new GFX card

Page 17/20
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | | 18 | 19 | 20

By Metalion

Paragon (1454)

Metalion's picture

28-09-2008, 09:32

ideally vdp could be emulated using newer hardware like russian did on aleste 520ex :
aleste520.narod.ru/html/vdp_emulator.html

Maybe it's too late, or maybe I've been drinking too much (actually I did), but I don't understand a thing about what those guys have been trying to do ... Could someone explain it to me ? :P:P

I read that page again this morning and finally understood ...B-)
I did not realize they were talking of the Aleste computer.
So, it must have been all that drinking, allright ...:P

By Leo

Paragon (1236)

Leo's picture

28-09-2008, 10:28

emulating vdp has an interest, you can still use your old c/pascal libraries, your basic programs in screen5/8/12... and make everything run at the same speed or emulate it much faster.

This is a way to put 'turbo' on vdp operations like high speed moves while keeping software compatibility.

On one hand v9990 is fast but incompatible with v9938, on the other hand V9958 is compatible with v9938 but brings no speed up just more colors and nobody uses screen 11/12.

Nobody tried to bring v9938 compatible vdp but very fast.
With nowadays fpga, getting raw power is not so difficult , as compared to old msx lsi's.
What is challenging is to keep compatibility with soft , with architecture and gives significant power.
For instance, for cpu speed up and compatibility can be done with an internal fast z80 + cache memory + normal external speed operation.

By MagicBox

Master (198)

MagicBox's picture

28-09-2008, 12:12

I see no much use for a sped up v9938. Existing games are actually built for its original speed. Using BlueMSX is a good example, you won't be setting Z80 speed to 7MHz to play games, they go way too fast then. Existing software would adversely benefit from faster v9938. VDPX is not to replace people's VDP in MSX. The goal is to define and create a new VDP standard with input from the MSX scene for the MSX scene. Only this way VDPX will garner enough support for it to become a viable piece of hardware that will have software written for it.

VDPX will simply remove the limiting shackles put on you by the old day's limited VDP Wink

By PingPong

Prophet (3833)

PingPong's picture

28-09-2008, 12:48


VDPX will simply remove the limiting shackles put on you by the old day's limited VDP Wink

I Agree. Having to maintain compatibility takes also the architectural limits.

Just one example:
TMS9918-> V9938 transition.
The new sprite subsystem had to be compatible with the old one. the resulting v9938 sprite subsystem is the same limited of the tms.

We need to break compatibility. As the v9990 did in the early days. The resulting v9990 hw is more clean and usable.

By Leo

Paragon (1236)

Leo's picture

28-09-2008, 14:44


VDPX will simply remove the limiting shackles put on you by the old day's limited VDP Wink

GFX9000 was just the same, why vdpx would be more succesfull ?
Tongue

By Leo

Paragon (1236)

Leo's picture

28-09-2008, 14:47

v9918 -> v9938 was hardware compatibility , i was more refering to software emulation so it is less limiting for new hardware but still interesting for who is used to old programming in basic for instance. not talking about legacy games of course.

with very fast logical moves you can ovrecome this sprite limitation but for the moment it is too slow on v9938.


Just one example:
TMS9918-> V9938 transition.
The new sprite subsystem had to be compatible with the old one. the resulting v9938 sprite subsystem is the same limited of the tms.

We need to break compatibility. As the v9990 did in the early days. The resulting v9990 hw is more clean and usable.

but few people used it despite being so clear and usable, so this has already been tried.Tongue

By MagicBox

Master (198)

MagicBox's picture

28-09-2008, 18:00


VDPX will simply remove the limiting shackles put on you by the old day's limited VDP Wink

GFX9000 was just the same, why vdpx would be more succesfull ?
Tongue

Because VDPX is a whole new beast when it comes to controlling it. Much easier than V9990, less CPU cycles needed, blistering fast (factor 500 over V9990) and designed towards a gaming screenmode. Furthermore an FPGA is cheaper than V9990, much better available, the design can be upgraded and improved. VDPX will be what V9990 tried to be.

By PingPong

Prophet (3833)

PingPong's picture

28-09-2008, 19:03


Quote:
Quote:
GFX9000 was just the same, why vdpx would be more succesfull ?
Tongue

For me the VDPX have an unique feature: the ability to be in somewhat integrated with the old video system.
It's crucial to have the ability to simply switch video source from old and new VDPs in a SW manner.

The v9990 was not so successful not because of tech specs, simply because it was an MSX ADD-ON. But at that time, MSX was already dead... Even with a V9990 with V99x8 compatibility, even is integrated on board.

Now, there is no commercial interest on msx, and maybe the v9990 could be interesting, but i see the following limits:

lacks speed/multilayer extended support/extended sprite capabilities (it's old now, in 2008, was great on '90)
getting an integrated solution is relatively expensive, compared to VDPX
availibility (please do not point me to some sites that claim to have 1000000 of v9990 available)

By Leo

Paragon (1236)

Leo's picture

29-09-2008, 23:16

I agree FPGA is the solution in 2008.
Extended sprite or multilayers are old and from 90's, in 2008 real update for msx would be 3D texturing.

In the mean time , lets take an example that worked out :
Games on pc system had good graphics in the 90's , vga modes were quite simple :
320x200x256colors of 640x480x256 colors , no sprite or extended sprite.

Screen 8 is close to these specs but with 2 pages it is too limitating, lack of palette and slow copy also
Screen 7 has only 15 colors and 2 pages, scrolling and copy are slow.

we just need a fast screen 7/8 with more pages, a palette for 256 colors.
if you are fast enough multilayer is not a problem, logical copy can emulte this with more flexibility.

Graphics would keep a msx look.

By PingPong

Prophet (3833)

PingPong's picture

30-09-2008, 08:48

I agree FPGA is the solution in 2008.
Extended sprite or multilayers are old and from 90's, in 2008 real update for msx would be 3D texturing.

the solution is simple: go buy a PC, fast, no problem, and you can make your game with JavaScript. (but is not an MSX)
Tongue

we just need a fast screen 7/8 with more pages, a palette for 256 colors.
if you are fast enough multilayer is not a problem, logical copy can emulte this with more flexibility.

Graphics would keep a msx look.
Cannot understand, sorry, some lines above you see that the real innovation would be 3d stuffs.
And now, you ask for a more speedy V9938?

As said before, one of the main limits of the msx system was the video system. the early VDP was so much bad designed that it's very difficult to remove the limitations while maintain the compability.

There is only one thing to do: trash the old video subsystem and take the new. for games a pattern mode is ideal.

look at this post from Bruce http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=80130

Page 17/20
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | | 18 | 19 | 20