This years Bad Bramstedt meeting is taking place 19-21 October. Looking back at recent years, there has been some really interesting MorphOS news released at the Bad Bramstedt meeting, and several times it has been a forum where some new MorphOS developments has been publicly shown for the very first time.

Anyone having any speculations about this year?

> Looking back at recent years, there has been some really interesting
> MorphOS news released at the Bad Bramstedt meeting, and several
> times it has been a forum where some new MorphOS developments
> has been publicly shown for the very first time. Anyone having any
> speculations about this year?

Maybe even faster R200 3D drivers? ;-)

it's not R300 3D driver ?

The R300 3D support is not even available, so how can a faster version demoed? :D

R200 is correct in this case, as he is referring to the demo two (three??) years ago, where Bigfoot showed the rewritten and faster r200 drivers for the first time.

Geit

ooops sorry

thanks a lot Geit for the precision

[ Edité par Papiosaur 02.10.2012 - 21:04 ]

> he is referring to the demo two (three??) years ago

Yes, to the one from two years ago.

> where Bigfoot showed the rewritten and faster r200 drivers for the first time.

Actually, 100% faster R200 3D drivers were first shown three years ago. 200% faster (= 50% faster than the year before) R200 3D drivers were shown two years ago. Yet, what was included in MorphOS 3.0 is only 50% faster at best. Even the most ambitious spin doctor could only report a 44% improvement.

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=8500&forum=11&start=3

Wow! This thread deteriorated rapidly.

For the record, as far as I can tell when Andrea makes a mis-statement he corrects himself.
And I don't think he's ever lied.

Oh, Jim :)

Andreas cherry-picks his "sources" and then presents them as indisputable facts, even when he is aware of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

In this thread, for example, he repeats his claim that "what was included in MorphOS 3.0 is only 50% faster at best" while at the very same time linking to a thread that shows an improvement of 90% in one case, which is clearly greater than 50%. So either Andreas is lying when he says "50% faster at best" or he is blind. What do you think it is, considering how persistent he is?

> Andreas cherry-picks his "sources"

Nonsense. Guruman's report from the Bad Bramstedt meeting 2010 is the only public source about the revised pre-MorphOS3 R200 3D driver performance that is known to me. Relying on the only known source is not "cherry-picking" in my book, and I'm sure not in anybody's book than yours. If you have other sources then just mention them. I asked you several times if you think that the figures reported by Guruman are false, but you decided to dodge that question each time. Thus, so far, there's no better source than Guruman's report to rely on.

> and then presents them as indisputable facts

Nobody so far disputed the figures reported by Guruman in 2010. Not back then, when the jaw-dropping happened (which would have been the most apt point in time to set potential misinformation straight), and not after that. If Guruman's figures are false (which is what you seem to imply, as it is the source I allegedly "cherry-picked"), why did nobody of the other Bad Bramstedt attendants, let alone the present MorphOS Team members, correct the false claims? Where was you? After all, Guruman's reported figures were all over the Amiga news "ecosystem" back then and were used to prove the superiority of MorphOS over other certain operating systems.

> even when he is aware of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

No, I am not. So far, you have failed to provide just the slightest evidence to the contrary.

> he repeats his claim that "what was included in MorphOS 3.0
> is only 50% faster at best"

True, and if you click the link this claim comes with you can easily see what benchmark this is referring to.

> while at the very same time linking to a thread that shows
> an improvement of 90%

...in RTCW. What I'm referring to is the Bad Bramstedt presentation of the new drivers with Quake III.
What's your explanation as to why drivers reported to show a 200% speed-up (which nobody disputed) in a certain benchmark only present a 50% speed-up in the very same benchmark after release? I already gave one that would be plausible to me, you gave none so far.

> either Andreas is lying when he says "50% faster at best" or he is blind.

...or he is referring to the thread he linked to, which was about a certain benchmark that is even named in that thread's title.

You see what I mean, Jim? He's cherry-picking his sources and cherry-picking his benchmarks. He stated, without qualifications:

Quote:

He is then, once again, shown overwhelming evidence that he is wrong, and he just won't admit to his lying.

> He's cherry-picking his sources

Nonsense. Guruman's report from the Bad Bramstedt meeting 2010 is the only public source about the revised pre-MorphOS3 R200 3D driver performance that is known to me. Relying on the only known source is not "cherry-picking" in my book, and I'm sure not in anybody's book than yours. If you have other sources then just mention them. I asked you several times if you think that the figures reported by Guruman are false, but you decided to dodge that question each time. Thus, so far, there's no better source than Guruman's report to rely on.

> and cherry-picking his benchmarks.

No. I'm *referring* to this benchmark, not cherry-picking it.

> He stated, without qualifications: [...]

I guess you just overlooked the qualifying hyperlinks in that statement. And that your "quote" of my statement lacks the links I put there is probably just an oversight on your part as well.

> He is then, once again, shown overwhelming evidence that he is wrong

This is actually a double-lie. Both the main proposition itself as well as the "once again" part is false.
What is true is that you keep dodging my simple questions I ask you, which is telling.

> he just won't admit to his lying.

I'm not going to "admit" anything that isn't there.

As you can see, Jim, it will be a cold day in hell before Andreas will admit to being wrong.

He said:

Quote:

And also:

Quote:

So when he gives a link that shows a 90% improvement in the second post, it is not "cherry-picking" his benchmarks to fit his lie that "what was included [R200 3D drivers] in MorphOS 3.0 is only 50% faster at best". It is simply referring to a specific benchmark. Doesn't matter if other benchmarks exist that prove his statement 100% false. Doesn't matter if those benchmarks are literally right next to his cherry-picked one. It is still not cherry-picking!

Moderate anyone? Personally I'm sick of that bullshit.

> it will be a cold day in hell before Andreas will admit to being wrong.

I have admitted being wrong when I was, numerous times even here on MorphZone (example).

> when he gives a link that shows a 90% improvement in the second post

As said, this was with RTCW, not with what I was referring to, which is Quake III. I'm sure the MorphOS Team could come up with a benchmark that'd even show a 1000% improvement but that would still be irrelevant in the context of what I'm talking about and have linked to, which is FPS in Quake III.

> it is not "cherry-picking" his benchmarks to fit his lie that
> "what was included [R200 3D drivers] in MorphOS 3.0 is only 50% faster at best".

With "at best" I don't refer to any possible benchmark one could come up with (RTCW, or anything else) but to Quake III only, which the thread I linked to is about (despite your attempt at distracting from that topic). I think I made this clear (not to you apparently) from the very start by comparing the "50%" figure as well as your "44%" figure to the "200%" figure that was reported for *Quake III* alone, not for RTCW and also not for anything else.
It is obvious to everyone with a brain that such comparison makes only sense with one and the same benchmark, so when the mentioned "200%" figure is that of Quake III, the other two mentioned figures are as well. This is btw a concept you already failed to grasp back in June when you compared the reported "200%" figure that was reached with certain reported Quake III settings to figures you reached with different settings.

> It is simply referring to a specific benchmark.

True.

> other benchmarks exist that prove his statement 100% false.

No, they don't. RTCW benchmarking results have no bearing on Quake III benchmarking results.

> those benchmarks are literally right next to his cherry-picked one.

It is true that you mentioned your RTCW benchmark results in that Quake III thread, but that was only to distract from the topic of Quake III benchmark results. Fortunately, nobody fell for your foul attempt back then.

> It is still not cherry-picking!

True.

I'm anxious to know whether you will keep dodging that question:
What's your explanation as to why drivers reported to show a 200% speed-up (which nobody disputed) in a certain benchmark only present a 50% speed-up in the very same benchmark after release?

pampers,
Quote:
+1

Wolf_Andreas,
Quote:

Actually, I've seen Andreas correct himself when he make a mistake.

And he does have a point here.

The current R200 drivers have not gained as much performance as touted in the past.

Still, the current improvement is impressive.

To me, its a moot point as I've already moved to a R300 card.

Wolves,

Don't spoil my weekend by making me delete more posts please. I am tired, I got booze. Just let me be, please. Ok?

Hello, Jim.

Quote:

And here you have a clearly obvious example of Andreas refusing to budge when he has been proven wrong (again).

Quote:

His point was that the R200 3D drivers at best had become 50% faster. That was a lie.

For me current 3D drivers works just great, can you stick with that Andreas Wolf and Wolf Andreas?

@Wolf_Andreas

If you got a grudge or something, please resort to pm or, like hoolio, get some booze and have a nice weekend. I know I will

pampers,
Quote:

That IS an important point for me.
It was one of the significant jumps that justified moving from 2.X to 3.X.
Kudos to Frank, Mark, and Michał.

Looking forward to R300 3D.

Gotta work tomorrow myself (so no alcohol for iggy).

Quote:



+1

It's in "free for all" anyway (or was that "General Discussion"? Whatever... )

To reconnect to the Original Topic though: I'm still looking forward to Bad Bramstedt 2012, with the hopes that at least *something* cool regarding MorphOS will be presented...



[ Edited by takemehomegrandma 05.10.2012 - 20:57 ]

takemehomegrandma,
Quote:

Maybe this year someone can post some video (although I'm going to need subtitles).

> Andreas [...] has been proven wrong (again).

I have not.

> His point was that the R200 3D drivers at best had become 50% faster

...where they had before been reported with a 200% speed-up, which was with Quake III, not with RTCW and also not with anything else you might want to twist my statement to refer to.

> That was a lie.

I don't think so.

> For me current 3D drivers works just great, can you stick with that Andreas Wolf [...]?

I have no problem with the fact that they work fine for you. They work fine even for me. I just say they don't work nearly as fast as they were reported to work, and I stand by that assessment despite some special person calling me a liar for stating that truth.