home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: stud.cs.uit.no!paul
- From: paul@stud.cs.uit.no (Paal Christian Currie)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
- Subject: Re: Amiga doesn`t need Planar!
- Date: 23 Jan 1996 15:04:56 GMT
- Organization: University of Tromsoe
- Distribution: world
- Message-ID: <4e2teo$bfi@news.uit.no>
- References: <DLMrzx.JJx@csc.liv.ac.uk>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: lglab2a.cs.uit.no
-
- In article <DLMrzx.JJx@csc.liv.ac.uk>, u4tlm@csc.liv.ac.uk (T.L. Mensah) writes:
- >Why is it that every 2nd message I read about the what the amiga needs (in
- >terms of programmers WANTS) is CHUNKY mode. WHY WHY WHY?? Its totally crazy!
-
- Because chunky is sometimes useful as well. A lot of things would be a lot
- easier to do in chunky, and some things are easy to do in planar.
-
-
- >Everyone has gone DOOM crazy, all the programmers trying to relicate a game
- >thats so booooring. Zzzzz Back to the older games like Shadow of the Best series
- >and Flashback if you ask me.
-
- Agreed. Domm is ugly anyway. I won't play it until a 640*480*24bit version is out. :)
- Maybe even an adventure when I can find the time. (Infocom rules!!)
-
-
- >Anyway the Amiga is SPECIAL in its graphics handling capabilities, its probably
- >one of the most flexibly and powerful display configuration systems in any home
- >computer system, basically the copper chip is probably one of the BEST things
- >about the Amiga. Using the copperlists gives the Amiga so much powers, its
- >really an immensily clever chip. This is what the demo coders have been
- >utilising for years ever since the A500 days. Now just because all these
- >3D techniques are suited to a CHUNKY display it doesn`t mean we need to
- >replicate the LIMITED display capabilities of the so called "competition".
-
- You win some, you loose some. Advantages that is. If you mean special in the way
- of SCALA wipes, forget it. I've recreated all of them on a 486/66MHz. No problem.
- Okay, a little slow when you use 800*600, but the amiga can't do that much so it
- wins anyway. And what do you mean by limited display capabilities? Not resolution
- or colour depth I hope. Seeing windows on a 1600*1200*24bit screen was very nice.
- (The picture that is, not windows in it self :)
-
- After seeing a few of the demos on the PC scene it's pitiful to watch what the
- Amiga side can ramp up. 2x2 t-map demos in 320*256 (often a lot less), isn't very
- impressive. The one I like on the PC is where they do the phong-shaded blob on
- a 640*480*24bit screen. Thats nice!
-
-
- >The Amiga`s power lies within its copper chip NOT its cpu... if it had to
- >rely on Cpu power alone the amiga would have died with the Atari ST! No
- >all we really NEED is a immensily URGENT and CRAVING 64-bit uprated BLITTER
- >CHIP. If the Blitter was say 100 Megabytes per second, like the CyberVision`s
- >blitter we could simply use it to convert chunky-to-planar without worrying
- >about the speed factor. No cpu time would be wasted as the blitter would
- >do the operation in a few milliseconds. Here you get the best of Both worlds,
- >multi-parallax , screen splitting, copper shading , and the rest and you
- >could still do all those boring doom clones that are the latest Amiga coders
- >"crazes" ever since Gloom reared its head..
-
- The copper can be used for a lot of things, but try using non-palette based
- display, and the copper isn't useful for colour changes anymore. And
- you would pay for this wonder chip I suppose. It wouldn't sell any more Amigas
- by getting a really hot custom GFX chip in it, because it would be too expensive.
- Designing a GFX chip costs a lot of money, and the competition is stiff, and the
- sales are low (if the only targetted system is the Amiga). There is no way that
- a PC would be able to use this wonder chip, so no-one would buy it for their PC.
- That means less sales which in turn means more cost. Which means that R&D has
- to be cut down, which means that the chip isn't that hot anymore.
-
- If you want a really hot GFX engine, get an Onyx or something. Those few
- demos on that machine are just awesome.
-
-
- >Planar rules, its far more flexible, you don`t need 256 colours worth of
- >bitmap memory for a 2 color screen, etc. i.e you just use 2 Colours worth!
- >basically planar display just blows away all these crappy chunky graphics
- >cards. Basically chunky should be labelled as "CLUNKY!" ...all these "high"
- >end graphics cards would chunk to a halt with half of the tricks that can
- >be done on the bog standard A500 `s copperlist chip!
-
- Planar isn't all bad, it just that standards today doesn't really need planar.
- (Minimum res. 800*600, minimum depth. 16bit) Ofcourse if I want a 640*512*16colour
- screen planar is (usually) faster, but the hardware that supports chunky is that
- much faster compared to the hardware for planar, so chunky is better (speedwise).
-
- BTW: The Matox Millennium isn't all that slow. :)
-
-
- >Amiga Rules... Custom Chips Rule..
-
- Money rules....
-
-
- >HIT THE HARDWARE! HIT THE HARDWARE! HIT THE HARDWARE! HIT THE HARDWARE!
-
- Can we hit the coder when his code breaks???? :)
-
-
- >All views expressed are my own, if you don`t agree with them, its not your
- >fault that you don`t truly understand the Amiga`s edge! :)
-
- Guess I don't. Maybe I shouldn't have tried any other systems than the Amiga,
- then everything would be perfect.
-
-
- --
- Paul Currie | A4000/030-25/882-25 |
- paul@stud.cs.uit.no |18MB RAM 1GB QFireball|
-