Why Does AVS Suck so bad?

The developer for reasons known only to him chose to employ no hardware accelearation at all

geez, did you actually read anyone's posts?

Well I confess I am reading less them less and less. I have a pretty robust BS filter. I don't get easily put off.

I don't care about the last word. The last word is I don't care. I realy, really just don't care. Got it?

Good stuff...

Q

Thank god... now turn off avs, delete file called "avs.dll" and plz... dont show your face here anymore... it only makes ppl angry

🙂 peace

bah, im getting angry myself... dont notice that, your welcome here... just dont make this-kind-of-threads

Lol... I think it's funny, you peeps get mad at the craziest things. 😁 I mean half of Africa is infected with aids. Now that's something to get mad about. But you guys get angry because someone asks a technical question about a pretty, but essentially useless piece of software.

I mean common, you can't blame me for laughing at you.

Q

But you guys get angry because someone asks a technical question about a pretty, but essentially useless piece of software.

Why Does AVS Suck so bad?

Technical question my ass!
😛

Suck resources. Read again.

Q

and you have answer now, dont you?


postcount++
😁

Originally posted by Jaak
hey dude, stop fightning loosing battle, just STOP posting here, you will NEVER have the last finishing word here

[edit]

thats correct, AVS has only one (1) developer, why do you think that man, who basicly has made winamp, and has shit loads work to do with winamp5, really cares about avs (yes, im noting to Justin...)?
Adding hardware support is just way too much time consuming... even if the graphics card support doesnt give... huge speed improvement but only lowers resource consumance. Thats "kinda" pointless.
We would be happy if avs should be open sourced, thats how avs would have real changes, but that will probably never happen.
reading hole thread 2 time i can say that you dont even read the posts, and you dont even understand terms what are used if explaining 3d acceleration




and dont even start to bitching about my english... i allready know it sucks

Stop getting so upset over this.. I mean really, I think he is just trying to get his point to the people that don't belive it can be done that it can be done.

I agree that hardware acceleration for AVS can be done. I don't think it would be easy no but it would be worth the time.. it would certainly be more worthwhile to spend time on that then spend time adding in worthless features and optimizations to get AVS to run on a generalized peice of hardware. In most machines there is SOME kind of 3D accelerator on board (you can get a mobo for $65 that has an onboard ati radeon 9400 something) and people are more likely to have an 3d accelerator then a 3ghz cpu. I am sure justin is aware of this but does not feal like doing it.. maybe if he released AVS under the GPL somebody else could take on the task. I would take on the task myself if I had the time to spend on it.. but as a full time senior cs student and part time worker I hardly have time to even sleep.

LOL when AVS was first made all those years ago h/w acceleration was not common most if not all the visualizatiuons out there were CPU based so why was this any different.

In fact the first noticable visualization that utiluizated 3d technology (beyond DirectX3 'Geiss' that was not all taht muchg by todays standards) where Tripex (1,2,3) and and rabidhamster series (org, R2, R2/extreme, R4, etc)

Obviously you have no idea about the amount of bitching r2 got for example for having OPengL hardware accelerted stuff as a plugin.

'it runs at 1 fps' etc, etc. Why because 3 years ago people didn't have h/w acceleration by default.

In fact Microsoft were so against the general standard of Hardware Acceleration OpenGL that they did not use it in the OS and still do not for any decent version. (although there DirectX has become more pushed by them but that is another story)


Anyway dispite how faihful the AVS gang are most will agree that a better version of AVS who have to be written from the bottom up and would be 3d h/w acceerated, etc but at the same time it will be difficult/(impossible) to be backwards compatible.

Oh and slagging off AVS as a waste of time, etc type talk is really pointless here. Are you the type of eople to go to a fishing forums and say 'what is the pont of that what a waste of time'...........

You missed the point there cybaix. Development costs time and money. NEITHER of which is available and even so the results of such a project would be minimal and not even worth the expenses. Yeah, it sounds like a great idea, but it just isn't gonna happen. Plain and simplie.

maybe its time this thread got locked?

In most machines there is SOME kind of 3D accelerator on board (you can get a mobo for $65 that has an onboard ati radeon 9400 something) and people are more likely to have an 3d accelerator then a 3ghz cpu.

I think I've sait it about 2 times already: what AVS does can NOT be done on the average 3D accelerator, but requires the latest GPUs with pixel shader support. Geforce3+ at least. Otherwise it has to restrict itself to repeated texturing effects and polygon rasterizing: that's already been done and it's called Milkdrop 😉.

Examples of things that are not possible without pixel shaders, or which would be dead slow on non-pixelshader hardware, and would require lots of video memory as well:
- Applying an arbitrary Color map or Palette
- Doing a per-pixel-accurate, static movement
- Doing an arbitrary convolution filter
- Doing the classic demoscene water effect (requires 4 off-screen composited full-screen fills and a fifth subtractive pass of the image 2 frames ago).

These are all effects that are used in AVS extensively. On top of that, the model used by AVS (random pluggable components) would not work well on 3D hardware, because hardware accelerated graphics or effects only work well when programmed to do effects in the most efficient order possible, and to avoid changing drawing states or textures.

Originally posted by UnConeD
I think I've sait it about 2 times already: what AVS does can NOT be done on the average 3D accelerator, but requires the latest GPUs with pixel shader support. Geforce3+ at least. Otherwise it has to restrict itself to repeated texturing effects and polygon rasterizing: that's already been done and it's called Milkdrop 😉.

Examples of things that are not possible without pixel shaders, or which would be dead slow on non-pixelshader hardware, and would require lots of video memory as well:
- Applying an arbitrary Color map or Palette
- Doing a per-pixel-accurate, static movement
- Doing an arbitrary convolution filter
- Doing the classic demoscene water effect (requires 4 off-screen composited full-screen fills and a fifth subtractive pass of the image 2 frames ago).

These are all effects that are used in AVS extensively. On top of that, the model used by AVS (random pluggable components) would not work well on 3D hardware, because hardware accelerated graphics or effects only work well when programmed to do effects in the most efficient order possible, and to avoid changing drawing states or textures.

I think the odds of someone having a card with pixel shader support is more likly then someone having a 3ghz cpu (and still not being able to run everything). I am not saying they should completly move avs over to hardware acceleration.. but rather add the option for it. This is my point.

Hmm... Maybe we shouldn't even bother to read these kind of threads in the future since obviously we can only offer our "fanatic objective opinion" 🧟

Just one small question which does bother me a bit, but probably will be explained very thorhoughly after this...
Question: Why do you need your precious resources when running avs? Why would you even want to run something else in the back or in exchange why would you want to run avs on the back while doing something else? Atleast to me AVS is so mesmerizing that even if i could have more resources to run something else besides it, i wouldn't 🙂 But that's just me giving you my fanatic point of view 😉

If it's about the high resolution... well... you do know that AVS presets are made in windowed mode, don't you? And current presets are made for small resolutions, right? It is very unlikely that any artist would start editing avs in a 800x600 windowed mode even if AVS could run in it, because there simply enough isn't enough space in the screen. To me it is more likely that people will have a monitor that can do 1024x768 than 1600x1200... And don't even suggest dual monitors, you only need to search for it to find out how much problems that has caused.




Why the hell im even writing this? Im not a techie, i know nothing... oh well... let's not let it go to waste anyway.

I am not saying they should completly move avs over to hardware acceleration.. but rather add the option for it. This is my point.

Ffs... if you're not going to read what others have said, please don't participate in threads like this. Do you have any idea how a graphics card works and what it can/cannot do?

It is NOT possible to make hardware acceleration an option: hardware accelerated AVS would require a drastic rewrite of AVS, both in the way it operates and in the way you build presets. I've already explained why. I'll say it again: drastic rewrite. Software mode would become useless and several times slower than it is now.

I think the odds of someone having a card with pixel shader support is more likly then someone having a 3ghz cpu (and still not being able to run everything).

This is just plain wrong and illogical.
If AVS was converted to use pixel-shaders, then on a non-supporting card you'd get /nothing/ at all because half the effects would be broken.
And contrary to what you seem to think, pixel-shader supporting hardware is still rare (remember, even the Geforce4MX does not have proper pixelshaders).

With the current software-only AVS, everyone with an MMX-supporting CPU can run AVS: you might not be able to go 640x480+ fullscreen, but you can still enjoy the presets windowed and/or at smaller resolutions.

As has been proven time and time again, there are many people who don't need high resolutions to enjoy AVS. If you're not one of them, tough, try Milkdrop or R2/R4.

And if you still claim "it can be done", why don't you go ahead and code it, since you're obviously such an expert on the matter? And before you accuse me of the same: I tried making a hardware accelerated AVS clone, but I don't have enough time now to continue it. If I ever finish it, it will be not be as advanced/flexible as AVS, and not much faster too. Graphics cards were made to draw stuff (like games), not to process images (like AVS).

Originally posted by UnConeD
Ffs... if you're not going to read what others have said, please don't participate in threads like this. Do you have any idea how a graphics card works and what it can/cannot do?

It is NOT possible to make hardware acceleration an option: hardware accelerated AVS would require a drastic rewrite of AVS, both in the way it operates and in the way you build presets. I've already explained why. I'll say it again: drastic rewrite. Software mode would become useless and several times slower than it is now.

Also.. right now AVS is useless to me. It can only be run in a small resolution (no larger then 640x480) . I only turn it on when I am not at my computer so leaving it in a window is worthless and it is only usefull in fullscreen. But it looks like crap at a low resolution in full screen so that makes it also not worthwhile. Yea your gonna say "well go use some other plugin".. well I do but I like the idea of AVS and I am trying to give some feedback to nullsoft on how to improve it. THIS is their forums correct? I belive this is the right place.



This is just plain wrong and illogical.
If AVS was converted to use pixel-shaders, then on a non-supporting card you'd get /nothing/ at all because half the effects would be broken.
And contrary to what you seem to think, pixel-shader supporting hardware is still rare (remember, even the Geforce4MX does not have proper pixelshaders).

With the current software-only AVS, everyone with an MMX-supporting CPU can run AVS: you might not be able to go 640x480+ fullscreen, but you can still enjoy the presets windowed and/or at smaller resolutions.

As has been proven time and time again, there are many people who don't need high resolutions to enjoy AVS. If you're not one of them, tough, try Milkdrop or R2/R4.

And if you still claim "it can be done", why don't you go ahead and code it, since you're obviously such an expert on the matter? And before you accuse me of the same: I tried making a hardware accelerated AVS clone, but I don't have enough time now to continue it. If I ever finish it, it will be not be as advanced/flexible as AVS, and not much faster too. Graphics cards were made to draw stuff (like games), not to process images (like AVS).

Your not listening to me at all and totaly missing my point. I understand it would requirer a re-write. I am saying allow people to leave hardware acceleration OFF if they do not have the kind of video card to handel it. I already stated that I know it would requirer a re-write so stop just ignoring what I am saying and please pay attention.

Seems to me that you are missing point here

It is NOT possible to make hardware acceleration an option: hardware accelerated AVS would require a drastic rewrite of AVS, both in the way it operates and in the way you build presets. I've already explained why. I'll say it again: drastic rewrite. Software mode would become useless and several times slower than it is now.

READ goddammit

It seems you actualy dont know a zip about avs nor graphics cards...

IF you really really need the hardware support... just mail Justin, and pay him a nice ammount of money for making avs hardware accelerated...

bah, plz... someone lock this thread...
One fool can ask more than hundred wise answer. old estonian saying

Which part of "It is NOT possible to make hardware acceleration an option:" did you not understand?

It is IMPOSSIBLE to make an AVS that can work both in hardware or software mode.

Can not be done.

Would result in 2 separate plug-ins that both behave completely differently and have not even a hint of compatibility between them.


I'd hate to close a thread I've contributed to myself, but this is just annoying and a waste of time.

Clunk.