Kyle22 Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 We're kind of getting off topic here, but having said that, I'd like to see a better SIDE2 solution for 1200XL's so the cart port stays open. One of the OS-ROM sockets is used by the U1M, but the other one is empty. It should only take a few extra jumpers to make it work. If anyone wants to discuss this further, Please start a new thread. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morelenmir Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 We're kind of getting off topic here, but having said that, I'd like to see a better SIDE2 solution for 1200XL's so the cart port stays open. One of the OS-ROM sockets is used by the U1M, but the other one is empty. It should only take a few extra jumpers to make it work. If anyone wants to discuss this further, Please start a new thread. You can't say fairer than that! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morelenmir Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 I have a potential bug here regarding the "System->Audio->Stereo" dual pokey option. When enabled I only get left channel audio, nothing on the right. My experience with Lotharek's "SimpleStereo" is when enabled, even if separate L&R channels are not being generated it will still output balanced mono on both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phaeron Posted July 17, 2015 Author Share Posted July 17, 2015 That may be SimpleStereo's behavior, but it's not the general behavior for stereo POKEY modifications, which only guarantee one POKEY per channel and don't provide a way or detection of whether a program is actually producing stereo. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phaeron Posted July 18, 2015 Author Share Posted July 18, 2015 Minor update: http://www.virtualdub.org/beta/Altirra-2.70-test19.zip http://www.virtualdub.org/beta/Altirra-2.70-test19-src.zip Contains a workaround for a VS2013 bug that was causing a crash on startup on XP64 and Vista x64 with recent CPUs that support FMA3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morelenmir Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 That may be SimpleStereo's behavior, but it's not the general behavior for stereo POKEY modifications, which only guarantee one POKEY per channel and don't provide a way or detection of whether a program is actually producing stereo. Okay. I cannot argue with that - I guess the menu entry isn't labelled 'SimpleStereo' so I cannot expect compliant behaviour. Even if it were there seem to be so many different versions it is hard to pin down anyway, Many thanks as ever for the new version by the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morelenmir Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 I wonder if there might be the possibility of emulating the SIO2SD device? On the face of it this would be largely pointless given that "Altirra" natively offers all the functionality such a device would bring to the simulation. However, I have been wondering about starting an ASM project to write a new client for the SIO2SD. Having the device present in emulation would certainly take a huge amount of frustration from the process - the cross assembling on the PC and then physical transporting the *.XEX to a real piece of hardware to test. I doubt I am the only one who might be interesting in coding for it and I would argue SIO2SD is the most significant standalone floppy-replacement for the A8 so I think there would be genuine and lasting good for the community. Obviously this might be a real tyrant of a task to bring about and totally overshadow any utility it would bring. However, if it is something that could be rattled out fairly rapidly - if only to a degree where a simulation would aid future software development and not 100% emulation - then I wonder if it might be considered? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashjazzcat Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 Does the existing SIO2SD emulation not provide a sufficiently rich command set? I realize it's said to be "mimimal", but I haven't tried it yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morelenmir Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 Does the existing SIO2SD emulation not provide a sufficiently rich command set? I realize it's said to be "mimimal", but I haven't tried it yet. Woah! There it is - you know I had never noticed the entry there inside the 'Devices' dialogue!!! I'd say there's definitely enough to start playing with the new commands and also testing out alternate configurations with the existing tools. Excellent! Also - given there is a 'currently' in the description text then maybe this is an area Phaeron will look at again to increase compatibility. When was this added? It must have been post 2.60 surely? I couldn't have been that blind for that long!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phaeron Posted July 20, 2015 Author Share Posted July 20, 2015 Minimal as in it only supports just enough to get the configuration tool to boot -- not actually enumerate any files or mount any disks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DrVenkman Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 I have an obscure Altirra question ... For background, I'm trying to emulate what will be my main hardware setup in a week or two: a 1200XL with Lotharek's Ultimate 1MB installed in it, and using it (occasionally or not) with one of his SIDE2 devices. I've got everything setup and working in Altirra but I have run across an oddity. In Altirra I have firmware set to "1200XL" (I've got an actual Rev 11 .ROM file) and hardware type set to 1200XL. I've got Memory Configuration set to Ultimate1MB, currently flashed to FJC's latest beta version, though that shouldn't matter. So far so good. In Altirra, running SDX 4.47 from the U1MB with this configuration, if I type either CAR or BASIC, I got a "Not present!" warning. That makes sense in a real machine without a U1MB installed. However, the U1MB provides BASIC (four different configurable slots even). Shouldn't SDX running in Altirra recognize the BASIC rom image there in the U1MB? By contrast, Altirra DOES recognize and implement U1MB's selection of OS - for instance if I use Q-MEG or the Diagnostic slot, Altirra boots them properly, effectively ignoring the "Firmware" selection in the Altirra menus. Why then does it honor the "1200XL" hardware selection with regard to in-built BASIC? Shouldn't the U1MB installation (virtual installation I mean, you get it) override that? What am I missing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morelenmir Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Minimal as in it only supports just enough to get the configuration tool to boot -- not actually enumerate any files or mount any disks. Yes... Its a rather enigmatic app isn't it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morelenmir Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 I have an obscure Altirra question ... For background, I'm trying to emulate what will be my main hardware setup in a week or two: a 1200XL with Lotharek's Ultimate 1MB installed in it, and using it (occasionally or not) with one of his SIDE2 devices. I've got everything setup and working in Altirra but I have run across an oddity. In Altirra I have firmware set to "1200XL" (I've got an actual Rev 11 .ROM file) and hardware type set to 1200XL. I've got Memory Configuration set to Ultimate1MB, currently flashed to FJC's latest beta version, though that shouldn't matter. So far so good. In Altirra, running SDX 4.47 from the U1MB with this configuration, if I type either CAR or BASIC, I got a "Not present!" warning. That makes sense in a real machine without a U1MB installed. However, the U1MB provides BASIC (four different configurable slots even). Shouldn't SDX running in Altirra recognize the BASIC rom image there in the U1MB? By contrast, Altirra DOES recognize and implement U1MB's selection of OS - for instance if I use Q-MEG or the Diagnostic slot, Altirra boots them properly, effectively ignoring the "Firmware" selection in the Altirra menus. Why then does it honor the "1200XL" hardware selection with regard to in-built BASIC? Shouldn't the U1MB installation (virtual installation I mean, you get it) override that? What am I missing? I get the same behaviour. Moreover, if on that same 1200XL - as set at the emulator level - you go in to the "Ultimate1MB" BIOS and select a different non-1200XL OS you still get the same inability to drop to BASIC. This contrasts with the situation where for example if you set an 800XL through "Altirra", but load a XEGM OS from the "Ultimate1MB" you get the correct XEGM-style behaviour on COLD+'Select' - it launches the currently selected GAME slot. I think it must be that the 1200XL OS doesn't have the facility to drop to BASIC as it was not designed to support an internal BASIC ROM, even if there is a copy within grasp as it were through the "Ultimate1MB". I guess its a very odd combination of hardwares... I wonder what would happen on the real machine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DrVenkman Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 (edited) I get the same behaviour. Moreover, if on that same 1200XL - as set at the emulator level - you go in to the "Ultimate1MB" BIOS and select a different non-1200XL OS you still get the same inability to drop to BASIC. This contrasts with the situation where for example if you set an 800XL through "Altirra", but load a XEGM OS from the "Ultimate1MB" BIOS OS slot you get the correct XEGM-style Game behaviour on COLD+'Select'. I guess its a very odd combination of hardwares... I wonder what would happen on the real machine? I suspect it would drop properly to BASIC. I know there's several folks on AA - FJC himself among them! - with U1MB installed in 1200XL's. It seems to me that this combo effectively makes the "1200XL" into a generic XL/XE type machine, for all intents and purposes, complete with in-built BASIC or whatever else you've put into the U1MB rom. At least that's what I'm hoping. The reason this (sorta) matters to me is due to some kind of weirdness with how SDX handles ram disks, or perhaps I just don't know enough about SDX yet, which is quite probable. Let me explain: In SDX, if I run JAC!'s updated .xex version of Action! from the command line and then drop back into DOS for some reason, I can't seem to launch Action! again and keep a mem.save type file, so I lose all my editor contents. HOWEVER, if I first drop into BASIC, then launch SDX with the DOS command, I can launch Action! in this way: "D1:ACTION.XEX BASIC.SAV" I can then work in Action! for awhile, go back to SDX if I need to, and then launch Action! again the same way ("D1:ACTION.XEX BASIC.SAV") and my Action! session will pick up just where I left off. Dropping into BASIC (or whatever else is flashed to a U1MB BASIC slot) will cause SDX to create the "BASIC.SAV" file on the ramdisk and use it, even with an executable file like an .xex. Edited July 20, 2015 by DrVenkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morelenmir Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 I know there's several folks on AA - FJC himself among them! - with U1MB installed in 1200XL's. It seems to me that this combo effectively makes the "1200XL" into a generic XL/XE type machine, for all intents and purposes, complete with in-built BASIC or whatever else you've put into the U1MB rom. At least that's what I'm hoping. The reason this (sorta) matters to me is due to some kind of weirdness with how SDX handles ram disks, or perhaps I just don't know enough about SDX yet, which is quite probable. Let me explain: In SDX, if I run JAC!'s updated .xex version of Action! from the command line and then drop back into DOS for some reason, I can't seem to launch Action! again and keep a mem.save type file, so I lose all my editor contents. HOWEVER, if I first drop into BASIC, then launch SDX with the DOS command, I can launch Action! in this way: "D1:ACTION.XEX BASIC.SAV" I can then work in Action! for awhile, go back to SDX if I need to, and then launch Action! again the same way ("D1:ACTION.XEX BASIC.SAV") and my Action! session will pick up just where I left off. Dropping into BASIC (or whatever else is flashed to a U1MB BASIC slot) will cause SDX to create the "BASIC.SAV" file on the ramdisk and use it, even with an executable file like an .xex. The 1200XL is certainly a gorgeous machine. I thought about picking one up at the start of the summer rather than attempting to rejuvinate my debatable lineup of 800XL's - but the prices on ebay are insane and I could not begin to justify it. Even now I see there is one for about £230 - and that is before you pay for the "VBXE" and "Ultimate1MB". In regards the RAM drive behaviour with "Action!", have you tried changing the default letter from 'O' to 'H'? I have been told that some programmes only recognize 'H' RAM drives and I wonder if 'Action!' is one of these? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashjazzcat Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 In Altirra, running SDX 4.47 from the U1MB with this configuration, if I type either CAR or BASIC, I got a "Not present!" warning. That makes sense in a real machine without a U1MB installed. However, the U1MB provides BASIC (four different configurable slots even). Shouldn't SDX running in Altirra recognize the BASIC rom image there in the U1MB? By contrast, Altirra DOES recognize and implement U1MB's selection of OS - for instance if I use Q-MEG or the Diagnostic slot, Altirra boots them properly, effectively ignoring the "Firmware" selection in the Altirra menus. Why then does it honor the "1200XL" hardware selection with regard to in-built BASIC? Shouldn't the U1MB installation (virtual installation I mean, you get it) override that? What am I missing? Since PORTB bit 1 (BASIC) is unused in the 1200XL, perhaps the emulator circumvents Ultimate's PORTB interception when in 1200XL mode. Turning SDX off and clearing bit 1 doesn't map anything in at $A000. To emulate the 1200XL/Ultimate hardware setup (with jumpers properly aligned), you might as well just set the machine type to 600/800XL (that's what I do), since what you effectively have is an XL with built-in BASIC. Regarding SDX and MEM.SAV/BASIC.SAV: this might be a RTFM moment for me, but I wasn't aware of any kind of MEM.SAV facility which works with XEX files. I understood that saved memory states were only created and reinstated when entering and leaving internal BASIC or an external cart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DrVenkman Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Regarding SDX and MEM.SAV/BASIC.SAV: this might be a RTFM moment for me, but I wasn't aware of any kind of MEM.SAV facility which works with XEX files. I understood that saved memory states were only created and reinstated when entering and leaving internal BASIC or an external cart. I didn't find that in the manual, I figured it out by trial and error. This is with the latest test release of Altirra and JAC's Action! 3.7 .xex version. It only works if SDX has first created the BASIC.SAV file by dropping into BASIC before launching the .xex, returning to SDX with the DOS command, and then launching the file with BASIC.SAV appended. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashjazzcat Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Interesting. What would happen if the XEX pulled the name of the file off the command line as a parameter? Or is it doing so already? It almost sounds like unintended behaviour which just happens to work by accident. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DrVenkman Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 (edited) Good question. I honestly don't know. I tried using other methods but my end goal is/was to replicate the behaviors of a physical cart when you call DOS and then drop back into the cart environment. Having the contents of memory saved and reloaded is supremely useful. I expect it works for JAC's Action! file version because Action! effectively still "thinks" it's a cartridge and SDX is treating as one. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Edited July 20, 2015 by DrVenkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashjazzcat Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 I tried something similar and Action! crashed after jumping into empty space in page 4. The XEX Action! binary does not appear to reside in the cart area either, which is just as well since loading the executable without the "X" command leaves the SDX library sitting in ROM at $A000-$BFFF. I have absolutely no idea what BASIC.SAV as a parameter after ACTION.XEX is achieving here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serj Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Avery, a small error in the settings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fujidude Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 What format are the files for the "yr" and ".loadsym" commands? I am not using an assembler to generate anything, and wish to generate the files by other means. Also, just for grins, I tried the .sdx_loadsyms command, but it reported that it loaded 0 symbols. Strange, since I am was running SDX 4.47 under Altirra 2.70t19. I must be missing something with that too? By the way, I already tried a text file formatted like: sname1 $ABCD sname2 $DCBA ... And so on. Didn't work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morelenmir Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 I have been trying to use the 'flash.com' programme in tandem with 'The!Cart' studio to write a simulated 32mB 'The!Cart' image. Unfortunately I have not yet got it to work. I set the system up as a 130XE with 128k of memory, VBXE and no other mods. I then 'Attach Special Cartridge' to create a 32mB 'The!Cart'. The final stage of the setup is to attach the 'thecart.atr' as downloaded from 'The!Cart' website to 'D1:'. On bootup this will load the resident copy of 'MyDOS'. To execute the programme I shell up to DOS and then use 'L - Load Image' to start 'flash.com'. After loading, 'flash.com' will go directly to a screen reporting 'No or unknown flash'. No variation of "The!Cart" image type or DOS will change this outcome and I have tried it under both the native "MyDOS", "SDX" and "DOS2.5". Update: Removing the "VBXE" simulation seems to remove the problem as well... Is this an issue with "Altrra" or the behaviour of 'flash.com' and "VBXE" in real life? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phaeron Posted July 24, 2015 Author Share Posted July 24, 2015 Label on memory setting will be fixed in next version. P.S., if you regularly use that high of a resolution, try increasing the UI scale factor in Options. The settings flyout looks better that way. The default is as it is to ensure that everything fits at lower resolutions, although it does scale with monitor DPI. yr uses a custom format, whereas .loadsym will accept any symbol format the debugger does (XASM labels, MADS labels/listings, CC65 labels, and Altirra custom labels). MADS listings are only for source lookup, while the rest are for address-symbol lookup. Can't seem to reproduce the cart flashing issue: However, you say: On bootup this will load the resident copy of 'MyDOS'. To execute the programme I shell up to DOS Red flag -- you should be getting automatically dropped into the MyDOS DUP menu on boot. Even if BASIC is left enabled, The!Cart should overlay it and prevent BASIC from loading. You shouldn't need to do anything to shell out to the MyDOS menu. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fujidude Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 yr uses a custom format, Is that format documented anywhere? I couldn't find it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.