Printable View
I created this thread to show some 3D demos I've done. The first will be a demo of Starfox, I started doing for about 2 years, although not very optimized, routine filling polygons is a bit slower than the demo did Stef.
This is the link to download it:
http://www.mediafire.com/download/7z..._starfox3d.rar
Runs a little smoother than Stef's, but you gotta play in a tiny window.
Haha it's just amazing !! Actually your version is a lot faster than the one i posted sometime ago :D
Of course i know my version could be faster today with my last 3D maths code and rendering code and by optimizing the whole structure but still i am *very* impressed by what you achieved ! It's really really smooth given the number of objects you are drawing ! So definitely it's really possible to achieve something close the SNES version without any enhancement chip, thanks to the 68k blast processing :p
Actually it is the same resolution, i only used the H32 mode of the MD so it stretch the image !Quote:
Originally Posted by azonicrider
OP version.
http://i42.tinypic.com/2dmcjro.jpg
I hope stef and op get together to create a starfox md classic. Joe should be aware of both versions or possible collaboration for his GS video.
This is really great, and full 3D rotation, no on rails !
And it has texture mapping :D
Stef, I was counting the number of cycles in my routine rotation and projection, and is practically the same as in your case: about 1200 cycles (70 cycles for MULS).
I was watching The polygon fill routine in your case (bmp_a.s) is a bit faster than my demo.
To calculate the edges of the polygon, I do not use any division, instead, I made a table of division of 1 / n (it is actually 65535 / n), in fact the only part I use division is the rotation / projection.
Yes, the average cycles to draw each pair of pixels is about 38-40 cycles.Quote:
And it has texture mapping :D
Import posts from Wolf3D demo topic :
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stef
Quote:
Originally Posted by gasega68k
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stef
Oh ok, it's really fun to see how much we are close in term of performance... but that probably mean we cannot get that much faster now except by using some heavy hacks methods (3D calculation approximations and/or double pixel rendering...) :-/Quote:
Originally Posted by gasega68k
If you do not use any division for the edge calculation, it means you use a multiplication by the inverse then right ? I tried to do that but got some problem with loss of precision... I should revisit this solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by gasega68k
Anyway in general i am really not happy with the polygon clipping and edge calculation code, it is insanely complex and probably not that fast... but i already spent many time on that :p
Also having to fill left/right edge array then doing horizontal fill between these 2 edges do not look optimal, it would be better to keep left & width couple in live registers but of course we are quickly running out of registers then.
Also handling polygon nibble border waste a bunch of cycles too.
Anyway good to share that technicals aspects with someone doing almost the same :)
38-40 for pixel pair in texturing sounds really nice ! Indeed it do not slowdown much the rendering... It's really impressive to see how close you are from the original Starfox in term of performance. Of course it still miss a lot to make a complete game, but the real starfox is on rail which make clipping far easier to handle, you can even restrict the world transformation for static objects (but maybe it does not deserve the added complexity overhead to handle it)... and honestly the rest is almost nothing compared to what the 3D transformation and the rendering eats !Quote:
Yes, the average cycles to draw each pair of pixels is about 38-40 cycles.
stef and gasega68k, you guys ROCK!
Yes, the method I use to draw polygons is based on this:Quote:
If you do not use any division for the edge calculation, it means you use a multiplication by the inverse then right ?
http://www.mediafire.com/download/lz...u6tr71i/cube.c
It is a demo for gba, I found on the PDROMS page some time ago.
I first did the calculations for the polygon edges so:
And then modify it like this:Code:move.w d1,d5 ;y2
sub.w d0,d5 ;y2-y1
move.w d2,d4 ;y3
sub.w d0,d4 ;y3-y1
move.w d2,d6 ;y3
sub.w d1,d6 ;y3-y2
move.w d6,($ff0400)
swap d0
swap d1
swap d2
move.w d2,d6 ;x3
sub.w d1,d6 ;x3-x2
move.w d6,($ff0402)
moveq #00,d6
tst.w d4 ;y3-y1
beq Lzero
move.w d2,d6 ;x3
sub.w d0,d6 ;x3-x1
ext.l d6
lsl.w #8,d6
divs d4,d6 ;((x3-x1)<<8)/(y3-y1))
Lzero:
moveq #00,d7
tst.w d5
beq Rzero
move.w d1,d7 ;x2
sub.w d0,d7 ;x2-x1
ext.l d7
lsl.w #8,d7
divs d5,d7 ;((x2-x1)<<8)/(y2-y1))
Rzero:
ext.l d6
lsl.l #8,d6
ext.l d7
lsl.l #8,d7
move.l d6,a2 'L
move.l d7,a3 'R
Code:move.w d1,d5 ;y2
sub.w d0,d5 ;y2-y1
move.w d2,d4 ;y3
sub.w d0,d4 ;y3-y1
move.w d2,d6 ;y3
sub.w d1,d6 ;y3-y2
move.w d2,($ff0408) ;y3
move.w d6,($ff0400) ;y3-y2
swap d0
swap d1
swap d2
move.w d2,d6 ;x3
sub.w d1,d6 ;x3-x2
move.w d6,($ff0402)
move.w d2,d6 ;x3
sub.w d0,d6 ;x3-x1
add.w d4,d4
lea tabladiv,a4
muls 0(a4,d4),d6 ;L = tabladiv[y3-y1] * (x3-x1)
move.w d1,d7 ;x2
sub.w d0,d7 ;x2-x1
add.w d5,d5
;lea tabladiv,a4
muls 0(a4,d5),d7 ;R = tabladiv[y2-y1] * (x2-x1)
move.l d6,a2 ;L
move.l d7,a3 ;R
Yes i see the idea, as i am always working with my fix16 type i probably messed up something...
By the way, are you doing triangle drawing only or you allow to have more than 3 points in your polygon ?
I though than handling N vertices polygon would be better as you only calculate one left and one right edge compared to triangle rendering but it make the clippings and pre process a lot more complexe ! Maybe it was not a good idea after all...
This x 1000. Amazing stuff!Quote:
Originally Posted by saturndual32
That demo is just mind boggling. Our good old Genesis is really pulling this off unassisted! Could a full game be possible?
Should we post this one on Nintendo Age as well?
How is that even a question?! Post this ASAP. Let's see their excuses about how mode 7 could do this at four times the resolution and with better sound.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
I did two routines: one to draw 3-point polygons (triangles), and another to draw polygons of 4 points (squares), I did not find anywhere on how to draw squares, so I did it myself, I did it first in C (PC), and then implemented in the sega genesis. This is the source in C:Quote:
By the way, are you doing triangle drawing only or you allow to have more than 3 points in your polygon ?
http://www.mediafire.com/download/t9...p/Drawquad.txt
Real hardware capture that I can only hope turns out on Youtube, no editing, 32X Composite:
Normal Clock
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SDMRsux2tQ
12Mhz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqiY_psrYJM
Excellent! I'll show this briefly in the December 22 episode of Game Sack.
Sheath - You can turn around and go back, also go above and look down and whatnot ;)
Yeah drawing quad or polygons is not usual, almost time you tend to transform your quad or polygon in triangles first then draw them.Quote:
Originally Posted by gasega68k
Ah you may have noticed it is easier to handle triangle only but it add some overhead for quad or 5/6 points polygons which are not acceptable when we want the best performance :p
Also in my case, i directly use objects and structures from the original starfox game which include up to 8 sided polygons so i had to get a "flexible" polygon drawing method (unlimited number of points in my case). But the you end by having a complex code and definitely not optimal when it comes to draw simple triangle or even quad. Maybe i could add separate code for theses cases (just for the clipping and edge calculation, the polygon fill code itself stay the same).
C'Mon its just a tech demo and where its not a patch on the final game . Sure its some nice coding and a great demo, but there's plenty if ST and Amiga games with better 3D polygon graphics and not on rails at all. Mega Drive back in the day kicked the Snes butt for 3D graphics and even Snes fans knew it . Hell the humble Snes couldn't even handle a port of Jimmy White Snooker lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by superandroidtron
Why can't people do some impressive tech demo's with the Mega CD and show off some it's bitmap scaling and rotation or do something with the Saturn . I'm getting a bit sick of all these Mega Drive, PS and DC demo's . Rather see some impressive stuff on machines that weren't that well supported
Maybe you did not noticed but this demo is not on rail, complete free 3D...Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Andromeda
And you definitely can't compare to Amiga or Atari when it comes to 3D as these machines both have linear buffer and can use direct DMA (or even advanced blitter in case of the amiga) to feed it...
Megadrive use tilemap, you have to build your own bitmap mode in software and do bitmap to tile conversion through the 68k, also you have to deal with the very limited VRAM bandwidth (only in blank area) so it is definitely an achievement to get something as close to the original Starfox engine on a stock Megadrive when it requires a powerful 10.5 Mhz DSP on the SNES.
When you see what were the 3D games on Megadrive back in time, lot of people think we cannot do better on it and that a SVP is needed to do something acceptable. That type of demo just prove the contrary :pQuote:
Mega Drive back in the day kicked the Snes butt for 3D graphics and even Snes fans knew it . Hell the humble Snes couldn't even handle a port of Jimmy White Snooker lol.
How much people has a MegaCD to test that out ? And what is the point of doing bitmap scaling and rotation on hardware which has assistance to do that ?Quote:
Why can't people do some impressive tech demo's with the Mega CD and show off some it's bitmap scaling and rotation or do something with the Saturn . I'm getting a bit sick of all these Mega Drive, PS and DC demo's . Rather see some impressive stuff on machines that weren't that well supported
If you want to see nice use of the vector DSP on MegaCD just look at the Thunderhawk or SoulStar games, no need to search futher.
About Saturn, the hardware is far more complexe to play with but if you are ready to give a try, nobody prevent you to do it :)
That is just so NOT TRUE. This makes this and other demos even more important. Please post in Nintendo Age and report back or link post. ThanksQuote:
Originally Posted by Team Andromeda
sheath> I don't know if it's me or not but it seems that the overclocked version is not much faster than stock one no ?
I have . There again the likes of StarGlider 2, Birds of Pray and countless polygon Flight sims on the Amiga and ST weren't on-rails and all those games did polygons better . I'll go as far to say that F22 is more impressive on the MDQuote:
Maybe you did not noticed but this demo is not on rail, complete free 3D
Tell that to other's here ;Whom seem to think the Mega Drive can do anything thanks to its fast CPU *Rolls Eye's *Quote:
And you definitely can't compare to Amiga or Atari when it comes to 3D as these machines both have linear buffer and can use direct DMA (or even advanced blitter in case of the amiga) to feed it..
No they were a few MD games that did polygons well using nothing more than a standard cart - Games like M1 Battletank,F1 - World Championship,, F22, MiG-29 all did polygons well enough and way beyond what the Snes could do. And sorry that demo more than proves than if ones wants to do serious polygons on the MD - then you need extra hardware or a faster CPUQuote:
That type of demo just prove the contrary
If you can name me one SNES games that did polygon graphics better than a MD with out using any extra Hardware I love to see it , there isn't one . The Snes was piss poor at any polygon graphicsQuote:
That is just so NOT TRUE
Well I'll be more impressed with some Mega CD tech demos or Saturn ones . I love to see some 2D platform game on the Mega CD using all the Mega CD tricks for starters . Mega Drive , PS and the likes of GBA tech demos are now so common they're not that impressiveQuote:
How much people has a MegaCD to test that out ? And what is the point of doing bitmap scaling and rotation on hardware which has assistance to do that
True, now tell that to SNES fanboys.Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Andromeda
TA, please...
Awesome stuff, gasega68k!
I really hope you and Stef keep working on amazing things like this.
BTW, the SGDK and your efforts to always improve it are awesome contributions to the community, Stef!
:rock:
Of course they did, see my second sentence...Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Andromeda
Even if you can't compete with Atari or Amiga, the facts is that we are not *that far*... Show me some stock Atari 520 st 3D games, you will see that they are not much better from what we have here... and yeah, thanks for the 68k CPU for that ! Without the precious mul & div instructions (even if they are expensive at least they exist) and because of the powerful 16/32 bits architecture (at this time) we can do "fast enough" polygon rendering.Quote:
Tell that to other's here ;Whom seem to think the Mega Drive can do anything thanks to its fast CPU *Rolls Eye's *
Honestly you would not be able to do that with the 3.58 Mhz 65816 or even with the fast 8 bits CPU found in the PCE.
Of course the 68k has its limits but they are far beyond its competitor at its time.
Are you kidding ? are you comparing M1 Battletank or F22 to the gasega68k Starfox test ??? In term of resolution, number of polygon and frame rate these games are *far far* behind ! The only valuable is F1 World Championship but still it is pretty limited in number of polygon and the way it draws them...Quote:
No they were a few MD games that did polygons well using nothing more than a standard cart - Games like M1 Battletank,F1 - World Championship,, F22, MiG-29 all did polygons well enough and way beyond what the Snes could do.
Can you explains this sentence ? With a bit more work we will get even closer to what the original Starfox was in term of polygon and frame rate, so why do we need extra hardware ? Of course extra hardware help but definitely a stock MD can handle basic 3D rendering, even something as complex than Starfox.Quote:
And sorry that demo more than proves than if ones wants to do serious polygons on the MD then you need extra hardware or a faster CPU
You are angry because you want to see more homebrew on others systems like MegaCD or Saturn but that definitely don't make the MD demo less impressive.Quote:
Well I'll be more impressed with some Mega CD tech demos or Saturn ones . I love to see some 2D platform game on the Mega CD using all the Mega CD tricks for starters . Mega Drive , PS and the likes of GBA tech demos are now so common they're not that impressive
Honestly, who could have believed than Starfox could be almost reproduced on a stock MD when it was out on SNES with the super powerful SuperFX chip ? No one would have believed that...
I agree. I don't think you're so far from this (which was considered a killer app for the CD32):Quote:
Originally Posted by Stef
(captured from real hardware)
And the CD32 specs were well beyond the Mega Drive ones in several aspects:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga_CD32#Specifications
Hey I can name a quite a few and they're games with full player input, enemies , bullet patters and real game play - stuff that tends to hurt frame rates. Hell I love the Amiga and way before the internet remembers plenty of tech demo's given away with Magazine demo's and there was always plenty of Amiga tech demo's around - But more impressive is actual games and when you can take all those tricks in a tech demo and put them in a full gameQuote:
Show me some stock Atari 520 st 3D games, you will see that they are not much better from what we have here...
Never ! . Anyone who owned both a SNES and Mega Drive at the time would have known and see that for them self's - The Snes was just utter shit at any sort of polygon graphics compared to the Mega Drive . We knew that back in 1993, it didn't take until 2013 to find that outQuote:
Honestly you would not be able to do that with the 3.58 Mhz 65816 or even with the fast 8 bits CPU found in the PCE
Yes and they're real games with gameplay , AI and player input and all the other things tech demo's don't have to worry about , and even with all that they're smoother and made decades ago to boot .Quote:
are you comparing M1 Battletank or F22 to the gasega68k Starfox test
Yes it moves at a snail pace and a million miles of the acutal game . Showing full well that you need extra hardware to get anywhere near what the FX or SVP chip could do on a standard Snes or MDQuote:
Can you explains this sentenc
Not just them , but systems like the PC-ENG-FX and so on. These days almost anyone can make a Mega Drive , PS, GBA tech demo with all the machines secrets and a huge data base and community on-line . I'll be more impressed if these home coders used machines that aren't common on the demo scene and pushed them on systems like the Falcon, Saturn, PC-FX , Mega CD and so on , hell I like to see some impressive stuff on the CDI if possibleQuote:
You are angry because you want to see more homebrew on others systems like MegaCD or Saturn
Ah, dangit, I thought I tried all of the buttons, but I didn't know to try turning all the way around. I should have RTFM. Will try to post another video later today.Quote:
Originally Posted by TmEE
Stef, it is much faster with the overclock. I'd say it was consistently four to eight frames per second faster.
It's way way off the actual game and looks like a early Amiga 3D polygon game . Games like Elite 2 on the Amiga are way more impressive. I'm don;t want to knock someone home coding skills, but really we don't need to see Star Fox on the Mega Drive to know the MD was better at 3D polygonsQuote:
who could have believed than Starfox could be almost reproduced on a stock MD when it was out on SNES with the super powerful SuperFX chip
Really, early 90s hardware that only has 4 audio channels?Quote:
Originally Posted by Barone
This is so fucking, absurdly good. Where were you guys at 1992?
I hope you both can collab in the code and keep delivering some of this awesome stuff.
Hard panned at that xD. The CD32 reuses a bunch of hardware from the original 1985 Amiga chipset, it was doomed to fail from the start.Quote:
Originally Posted by azonicrider
This is awesome!, gotta love that polygon with Andross texture on it. Has anyone done any Star Fox music covers that work on a real Megadrive?
But we need it because Starfox is a great game! I would love to have a MD port of it. I hope stef and gasega68k work together towards a full game. Heck, I'd be happy seeing a full port of the first level!Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Andromeda
If it's an issue of funding, surely we could all pull together to see it happen?
Wow, I do not imagine that this demo could cause so much discussion!:o
Well, for those who are a little "upset" by this demo, this engine can still be improved.
Hey stef, if you want, I can send privately the code I did to draw polygons, but I have to add some comments to make it easier to understand.;)