have you got an uptodate CGX v4 or v3, or just the one of the CD?

with the CGX stuff, i usually have the following...

HIRESCSR = yes
HIDE15BIT = yes
SAVEMEM = no
ALERTEMU = no (i find if set to yes, it usually crashes out completely on a recoverable alert anyway)
CPUP2C = no - having this set to yes is probably what is slowing it down
PLANES2FAST = yes
KEEPAMIGAVIDEO = no
SUPERLAYERS = yes
SUPERGELS = yes
USESEMAPHORES = yes (probably spelt this wrong)

for the graphics card options, if you're using video overlay, or 3D functions, set multimedia mem=yes.
iirc, on the A2000, in zorro2 mode, the CV64/3D only 3.5Mb graphics ram is available in total, and setting multimediamem to yes allocates 1Mb for texture memory and overlay. the remaining 2.5Mb is all thats available for framebuffer, so be carefull that your screenmodes aren't eating too much ram. drop your workbench screenmode to 8 or 16 bit to free up memory on the board, as it will probably want to cache both the workbench screen and whatever the game screen is.

getting GLquake68k to work, usually wants a shed load of ram allocated, at least 32-64Mb (--edit-- in a continuous block), and a massive stack. usually 500k-800k or above. try lowres 15bit screenmodes like 320x256 to check it all works. i have run glquake68k at 1600x1200 which is pretty much a slideshow, but very pretty, and left it run all day as a stability test and it was fine.

if you want to push it further, in the monitor tooltypes put in advanceclock=yes and memclock=70 (this is in mhz - ymmv!) you should now be able to push faster refresh rates, and bigger resolutions. but you'll probably want to heatsink the virge chip. i'm not sure what memory you have on your card, but if you can get it replaced with 50ns or 60ns ram, you may be able to get memclock up to 80mhz.

word on the street is the ViRGE DX chip is pin compatable with the standard ViRGE, and is able to take a higher clock, up to 100mhz, as well as an apparent 30% increase in 3D operations. but that its colour lookup tables are different for the first 4 bits in 8bit screenmodes, so it can look a bit funky.

if you have a rev2 DCE CV64/3D card, you may have faster ram, and or DX chip anyway :-)

i have found P96* to be fairly rapid in full screen operations, but i went back with CGX as i found some of the features like pip overlay and Warp3D were problems...

(*this may have been a fairly early rev of P96, so my pov may be a bit off ;-) )

i've currently got issues with CGX 4.7b something and warp3D 4.2. i can get the PPC and 68k gears demos to work, but nothing like quake, heretic2, or wipeout want to work without generating a PPC exception, or just good old crashing. so have given up with warp3D for the time being. having too much fun playing oldie games. :-D

otherwise, CGX seems to do everthing i want it to. :-)

For me with CV64/3D in Zorro2 on A1200, CGX4 felt commonly better than P96. You have to go through docs for all env and tooltype settings to get most of it. Some options may cause some serious slowdowns, but once they're right I didn't notice that big differences with different rtg software.

CGX was much better for opaque move for example. On P96 you just can't use it, but it's fine with CGX. Also supergels etc gave nice eyecandy to icons on CGX. With P96 I also had some gfx redraw bugs.

In fact P96speed test gave much better values for CGX in intuition and blitting tests...

oh yeah, i remember that one.

would you like the nopassthough tooltype, set to "no?" this is a master switch, so all monitors will have this set to "no" if you enable it. yes means no and no means yes.

yes / no

 :-?  :-?  :-?  :lol:

Awesome, thanks for all the info gents! :pint:

I'll definitely rtfm again and play with the tooltypes, in case I've overlooked something... I'd actually prefer to get WB working well with CGX and use that, since demos run great with it (as opposed to like a 2fps slideshow with P96), and as pVC mentioned certain other features work better. As it is, AfA_OS enhancements fly along pretty nice with P96, but I do get the redraw bugs, no overlay, broken W3D, etc.

@Wol

Glad to hear, so chances are I've made a mistake and configured something improperly. I've really only messed with the CV64/3D, so hopefully CGX works as well on this card as it does on your CVPPC and CV64. <-would love to get one of those for my A3K, BTW... by all accounts it's a pretty nice card.

@stefcep2

I hear ya on the double negative thing, reminds me of how the service information for the German cars used to be translated... made it a real test of mettle to figure out exactly how the fsck you you were supposed to test certain things, LOL.

@darksun9210

I'm using the v4 CD, with the rc6 update from the a1k.org phase5 archive.

In regard to the card type... unfortunately, I have a phase5 version with 70ns RAM and an original Virge. I've been sticking to 1024x768x16 screenmodes, anything larger (or above 16-bit) really slows things down. (Could be the Z2 bus having an effect here as well). I did go ahead and stick a heatsink on the Virge anyway... finally got a chance to use that little POS aluminum Zalman that's been sitting in my closet forever. :-)

getting GLquake68k to work, usually wants a shed load of ram allocated, at least 32-64Mb (--edit-- in a continuous block), and a massive stack. usually 500k-800k or above. try lowres 15bit screenmodes like 320x256 to check it all works. i have run glquake68k at 1600x1200 which is pretty much a slideshow, but very pretty, and left it run all day as a stability test and it was fine.

WOOT! OK, cool... glad to hear this works. (edit -- 1600x1200 glquake is pretty impressive on 68k miggy, LOL!) Any chance you know where to get the glquake68k executable? The only version I can find (on aminet) is blitzquake, which I guess only works with Voodoo cards(?). I'd be happy to get this running just for kicks. :-)

Well, unfortunately I've had no real luck yet, aside from getting AFA working stable with CGX and figuring out some other tweaks to avoid problems/improve stability.

I did find some info on the CV64/3D overclocking page:

I had been using CGX for many years, and I decided to try P96, as I was unhappy with the bugs I had in CGX. I was amazed with the results. Everything seems to be about twice as fast! Booting is faster, menus are much faster (for example in CeD they are about 10x faster). Moving windows is faster. WB backdrops are textured much faster, scrolling... etc. This appears to be because P96 makes extensive use of the blitter whereas CGX uses fast-RAM for the parts of the screen that are under windows.

This pretty much mirrors my experience exactly (aside from boot time). The difference in WB between P96 and CGX is really remarkable on this card, CGX is just dog-slow in comparison.

I went ahead in installed the PIV I bought from red earlier this year, to see if the problems were consistent between different hardware. While I'm still experimenting, I noticed a few things right away:

Scrolling/etc is faster on the PIV, and higher resolutions are less sluggish.

The PIV definitely has a sharper picture... It's real impressive in this regard, even better than your average PC video card IMHO. edit: actually, the 3D looks a bit better if you plug straight into the card as opposed to the scandoubler. Signal strength (on the 3D) is weaker, text is nearly as sharp but the PIV has a bit clearer picture overall.

Demos work smoothly with P96 on the PIV straight off... Loonies "the castle" works just fine with PIV/P96, why it's a slideshow on the CV64/3D + P96 combo (but fine with CGX) I can't figure out.

When I get time I'll try the CGX drivers with the PIV, and see how WB runs.

@pVC

Interesting info, especially about the voodoo. I've thought about towering one of my A1200's and getting a PCI board... sounds like fun.

Just for kicks, I'd like to run a quake timedemo on the A1200 and see how much faster it is than Z2/rtg (with the same cpu etc). I'm pretty sure I recall quake being a few fps faster on AGA. Bustest sez it's faster as well IIRC.

-D- wrote:
Quake benchmarks are the same on both, P96Speed benchmarks are also very similar.

BTW. How are your P96Speed results compared to these?

pVC wrote:

Quote

-D- wrote:
Quake benchmarks are the same on both, P96Speed benchmarks are also very similar.

BTW. How are your P96Speed results compared to these?

Definitely slower, but look consistent considering the clock difference... nice o/c on that CV3D, btw :pint: I'll post a similar benchmark in the next few days.

The Voodoo simply urinates on the CV3D, lol.