pouët.net

Optimus, if I sponsor you some server space, will you stop thinking out loud on pouet.net? Thanks.

shifter <:: there is no way stopping him, optimus rocks tha scene! -)

Optimus, what code do you want? The head... I think you got the binaries and source. Do you want the newest head or what? All my voxels code? I got new and great effects. I think I should do a web with my sources a bit explained.

optimus, in modex
pixel(0,0)=plane0[0]
pixel(0,1)=plane1[0]
pixel(0,2)=plane2[0]
pixel(0,3)=plane3[0]
pixel(0,4)=plane0[1]
pixel(0,5)=plane1[1]
pixel(0,6)=plane2[1]
pixel(0,7)=plane3[1]
pixel(0,8)=plane0[2]
etc.
so if you enable writing to all planes, every byte you send there will quadruplicate (making a kind of 80x200 mode).
this enables you to fill up to (*) 4 times faster than usual but it comes with a price: switching planes is damn slow.

(*) dword writes aren't likely to be another 4 times faster in this mode etc. (but who cares as it's mainly useful on cards where dword writes aren't likely to be 4 times faster in any mode..)

texel: Yes, I have the old head and sources of it. You have told me in your latest email that you would give me a new version of the head, where I can control it or something like that, don't remember. I will better try to reach you through email but send me this final head utility before, if you want..

shifter: no!
raver: HAHA, thanx 4 support :)

216: interesting for me. I didn't knew that dword transferring might not be 4 times faster in any card but depends. It works though on that ISA gfx card I have as I thought, it works on the local bus card too (But when I tried this in this local bus and a 486 something weird happened, 16bit was twice fast than 8bit, but 32bit was beetween 8bit and 16bit in speed(?), anyways forget it..) and of course in modern gfx cards. But I didn't really knew that writting 16bit or 32bit registers may not proove faster in some specific gfx cards. I may be lucky with my own old hardware..

isn't there some way to do asynchronous block transfers to the videocard? so that you basically render your stuff to an offscreen buffer, and then send it to the videocard, but you can start rendering a new frame while it's being sent? (triple buffering, basically)

sagacity: at mode Y (320x200x8bit unchained) you actually have 4 buffers at the video memory, anyone of them could be displayed only by modifying the vga-buffer start register, so that's something like that...
(and it could be used for vertical scrolling, if you didn't increased the start address with a whole screen, and stuff like that... )

So, is the switching of pages as fast as we needl? Or is there some wait??? And second, if I read/write data in a currently nonvisible page, does it proove faster or is it the same slow as by writting in the visible vram?

/me mumbles "DMA"...

added on the 2003-01-19

ah... he are at 2003... i thought we were at 1993...

Kargas, about the supposed 8bits vram accesing and not 32bits... do you know if Doom works on 286? It would be a reason. Other, if it is rendered directly to the vram, not with a buffer in ram, to the pages of modeX, it is hard to made it in 32bits... it is much easier to do in 8 bits. I mean, render the backgraund to vram, then the sprites, and all. About your question if writing to a non visible area of the vram, if it is faster or not, the answer is that it is not faster nor slower, it is exactly the same.

Hm.
After reading through this whole thread, I must
join with the group of people who are concerned
about Optimus and think he should... eum....
acknowledge other aspects of life.

the same goes for those proudly exposing their absolute knowledge on the 'rocket science' behind retro videogames ;)

better than hiding behind Huey Lewis & The News. :)
and besides, my score is off the chart thanks to up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A, Select, Start.

somewhat similar to a teenage mutant ninja turtles 2 cheat-combo (nes).

SU-SU-SSUDIO!

Doom in a 286??? Don't think so! Wolfenstein3d was that. Doom requires a 386. Afteralls it uses Dos4GW, the 32bit memory extender..
Bad Sector told me that it was written in Watcom C, a 16bit compiler. I guess JC was either bored to make 32bit transfers in this not so easy ModeX(or Y) mode, or his compiler didn't allowed him do that, except if he would use inline asm for that, which he might be bored to do too I guess..
Oh,. and I don't understand why you tell me to get a life! I am just trying to learn, I ask about everything I find weird and keep a noble spirit in the meanwhile..

i don't recall wolfenstein ran anywhere near properly on a 286 (if it ran at all).

watcom c is not just a 16-bit compiler by the way.
this bad sector guy stinks ;)

NOW STOP THIS BULLSHIT

------------------
plek / bypass
STERN, STERN BUT FAIR

My modified bresenham algorithm got an error in my web page. Now it is corrected:
http://www.quadtree.com/bresenham/

Well actually, if I recall correctly the cheat for 29 lives and levelselect for Turtles 2 on the nes was 'B, A, B, A, up, down, B, A, left, right, B, A (START for single player, SELECT START for multiplayer)'

I think I've played that game too much :\

The thread I started is more interesting than some other ones in pouet.. ;-P

Plek: wolfenstein ran well on a 286...
so stop the bullshit.
and this thread at least contained some - well, have to admit, terribly outdated- information.

and it's penis/post value was way below average too :)

Outdated, so what? Oldschool PC coding is interesting for me. And talking about the weird fact on Doom engine, 10+ years after it's release (I woke up too late ;P) is a must for me. And wolfenstein engines on Spectrum is not an outdated talk, since the Speccy scene still exists and is strong! So, how about Doom and 386? ;-)

I also told you that i'm not sure if Watcom C is only 16bit....
And i also told you that i'm not sure if DOOM has been made on latest Watcom C (11.0)
Watcom C 11.0 supports 32bit for sure but i'm not sure if supports 16bit tooo (never used it).

I agree with FoolMan that this topic has gone a bit outdated...
Optimus, there are many things today in graphics that haven't yet discovered/implemented/whatever in today's computers with today's gfx cards. Why waste your time with things that already have beed discovered and implemented years ago in order to learn useless (in most most cases) information, when you can try and find new ways?
You know, you were the first one who told me that everything in demo effects is about maths. And you have the needed knowledge to make new and interesting effects, since you are studing maths and you know more things than almost everyone in the Greek scene. Think that: personally i'm trying to learn new effects. It's hard for me because i know nothing about maths (only the very very basic stuff). But somehow i end to learn some of them. But in the time that i need to learn one effect, with your knowledge you'll be able to learn ten.
And in the end, what the hell Optimus? You have the knowledge. You are very smart. You love scene. You have plenty of time. Why keep wasting your time with these things when you can become one of the best coders?

(and except all these we have to make a production for ReAct 2003 :-P and don't think that i'm going to code it all alone...)

@plek:
That's because i farted ;-)

ran fine?
i would love to test it.. if it wasn't for the fact that i don't own a 286 any longer.