Show only replies by jahc
    • http://wookiechat.amigarevolution.com
Re: CyberGraphX 4.0 or Picasso96?
« Reply #13 on: November 26, 2003, 11:39:41 PM »
Quote
Well, cybergraphics 5 may indeed have these features, but that's of no use to AmigaOS 3.x users whatsoever, will be likely no use to OS4 or AROS either unless ports are sanctioned. So basically its as good as useless to the amiga developer community as a whole.


Does Picasso96 support these features too?
 

Offline patrikTopic starter

Re: CyberGraphX 4.0 or Picasso96?
« Reply #14 on: November 27, 2003, 07:36:45 AM »
@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