Jump to content


Photo

UFO2000


  • Please log in to reply
100 replies to this topic

#51 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 17 October 2002 - 11:55 PM

Ok. I just compiled Crystal Space and ran the isotest file. In the demo you basically move a light source around. first there is the part you seen in the screenshot. then there is a ramp with a diffrent texture going up. once you go a bit on the ramp there is a little maze. Anyway, the isodemo has a real X-Comish feel to it. There is also a nice shadow effect when the light is moving through that doorway that would be neat. Initially the demo ran in software render mode. On my athlon that was still fast enough to make a playable X-Com game. I then did -video=opengl and ran it with the opengl render. got about 120 fps+ with it (I compiled for the athlon too). really looked great. Then I tried the -fs to use fullscreen and then it really felt like X-Com. However after pressing escape to exit :) damn thing crashed my xserver. Maybe they are using DGA1 and NVIDIA cards been known to have problems with DGA1 and should use DGA2 (If it is using DGA that is to do the fullscreen). That bug doesn't bother me right now and I don't want to mention it to the author until after I get a response about GCC 3.X. After playing with the demo I really do think we should use crystal space. It does everything for us as far as effects are concerned. Oh btw whoever compiles this for windows remeber to use -video=direct3d when running the demo. Perhaps it is -video=d3d :) who knows... :)
Posted Image

#52 Guest_stewart_*

Guest_stewart_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 October 2002 - 08:44 AM

Ok then is everybody agreed that we should use Crystal Space for the Battlescape or for that matter the graphics engine for the project?  It is well documented and in C++.  :) Only little strange thing about it is that it uses struct instead of class to implement objects.  It still uses virtual inheritence.  guess only diffrence would be they can't use private: and public: with structs.

Whoa hang-on Tex. We need to look it over and examine alternatives. But it does look good.

#53 Guest_stewart_*

Guest_stewart_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 October 2002 - 08:46 AM

Ok just discovered a small problem.  As far as GCC is concerned you have to compile CS with GCC 2.96 or down.  It errors out on a file that uses the qsqrt.h file of the project.  that file contains inline ASM code.  Having experience with this sort of thing I say it is probably a bug in the precompiler of GCC 3.1.  compiling XMame in the past with 3.0x had simular problems but that got fixed in 3.1.  THe main diffrence with GCC 2.96 and 3.1 as far as C++ is concerned is 3.1 is more ISO C++ complient.  More so that more things are in the std:: namespace whereas in the older compiler they were in the global namespace.  I don't know if 3.2 fixes the problem :) (don't really feel like downloading it for linux right now)  But eitherway I think I will email the author of CS and am sure to get a quick response.

We may have a problem there. Everyone has different compilers. I think we may need to split the code up into engines/libraries. Then each team just has to have a common compiler. Some engines that just do number crunching may not need a common compiler at all.

#54 Guest_stewart_*

Guest_stewart_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 October 2002 - 08:47 AM

Ok.  I just compiled Crystal Space and ran the isotest file.  In the demo you basically move a light source around.  first there is the part you seen in the screenshot.  then there is a ramp with a diffrent texture going up.  once you go a bit on the ramp there is a little maze.  Anyway, the isodemo has a real X-Comish feel to it.  There is also a nice shadow effect when the light is moving through that doorway that would be neat.  Initially the demo ran in software render mode.  On my athlon that was still fast enough to make a playable X-Com game.  I then did -video=opengl and ran it with the opengl render.  got about 120 fps+ with it (I compiled for the athlon too).  really looked great.  Then I tried the -fs to use fullscreen and then it really felt like X-Com.  However after pressing escape to exit :) damn thing crashed my xserver.  Maybe they are using DGA1 and NVIDIA cards been known to have problems with DGA1  and should use DGA2 (If it is using DGA that is to do the fullscreen).  That bug doesn't bother me right now and I don't want to mention it to the author until after I get a response about GCC 3.X. After playing with the demo I really do think we should use crystal space.  It does everything for us as far as effects are concerned.  Oh btw whoever compiles this for windows remeber to use -video=direct3d when running the demo.  Perhaps it is -video=d3d :) who knows... :)

So it does need to run at the same time as the game or not?

#55 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 18 October 2002 - 11:40 AM

Whoa hang-on Tex.  We need to look it over and examine alternatives.  But it does look good.

:) I did mention several alternatives in a previous post. Don't think anybody has had time to look at them yet.
Posted Image

#56 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 18 October 2002 - 11:47 AM

We may have a problem there.  Everyone has different compilers.  I think we may need to split the code up into engines/libraries.  Then each team just has to have a common compiler.  Some engines that just do number crunching may not need a common compiler at all.

Well I think CS also supports Visual C++ 6.0. Don't know about what else. As far as a common compiler is concerned GCC does a great job since it is virtually on every system out there. As far as the problem I had compiling with GCC 3.1 I am sure it is due to a bug in cpp 3.1 and not CS fault. If I have time I'll download 3.2 for linux and see if it gets fixed. Be nice to use GCC 3.1 because the 3.X series is making a running for best compiler on the X86 platform :) Anyway as far as us linux users are concerned we usually have more than one version of gcc installed.
Posted Image

#57 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 18 October 2002 - 11:51 AM

So it does need to run at the same time as the game or not?

I really don't know what you mean. But Crystal Space is basically a set of 3d and 2d libs. They are loaded into the program in the form of plugins so you only use the libs you need. Think I saw plugins for rain and snow too that might be nice to use with the game to add weather :)
Posted Image

#58 Guest_stewart_*

Guest_stewart_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 October 2002 - 02:53 PM

Whoa hang-on Tex.  We need to look it over and examine alternatives.  But it does look good.

:) I did mention several alternatives in a previous post. Don't think anybody has had time to look at them yet.

Yep, that and people may come up with siome on their own.

#59 Guest_stewart_*

Guest_stewart_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 October 2002 - 02:55 PM

We may have a problem there.  Everyone has different compilers.  I think we may need to split the code up into engines/libraries.  Then each team just has to have a common compiler.  Some engines that just do number crunching may not need a common compiler at all.

Well I think CS also supports Visual C++ 6.0. Don't know about what else. As far as a common compiler is concerned GCC does a great job since it is virtually on every system out there. As far as the problem I had compiling with GCC 3.1 I am sure it is due to a bug in cpp 3.1 and not CS fault. If I have time I'll download 3.2 for linux and see if it gets fixed. Be nice to use GCC 3.1 because the 3.X series is making a running for best compiler on the X86 platform :) Anyway as far as us linux users are concerned we usually have more than one version of gcc installed.

Sure there maybe cross-compatability but then there's version numbers to worry about and all sorts of other stuff. Maybe we don't have to split things up that way but just in case maybe we should keep it in mind.

#60 Guest_stewart_*

Guest_stewart_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 October 2002 - 02:57 PM


So it does need to run at the same time as the game or not?

I really don't know what you mean. But Crystal Space is basically a set of 3d and 2d libs. They are loaded into the program in the form of plugins so you only use the libs you need. Think I saw plugins for rain and snow too that might be nice to use with the game to add weather :)

Ah. I see, check! Are they C++ libraries or what?

#61 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 18 October 2002 - 06:58 PM

From: "jorrit.tyberghein@pandora.be" | This is Spam | Add to Address Book
To: "John Seehagen"
Subject: Re: Crystal Space and GCC 3.1
Date: Fri 18 Oct 2002 13:26:15 +0200




I'm not sure about gcc 3.1 but I do know that CS compiles fine with gcc
3.2.

Greetings,

------------------------
John Seehagen wrote:
------------------------
>I notice that CS has trouble compiling with GCC 3.1
>while trying to build it. It errored out on the
>camera.cpp file because of the include/qsqrt.h file it
>includes. I believe this is probably a GCC
>precompiler bug from seeing something simular in the
>past in XMame (got fixed with GCC 3.1). I'm sure
>since CS is such a big project that you already have
>heard about this in the mailing list. I was wondering
>what you know and if the bug is fixed in GCC 3.2 if it
>is a GCC bug. I know the source compiles with GCC
>2.96 but I am a member of a project that plans to make
>a 3D remake of the old X-Com game and we were wanting
>to use ISO C++ that GCC 3.X supports better.
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
>http://faith.yahoo.com
Posted Image

#62 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 18 October 2002 - 07:02 PM

Ok the above is great news. Means we can use ISO C++ when making our remake as long as the GCC version being used is 3.2 or higher. Man I love open source authors :) like I said they always reply to your questions within a day from my experience. My experience with commerical software isn't as good. Heck :) I was even was a beta tester for commercial product once :) and had to go throught great lengths convicing them I wasn't lying about bugs I found.
Posted Image

#63 Serge

Serge

    Project Leader: UFO 2000

  • Xenocide Programming Department
  • 785 posts

Posted 19 October 2002 - 01:18 AM

Hello again.

I'm sorry for the late answer but I was very busy lately and also had to discuss everything with other UFO2000 developers.

The main problems that can arise: what graphics library to use?
UFO2000 uses Allegro now and it is tile based and NOT 3D. Original XCOM games used tile graphics and UFO2000 can use their graphical resources.
If you want your game to look different from original XCOM (and you might want as original XCOM graphics is not considered cool long ago:)), you also have to make all that sprites, tiles, 3D models, ... yourself. Are you ready to that?
Back to that Allegro question. I do not want to restrict you to any specific library and Allegro is somewhat legacy now. It is also a problem to solve.

So, I think we can do the following:
- You make geoscape for your game
- We make UFO2000 able to run without initial menu and other user interface things (initial state for battle should be taken from some configuration file) and also make computer AI (without it, it is impossible to make single player game).

If you start with making geoscape you lose nothing :)

After that is done we return to that question and think how to use geoscape with UFO2000 engine together.

And just one more question: will the game you want to make be free and opensource?
ufo2000 development team
http://ufo2000.sourceforge.net

#64 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 19 October 2002 - 05:43 PM

:) Ok I can confirm that Crystal Space compiles with GCC 3.2 now. Was one file in the apps directory I had to modify due to more stricter casting but other than that everything compiled without error. Now the demo gets a 100 more fps because it was compiled by the 31337 series 3 of GCC. :) Anyway we can do ISO C++ with GCC 3.2.
Posted Image

#65 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 19 October 2002 - 06:01 PM

Serge: Out of curiousity is some of UFO2000 3D in the program. It looks like you calculate the z coordinates also when shooting or throwing. I really didn't look at it that hard because I don't want to deal with math until I have to (taking too much math at the university does that to you :) ). As for the license I always have been in favor of an open source license. Think some of the others were woried about legal problems with the original authors but I think that all has been resolved now. Obviously if we used any of the source of UFO2000 our version would have to be GPLed too :) . Everybody here was thinking about making a remake for the love of the game.
Posted Image

#66 Serge

Serge

    Project Leader: UFO 2000

  • Xenocide Programming Department
  • 785 posts

Posted 20 October 2002 - 02:10 AM

gangsta: I was talking about the use of 3D graphic library :) UFO2000 does not use any 3D manipulation function from Allegro. Output to the screen is made using tiles and 2D graphics. Internal calculations are certainly made in 3 dimensions. Even more, UFO2000 (like XCOM1 - UFO2000 uses almost the same data representation format as XCOM1 because it loads XCOM1 data files) uses some kind of voxels for collision detection, so collision detection is pixel-perfect. Every cell on the map is represented as 8x8x12 smaller parts and each of them can stop bullet (or probably line of sight). There are no triangles, polygons and textures as in conventional 3D :)
ufo2000 development team
http://ufo2000.sourceforge.net

#67 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 20 October 2002 - 02:02 PM

That's what I figured. I wonder if it would be possible to do both then. 1) a classic mode which many people would perfer and 2) a mode with the isometric engine of CS. The isotest that comes with CS just feels so much like xcom. Now I agree with you that models will be heck to come up with. However, textures are usually 2D images put on 3D objects from my understanding. It wouldn't be so hard to load the ground textures of x-com and convert and modify them to be used as textures. Things like walls would be harder to do but still can be done by hand. The source code for the isotest I uploaded here somewhere shows how easy it would be to do an interface for it since the .cpp files are both very small and putting in xcom things into that isotest wouldn't be that hard to do. I just think since UFO2000 is already 3D internally much of it can be reused. I think it is possible to give it both the 2D interface it has now and a optional 3D interface that will be crappy at first until some artist gets interested.

As for the Geoscope :) Red Knight has a nice one that might be available between the end of december and april. Don't think anybody can do better than that. Then again Timil a former game developer was impressed by the screenshot of the isotest and said he thought it was so perfect that he would work on the geoscope now. ;) haven't heard from him since so I guess he is working on it.
Posted Image

#68 Guest_micahdg@xcomufo.com_*

Guest_micahdg@xcomufo.com_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 October 2002 - 08:02 PM

Red Knight sent me some updated pics of his geoscape. They look pretty dang good. There even appears to be a base (presumably an xcom one) in North Africa.
http://www.xcomufo.com/rednite.html
Gangsta, I don't think you're gonna get the UFO2000 developers to drop Allegro and go for CS. I would agree that the screenshot you posted was stunning, but I don't think they're ready to switch to a totally different battlescape engine. If you can do it, though, using their source code, now that might actually happen.
Now, from what I see, the CS program creates these nice isometric environments. My question about this program is how easy is it to insert new sprites into the program and manipulate them? How do you define the configuration of the "level"? Are these things built in to the program?


-Micah

#69 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 20 October 2002 - 09:01 PM

:) Yeah Red Knight looks to be very talented and he likes ISO C++ too ;) which is an extra + for me :LOL:. As for your questions about CS i previously uploaded the source code for the isotest. The source code has a comment after everything it does to teach you how to do it yourself. My only complaint is that the object start with cs in the name instead of using a namespace that would of made it better looking. Now the demo has a 2D sprite and possibly a 3D sprite if that is what the fountain is that emits blue light. The size of the source code suggest that doing Battlescape things will be very easy. There is a file that generates a 3D maze at the end of the ramp that is very small. Generating random things in the X-Com isn't much diffrent. All in all using crystal space is probably easier than using opengl since that really is it's purpose. I haven't had a chance to look at the source closer because I've been downloading alot. GCC 3.2 (source 20 megs about) and other Graphics engines. Stewart said he still wants to shop around (even though :) he's not downloading other engines :LOL: ) BTW. I seem to remeber that CS supports allegro but I think it said just for linux (wonder why)
Posted Image

#70 Guest_stewart_*

Guest_stewart_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 October 2002 - 11:00 AM

It might be best, perhaps not right away, but eventually to go with the 3D engine; how hard would it be to convert tiles to textures?

Personally I'd like to run around in the traditional XCOM graphics. I'd also like a jazzed up set two. Like Gangsta and I have both said maybe eventually Battlescape can have a choose your skin option, as it were, for the whole look of the battlescape.

#71 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 21 October 2002 - 02:53 PM

:) I'm glad you stopped by on your vacation because this thread seems to be very important direction wise of where we will go. I like the idea of working with the UFO2000 group and with Red Knight and I hope we can all work together. However, being realistic that all depends on the direction everyone wants to take. My personal feelings are leaning twards making a 3d battlescape. If that is what everybody else in this group wants then I think that is what should be done. If the answer is for 3d then working with the UFO2000 project depends on what they are willing to do. I think that the internal 3D things in UFO2000 should be seperated by the current allegro interface. How hard that will be depends on how reusable the original code was. Then the interface for the battle scape can be selected seperatly and use the same common core code. I'd like to work on the interface for the isometric engine and some rules. But I won't mind working on the battlescape either. I got to chat with timil on here last night. He had alot of great ideas and prefers working on the geoscope. (he wants to put an autobattle options in for the battlescape since he just like dealing with the geoscope part of the game) If the UFO2000 people want to work on the battlescape and have us work on the geoscope that would still be cool. projects need to be split up. Now as for Red Knight, I would really love to work with him because his geoscope is just so 31337. The question with him though is timing. December might not be that long a wait for me but April is. Is there any way that we still could be working on something here while he is working on his version and when he become available we merge the projects? Does he have to implement the entire X-Com game for his thesis? (that would be a big wow). His geoscope rules and There is not much room for improvement as far as looks go there. The question here is that if we work on a battlescape expecting him to join the project with his geoscope if he will already have a battlescape done. Then again that might not be such a big deal because we can use the better of the two battlescapes or combine the best parts of the code depending on how reusable the code is. I'm going to ask the x-com halflife mod people if they would allow us to use their models? BTW how hard is it to use a halflife model programming wise? Done before? I know people use quake models in projects but ID released the source for that.
Posted Image

#72 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 21 October 2002 - 03:06 PM

:) Ok I'm off to ask the X-Com Halflife people if we can use their models finish posting later :)
Posted Image

#73 red knight

red knight

    Xenocide Project Leader

  • Xenocide Inactive
  • 3,310 posts

Posted 21 October 2002 - 03:29 PM

Does he have to implement the entire X-Com game for his thesis? (that would be a big wow).

No way, are you joking thats too much :LOL: i will only implement a demostration of the engine functionality (right now is near 800 Kb of source, and it is not near completion) and i have to write a lot about the engine design. Some things like how to interact with devices (mouse and keyboard in DirectX), scene management, sound, texture loading, 3d model loading and basic collition detection, plugin implementation, how to interact with the engine facilities... As i said i can release a binary (.lib) of the engine and a doxygen documentation if anyone want to use it until i finish...

Greetings
Sourceforge Nick: flois - Federico Andres Lois
Visit my blog at: flois.blogspot.com

Posted Image

Pookie cover me, I am going in.

#74 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 21 October 2002 - 05:27 PM

Red Knight: :) glad you don't have to go that far with your project to submit your thesis. You are probably too far along in your project now to make any design changes but what do you think once you are done about using the CS engine or at least adding code to the geoscope to support OpenGL. I favor using the CS engine because I just want to worry about making X-Com. I think any graphic related things we need we could make changes to CS and submit the diff files to the CS mailing list hoping they will get adopted. using CS is good because it will give us an OS independent API.
Posted Image

#75 PeterDragon

PeterDragon

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 22 October 2002 - 04:32 AM

Models... well, unless we get models that can be loaded by which graphics-package-what-nots that we use, like crystal space, we'll have to write file loading functions ourselves. That means wading through the file with a hex-editor trying to decide what means what in the file. Sometimes you get something easier, like animator files... (no one knows what that is) that can be opened in just a text editor and deciphored. So, about using their models, well I know we can make them ourselves. I have slight experience and have many 3d programs... (don't remember how I got those.... :)) And, there are people out there who can make them too. Don't feel dependent on mod modlers... since, well, how often do mods get finished??? :unsure:
Just some food for thought. By experience, non-supported model loading is a bitch, but why could we not use something like 3d-Studiomax files, since they are supported, or find something easy to create models and be able to read that file.
You should read my new book: Trails In The Sand

ALL over exagerations are wrong

If I am Online

#76 red knight

red knight

    Xenocide Project Leader

  • Xenocide Inactive
  • 3,310 posts

Posted 22 October 2002 - 08:24 AM

about using the CS engine or at least adding code to the geoscope to support OpenGL.

The engine is fully coded on OpenGL (the graphics stuff)... I only use Direct X to handle input devices (Direct Input) and i think i will use it to handle sound and music (Direct Sound) but at the same time the rest of the aplication code don't even know that it is using Direct X (it was designed to be fully platform independent from the start). Anyone had used Bass (the sound library) i read it is platform independent??? Is it good?

About models in the last message, im starting to learn 3D Studio Max 4.5 programming so i can create some export routines, i have found an ASCII in file export in the C++ samples that can be modified to handle the engine internal mesh format (When i decide which one to use)... But other formats can be implemented too (without too much problems)...

Grettings
Red Knight
Sourceforge Nick: flois - Federico Andres Lois
Visit my blog at: flois.blogspot.com

Posted Image

Pookie cover me, I am going in.

#77 Guest_stewart_*

Guest_stewart_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 October 2002 - 08:34 AM

:) I'm glad you stopped by on your vacation because this thread seems to be very important direction wise of where we will go.

Like that guy the LAPD beat the crap out of said, "Cain't w'all gi'lon hee-ah".

As for Vacation, nope, it's bih-niss. But I found access to a 'puter!

Still, I think I'll try to have a look (when I can) at the decomplied/disassembled code just to see if something in their can contribute or even just to get ideas.

#78 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 22 October 2002 - 01:03 PM

Models... well, unless we get models that can be loaded by which graphics-package-what-nots that we use, like crystal space, we'll have to write file loading functions ourselves.  That means wading through the file with a hex-editor trying to decide what means what in the file.  Sometimes you get something easier, like animator files...  (no one knows what that is) that can be opened in just a text editor and deciphored.  So, about using their models, well I know we can make them ourselves.  I have slight experience and have many 3d programs... (don't remember how I got those.... :))  And, there are people out there who can make them too.  Don't feel dependent on mod modlers...  since, well, how often do mods get finished??? :unsure:
  Just some food for thought.  By experience, non-supported model loading is a bitch, but why could we not use something like 3d-Studiomax files, since they are supported, or find something easy to create models and be able to read that file.

Great point. Maybe the XCom halflife group would be willing to help us with a non halflife format. reading thought their forums I think they convert them to halflife from other formats. :) Their models are just so damn elite. Might be better than what an official game would come up with in fact.
Posted Image

#79 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 22 October 2002 - 01:13 PM

The engine is fully coded on OpenGL (the graphics stuff)... I only use Direct X to handle input devices (Direct Input) and i think i will use it to handle sound and music (Direct Sound) but at the same time the rest of the aplication code don't even know that it is using Direct X (it was designed to be fully platform independent from the start). Anyone had used Bass (the sound library) i read it is platform independent??? Is it good?

About models in the last message, im starting to learn 3D Studio Max 4.5 programming so i can create some export routines, i have found an ASCII in file export in the C++ samples that can be modified to handle the engine internal mesh format (When i decide which one to use)... But other formats can be implemented too (without too much problems)...

Grettings
Red Knight

I recomend that you check out OpenAL. :) It is platform independent and it does 3D sound. Even though I don't have a 3D sound setup at home I think it would be cool for those who do to have the game like that. Imagine how scarey it would be to hear a chrisallid right behind you in a dark mission. Cool that you are using OpenGL for the program. perhaps we can use it as it is and for that part just use the Crystal Space plugin for controls (if CS handles) otherwise SDL does pretty much what you are using DirectX for and is multiplatform.
Posted Image

#80 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 22 October 2002 - 01:15 PM

Still, I think I'll try to have a look (when I can) at the decomplied/disassembled code just to see if something in their can contribute or even just to get ideas.

:LOL: You and your disassembling! ;)
Posted Image

#81 Guest_stewart_*

Guest_stewart_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 October 2002 - 09:38 AM

One of the reasons is to give myself a reason to refamiliarize my self with Assembler.

#82 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 23 October 2002 - 02:34 PM

you ever done 68k assembly language? It's much nicer. If only IBM would have choosen the 68000 microprocessor instead intel's we would be much more advanced today when it comes to PCs. Both CPUs came out the same year. :)
Posted Image

#83 Guest_stewart_*

Guest_stewart_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 October 2002 - 12:46 PM

Nope, but I have programmed on MAC's using Codewarrior and PowerPlant.

#84 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 26 October 2002 - 05:41 PM

The assembly language is real nive with all the registers you get. :) heh and the registers were 32 bit to begin with way back in 1979. way you did things was like

move.word D0, whatever or move.byte and so forth. :) been awhile since I did any ASM x86 or 68k so I'm rusty.
Posted Image

#85 Guest_stewart_*

Guest_stewart_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 October 2002 - 10:16 AM

The assembly language is real nive with all the registers you get.  :) heh and the registers were 32 bit to begin with way back in 1979.  way you did things was like

move.word D0, whatever or move.byte and so forth.  :) been awhile since I did any ASM x86 or 68k so I'm rusty.

It's been since college for me and then it was x86 stuff.

#86 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 28 October 2002 - 01:24 PM

:) Mostly the same here. I only played with 68k asm. Mean programming in assembly is fun but it's too much of an effort to program anything useful in assembly language. :LOL: interesting thing though is that you can look at both series x86 and 68k with ASM and see how much more advance the 68k series was and both series came out in the same year.
Posted Image

#87 Guest_stewart_*

Guest_stewart_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 October 2002 - 01:44 PM

Oh I remember that. There was so much fanfare among Mac-heads about it. They thought their Apple/IBM/Motorola alliance was going to be the death of Intel.

#88 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 28 October 2002 - 02:45 PM

:) well that was with the powerpc. pretty much by that time it was too late IMO. I still wish IBM would have chosen the 68k initially but now these days I'd choose an Athlon over a PowerPC anyday. Just what would be an athlon today probably would have been better if the 68k series dominated.
Posted Image

#89 Guest_stewart_*

Guest_stewart_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 October 2002 - 02:48 PM

I've heard of Aptiva what's Athlon?

#90 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 28 October 2002 - 02:56 PM

:P The current X86 by AMD. :) AMD makes the best x86 processor these days.
Posted Image

#91 Guest_stewart_*

Guest_stewart_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 October 2002 - 03:11 PM

Those aren't MAC's right? I heard Apple stopped licensing other makers of MACs.

#92 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 28 October 2002 - 03:31 PM

:LOL: nah ;) Athlons can run windows and do a better job than the Pentium 4 too. Intel got lazy and AMD passed em up and left them behind. In fact, the Pentium 4 design is partially made to decive users into thinking it is faster than AMDs. Intel increased the MHZ but decreased the IPC (Instruction per cycle). So pentium 4's tend to have a higher mhz than Athlons XPs but athlons are really faster. Performance = MHZ * IPC and MHZ is how compact the wave is and IPC is how much data is stored in one wave cycle. Think Pentium 4 has 4 IPC and Athlon has 5 IPC and so 1500 MHZ * 5 IPC > 1800 MHZ * 4 IPC. :) and so forth since the smaller number has a bigger impact on the growth there.
Posted Image

#93 Guest_stewart_*

Guest_stewart_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 October 2002 - 12:13 PM

I thought increasing the length of the pipeline was a cheap trick to appear to be faster.

#94 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 29 October 2002 - 05:43 PM

yeah the did that because AMD was beating them in the GHZ wars. For some reasons they decreased the IPC. That is why the intial Pentium 3's were faster than Pentium 4's because they had higher IPC values.
Posted Image

#95 Guest_stewart_*

Guest_stewart_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 October 2002 - 11:50 AM

It depends on what you are running but those MAC G4's for example as far as I know still haven't passed 1 GHz but they out performed supposed 2+ GHz PC's at graphical stuff. Perhaps, the long pipeline things are good at spreadsheets or something like that.

#96 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 30 October 2002 - 12:21 PM

At least that is what those MacHeads will tell you but I think that is more Hype than anything. I know in benchmarks the Athlon outperformed the G4. The advantage the G4 has is more registers and direct access to the RISC. Athlon is RISC internally but has an x86 front end to it. before the K6 when AMD bought another company whose technology was later used for the k6 and then athlons that company also let you access the RISC directly besides just the x86 front end. Wonder why AMD got rid of that feature.
Posted Image

#97 Guest_stewart_*

Guest_stewart_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 October 2002 - 01:05 PM

Well they showed the trials publically. It was funny though, years ago when it was a G3 vs the latest and greatest PC the MAC won by like 2 1/2 minutes or something like that. And for subsequent MACworlds they did the same demonstartion, but whereas in percentages the MACs still one by the same margins, in actual times it wasn't much. The last one I recall seeing had the MAC complete the task in like 38 seconds and the PC in 52.

#98 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 31 October 2002 - 12:30 AM

:P don't trust those trials. The Athlon kicked the G4's in independent tests and I'm sure the pentium 4 can too. I think AMD is king when it comes to CPU for the PCs (macs included)
Posted Image

#99 Guest_stewart_*

Guest_stewart_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 October 2002 - 02:30 PM

:P don't trust those trials.  The Athlon kicked the G4's in independent tests and I'm sure the pentium 4 can too.  I think AMD is king when it comes to CPU for the PCs (macs included)

As I said they were comparing to a pentium PC. Does your dad work for Athlon?

#100 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 01 November 2002 - 12:11 AM

:P No but I'm a fan obviously. ;)
Posted Image