June 2004 - Fractdev - mailman.xmission.com

Athlon woes
by Tim Wegner 03 Sep '08

03 Sep '08

I built a computer last year using an Athlon with a Gigabyte motherboard. I had troubles with Fractint - with any SVGA mode the computer would hang after the completion of the image. I always assumed this was an Windows XP issue. Today I tried Fractint with freedos on the same computer, with the same results. So apparently it's an incompatability bgetween fractint and my compuiter. Truecolor, 320x200, diskvideo, and even tweaked modes work. SCGA modes fail, and only after the image completes. This behavior appears to have nothing to do with recent versions. Has anyone else had trouble with Athlon? Hmm, maybe I need to look at bios settings. Tim

7 21

Patch 6
by Jonathan Osuch 03 Jul '05

03 Jul '05

Tim, I'm going to try to wrap up patch 6 this week. So far, this is what I have: Fixed FPUcplxdiv and FPUcplxlog routines in fpu087.c to match assembler code. Fixed it so spaces are recognized in PAR entry names. Fixed evolver parameter entry. Fixed hypercomplex fractal type to turn off symmetry when a cj parameter is used. Fixed the plasma type to show the value of the parameter that is actually used in the image generation. Fixed the plasma type so that a parameter file uses the included colors instead of the default colors. Revised the plasma type prompt to reflect the values that could actually be used. Fixed inside=atan and outside=atan to use the full color palette instead of limiting to 180 colors. Modified the resume code to remove the Xfractint specific sections since they are no longer needed. I still need to move all this over to DOS and make sure nothing is broken. There are other fixes I would like to include, but haven't done them yet. Jonathan

3 6

Some grist for the mill.
by Rana Ian 23 Jun '04

23 Jun '04

Tim, Greg, Rich and All, Its wonderful to see interest in making updates. David already seems to have something in hand =). I can easily see how a rewrite of Fractint might consume ~2,000 to ~4,000 developer hours. Its of course up to contributing developers to figure out how much can be given. I cut out a philosophical paragraph on choosing technology from my last email since it seems to dig up strong opinions =). I'll give my opinion about it here since it seems some technology would need to be chosen to carry on! I don't know what particular language and design experiences everyone has. It seems we all come together with an interest in fractals and perhaps differing experience in various technologies. Naturally everyone's made choices and time commitments to learn and apply a specific set of knowledge. Naturally any one of us can contribute with what we know. Tim, your point is well received, "discussions about platform mean nothing without skill, time, and commitment." How can Fractint bring forth new features with available skills? Is C and assembly going to be able to evolve Fractint into the future? What is maintainable? Does Fractint need a new language to provide new features? If yes, should we talk about a Fractint technological upgrade path? Do we evaluate top features we want to see and pick a technology? Does that make any sense? Who really wants to learn a new language or technology for an open source project? Every technology is gonna have different benefits, drawbacks and mindshare. I fully expect the C programmer to recommend C. The Java programmer to recommend Java, and the C# programmer to recommend C#. So if that's the case, where does that put a Fractint development effort? Is Fractint going to be able to evolve? Does it make sense to continue the banner of Fractint? What makes Fractint? People of course! But is it a name? Is it set of core features? Is it the persistence of a group of people over time? A maintainable code base? Is it a community of energized users? Yes, yes, yes and some more yesses. I think its all worth cultivating. Theres something to be said for Rich's comment on having an individual foraging ahead, independently, and developing what he thinks is best. Desire and action and results, plain and simple. Then I go back to "What is Fractint?" David has running Java app. And I'm ready to go out and make my own. You know YAFA (Yet another fractal app) has gone through my mind enough times to give me pause. We recognize the need to share design patterns and still move ahead. I use to develop Java web apps and now moved to .Net and c#. I can see how managed c# is a specific technological gravity well that many are rolling to. I also see how specific .net technologies can be applied to offer a modern application that can develop great features. Windows Forms provides a modern windows interface, Distributed calculation can be implemented through remoting, video card pixel shaders can be written with the support of DirectX for real-time calculation of entire frames, Video animation technologies can be integrated with Windows Media, we can update the arbitrary precision libraries or use existing, .Net arbitrary precision libraries, peer-to-peer can be implemented with web services, etc, etc. Man, I sound like a walking talking Microsoft ad, all this coming from someone who spent 12K+ on his mac addiction and worked for Apple! Well what about C++, or Java? What can be maintained? David, I agree with you, there are already a lot of good fractal apps already out there. Tierazon has some great zooming capabilities. Very easy to navigate the zoom and canvas size. Kai Power Tools has, in one version, excellent gradient designer and random seed parameter mutation which made for a high degree of usability for the non-technical. Ultra Fractal has interesting layering capabilities, Adobe Photoshop like interface, and an online formula database to receive new formulas from. So theres innovation all around. Many of the apps are purchasable products. What's kept people coming back to Fractint? Has it been the free availability? The website? The features? Are those the items to build on? I want to see the Uber, the Ultimate, the Unitive fractal app. There are a lot of neat features that can go in that no one has ever done before. What do you guys think are the best fractal apps out there (besides Fractint)? Best features? Should I be helping in the future development of Fractint? Should there be some new open source project? I'm trying to explore all avenues and see what sticks. Whats worth what. And where to go. I'm just some guy who wrote an email and wants to write an app. Fractint has been around quite awhile, has a userbase, and people happily volunteering. Whats the vision? Whos gonna drive it? Whos gonna decide on the future technological path of Fractint? How does any technological choice meet development objectives and bring developers together? I don't know what to do. Help! =) Thanks! Rana

2 3

RE: [Fractdev] Some grist for the mill.
by Burnett, David (David) ** CTR ** 22 Jun '04

22 Jun '04

Hi All, I think one of the best things we could start with is generating some design doc for the main algorithms used in fractint. Then, no matter what platform we are writing for, we will all have something we can make use of. I can't believe you guys actually wrote all this without design doc, that would make it an even more difficult task. Perhaps you no longer have the docs you used (maybe they weren't even committed to computer). It is difficult to interpret reasons from uncommented code, and copying it has only given me mostly similar functionality. I imagine that anyone else porting into another language will run into the same problems, or maybe they won't make the mistakes i have. I could start by documenting the way I have understood the post-processing features such as continuous potential, logmap etc. which I have a current interest in getting running correctly, which should motivate swift action. Rana, I liked your collection of enhancements (a few of which I have already done) which look like they could be fun to get into. David -----Original Message----- From: Rana Ian Tim, Greg, Rich and All, Its wonderful to see interest in making updates. David already seems to have something in hand =). I can easily see how a rewrite of Fractint might consume ~2,000 to ~4,000 developer hours. Its of course up to contributing developers to figure out how much can be given. I cut out a philosophical paragraph on choosing technology from my last email since it seems to dig up strong opinions =). I'll give my opinion about it here since it seems some technology would need to be chosen to carry on! I don't know what particular language and design experiences everyone has. It seems we all come together with an interest in fractals and perhaps differing experience in various technologies. Naturally everyone's made choices and time commitments to learn and apply a specific set of knowledge. Naturally any one of us can contribute with what we know. Tim, your point is well received, "discussions about platform mean nothing without skill, time, and commitment." How can Fractint bring forth new features with available skills? Is C and assembly going to be able to evolve Fractint into the future? What is maintainable? Does Fractint need a new language to provide new features? If yes, should we talk about a Fractint technological upgrade path? Do we evaluate top features we want to see and pick a technology? Does that make any sense? Who really wants to learn a new language or technology for an open source project? Every technology is gonna have different benefits, drawbacks and mindshare. I fully expect the C programmer to recommend C. The Java programmer to recommend Java, and the C# programmer to recommend C#. So if that's the case, where does that put a Fractint development effort? Is Fractint going to be able to evolve? Does it make sense to continue the banner of Fractint? What makes Fractint? People of course! But is it a name? Is it set of core features? Is it the persistence of a group of people over time? A maintainable code base? Is it a community of energized users? Yes, yes, yes and some more yesses. I think its all worth cultivating. Theres something to be said for Rich's comment on having an individual foraging ahead, independently, and developing what he thinks is best. Desire and action and results, plain and simple. Then I go back to "What is Fractint?" David has running Java app. And I'm ready to go out and make my own. You know YAFA (Yet another fractal app) has gone through my mind enough times to give me pause. We recognize the need to share design patterns and still move ahead. I use to develop Java web apps and now moved to .Net and c#. I can see how managed c# is a specific technological gravity well that many are rolling to. I also see how specific .net technologies can be applied to offer a modern application that can develop great features. Windows Forms provides a modern windows interface, Distributed calculation can be implemented through remoting, video card pixel shaders can be written with the support of DirectX for real-time calculation of entire frames, Video animation technologies can be integrated with Windows Media, we can update the arbitrary precision libraries or use existing, .Net arbitrary precision libraries, peer-to-peer can be implemented with web services, etc, etc. Man, I sound like a walking talking Microsoft ad, all this coming from someone who spent 12K+ on his mac addiction and worked for Apple! Well what about C++, or Java? What can be maintained? David, I agree with you, there are already a lot of good fractal apps already out there. Tierazon has some great zooming capabilities. Very easy to navigate the zoom and canvas size. Kai Power Tools has, in one version, excellent gradient designer and random seed parameter mutation which made for a high degree of usability for the non-technical. Ultra Fractal has interesting layering capabilities, Adobe Photoshop like interface, and an online formula database to receive new formulas from. So theres innovation all around. Many of the apps are purchasable products. What's kept people coming back to Fractint? Has it been the free availability? The website? The features? Are those the items to build on? I want to see the Uber, the Ultimate, the Unitive fractal app. There are a lot of neat features that can go in that no one has ever done before. What do you guys think are the best fractal apps out there (besides Fractint)? Best features? Should I be helping in the future development of Fractint? Should there be some new open source project? I'm trying to explore all avenues and see what sticks. Whats worth what. And where to go. I'm just some guy who wrote an email and wants to write an app. Fractint has been around quite awhile, has a userbase, and people happily volunteering. Whats the vision? Whos gonna drive it? Whos gonna decide on the future technological path of Fractint? How does any technological choice meet development objectives and bring developers together? I don't know what to do. Help! =) Thanks! Rana

1 0

RE: [Fractdev] Request for reflections on a .Net port
by Burnett, David (David) ** CTR ** 22 Jun '04

22 Jun '04

I find that my ability varies a lot, especially early in the morning after a late night ..... Of course, the advantages in porting fractint are that you have a working model to compare with, which is enormously useful (not to mention confusing). What are you up to in Alaska, holidaying, or is it a midlife career change ;-) David -----Original Message----- From: Timothy Wegner Heh heh heh heh!!! >From one who knows how much time programming fractint takes ... The only caveat is programmer ability does vary enormously - my 2000 hour estimate assumed very good skills but not world class genius. I would say that the original fractint has more like 4000 hours. Writing this from Park Service computer in Wrangell mountains, Alaska ... Tim "Burnett, David (David) ** CTR **" <dburnett(a)avaya.com> wrote: that should have read "more than 2000 hours" .... but probably on reflection, it wouldn't be that much yet, 2000 is a lot of time... David

1 0

RE: [Fractdev] Request for reflections on a .Net port
by Burnett, David (David) ** CTR ** 21 Jun '04

21 Jun '04

that should have read "more than 2000 hours" .... but probably on reflection, it wouldn't be that much yet, 2000 is a lot of time... David

2 1

RE: [Fractdev] Request for reflections on a .Net port
by Burnett, David (David) ** CTR ** 21 Jun '04

21 Jun '04

Which probably comes back to Rana's "writing owns own fractal app is an obligatory action for many programmers" Seriously though, any of us who are writing ports of fractint (or just their own fractal generators) could share analysis & design ideas and get some effort reuse and idea checking out of it. It certainly does represent a large effort, and there has to be a good reason to write yet another fractal app (YAFA) when there are already so many good apps out there. Or is the answer "because it's there" ;-) David -----Original Message----- From: Rich All I have to say is that if you are serious about putting in the amount of necessary work (I think Tim is underestimating it, frankly), then do what you think is best and other people's ideas of what you should do be damned. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline"-- code samples, sample chapter, FAQ: <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/> Pilgrimage: Utah's annual demoparty <http://pilgrimage.scene.org>

1 0

Request for reflections on a .Net port
by Rana Ian 21 Jun '04

21 Jun '04

Hi, I'm looking at how to bring forth an up-to-date, open source fractal generating application into creation. The vision is to have a more robust Fractint-like application that offers a modern user interface, GPU (video card) calculations, and a more robust feature set. Fractint users have offered many wonderful suggestions on Robin Bussell's wish list that I would like to see realized. A survey of the field of fractal applications shows ~80 fractal generation applications with varying feature sets. Only a handful of the current fractal generating applications seem to have on-going maintenance and development. Fractint seems to have the most features of fractal generating applications at the moment. One of the developers of the fractal apps was joking that writing owns own fractal app is an obligatory action for many programmers. The existence of so many fractal apps offers some evidence to that truth. I think one of the strengths Fractint has is that instead of ~80 developers writing their own application ~80 developers contributed to an open source project which became greater than any application made by one or two developers. I abandoned the idea of writing my own application. Re-writing the wheel is not really appealing. What I want is a richly featured modern fractal generating app. What I want is basically Fractint with up-to-date features. So, how will this up-to-date fractal generating application manifest? .Net, C#, and DirectX offer a modern user interface, real-time fractal calculation using GPU pixel shaders, and up-to-date technologies to develop new features going forward. I propose to rewrite Fractint in c# for the .Net platform. Windows would be supported. Unix would be supported to the extent .Net is implemented on Unix systems by the Mono project. As we know, there are many interesting things that can be done. Some ideas Fractint users have suggested to the wish list: Video Card acceleration, Modern user interface Distributed Calculation across CPUs Key Frame sequencing for deep zoom animation Animation response to audio patterns Fractal Audio Generation Photoshop Plug-ins Winamp Plug-Ins More Coloring Options Localization Video Animation Screensavers Internal formula editor Some other features I would like to see are: Peer-To-Peer File swapping and Gallery Item Rating System In-app bug reporting In-app feature requesting Variable Canvas sizes KPT-like mutation lab (Randomness suggested form wish list) Gradinet Designer (like KPT) XML File Formats File compatability with competing fractal applications Inter-operability with Adobe technologies - Palettes - Layers Multiple Image export formats A rewrite would go a long way to enabling an integrated engine to address all of the would-b-nice requests to go forward. The intent is to build upon what has already been done. The intent is to maintain open source ideas. The intent is to continue developing the best fractal exploration application. What do you think? Is there any support, criticism, or suggestions you would like to offer towards a Fractint.Net port? Thanks, Rana Ian Tucson, Arizona, USA Fractint Wish List http://web.ukonline.co.uk/members/robin.b2/olig/fracwish.htm List of Fractal Applications http://home.att.net/~Paul.N.Lee/Fractal_Software.html GPU Shader Development http://developer.nvidia.com/object/FX_Composer_Shaders.html .Net Development http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/ The Mono Project (.Net on Unix) http://www.go-mono.com/

4 3

RE: [Fractdev] Request for reflections on a .Net port
by Burnett, David (David) ** CTR ** 21 Jun '04

21 Jun '04

Being completely unbiased ;-) I would go for Java, and reap the platform independance that goes with it. Nothing is to be gained by C# (the evil empires java clone), except platform lockin (and you still end up with an interpreted language). C++ would be faster, but very much harder to get working on multiple platforms. I think the best option is to write a pure java version and add platform specific C++ (or even assembler with C++ shell) native calls for specific OSs to speedup the actual calcs. Best of both worlds then, all the advantages of java maintainability and ease of development, with speed when needed. I have spent more than 200 hours putting together a java fractal app (FractalCanvas - see qlt.net.au/canvas - but not for a few days). I didn't intend on making a fractint clone, but have come closer than I thought I would. Because I decided to use a collection of fractint pars to test my formula parser, I ended up implementing a lot of fractint functionality in the same mode. I currently get about a 60% hit rate for my test set of 1500 pars/images, that is about 60% of them generate images that look the same as fractint generates, about another 20% get similar results, and the rest do not do much at all. The reasons for a lot of that is the post-processing options (such as logmap, continuous potential, periodicity etc) I have implemented are not complete, or simply do not work correctly yet. Added to which I haven't implemented any of the backwards compatibility features from fractint at all (yet). I will probably ask some precific questions about these algorithms (when I have time to figure out what it is I don't understand). I will put a version on the net soon, the current net version hasn't been updated for a while and doesn't have the formula parsing in it. I just have to write a UI for editing a formula (and a few hundred more things no doubt ;-)..... David -----Original Message----- From: fractdev-bounces+dburnett=avaya.com(a)mailman.xmission.com [mailto:fractdev-bounces+dburnett=avaya.com@mailman.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Tim Wegner Sent: Sunday, 20 June 2004 1:05 PM To: Fractint developer's list Subject: Re: [Fractdev] Request for reflections on a .Net port Greg wrote: > I think it's great that you want to modernize > Fractint, and I would like to definitely help with > this, but .NET is the devil. Microsoft and open-source > really shouldn't go in the same sentance. > Think Java or C++. C++ would be very nice because it > would be easier to port the existing code, as well as > performance considerations. You may be right, but discussions about platform mean nothing without skill, time, and commitment. We're talking 2000 to 4000 hours. Tim _______________________________________________ Fractdev mailing list Fractdev(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fractdev

1 0

Xfractint subdirectory display in menus
by Jonathan Osuch 14 Jun '04

14 Jun '04

Tim, I've made some progress getting subdirectories to display in Xfractint. It appears to work for most items, but not color maps. For some reason a slash is getting added to the color map name (Xfractint thinks it's a directory). So, color maps won't load. Jonathan

3 6