Jump to content

Stephen Moss

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Stephen Moss

  1. This what I meant indeed.


    But is .GPUMAIN addding all you need to allow code run perfectly from main ram ?

    I may be wrong and am not sure if I am quoting from the manual or recalling from a JFUK conversation with SubQmod but I believe it checks for and where necessary adds various NOPs required concerning pipelining around Jumps as well as checking/taking care of phrase(?) alignment requirements to make things easier for the programmer.


    Presumably you have tried PMing SubQmod at AA.

  2. I heard smac was capable to produce better GPU assembler output, but I cannot find changes things added to this assembler any link or document ?

    I am not sure what you define as better, as I recall some of the changes he implement in addition to general bug fixes was to make it easier to run GPU in main. I have not read the full topics but a quick AA search show that the following may provide the information you are looking for






    Alternatively Dr Typo may know, as I recall he made some post SubQMod changes/bug fixes to SLN and SMAC



  3. Hello,


    [*]Local Ram

    Local ram for GPU is 4K organised as 1K of 32bit.

    $F03000 to $F03FFF is GPU local RAM with 16-bit external memory access (32-bit internal).


    Yes, that is what the document states 1K Addresses (locations) x 32 bits = 32786 / 8 = 4K bytes but...

    $F03000 to $F03FFF = 4096 Addresses (locations) = x 32 bits / 8 = 16K bytes!


    So why does document say 4K bytes only?


  4. Hello all,

    I have finished transcribing the Graphics Processor and Blitter sections of the Jaguar software reference manual and I require clarification on a few points that may be inaccurate.


    Local RAM:

    On PDF Page 29 (Jag_V8) / PDF Page 32 of the Jaguar software reference manual there is a diagram of the graphics subsystem which shows local RAM to be 1K x 32, in the section “Programming the Graphics Processor” (PDF pages 32 & 35 respectively) it is also describes local RAM as being 1K of 32-bit RAM (4KB) and again in the “Memory Interface” section (PDF pages 35 & 83 respectively) local RAM is describes as 4K organised as 1K locations (presumably addresses) of 32-bit data.


    What I am confused about is that the “Memory Interface” section goes on to show a memory map which indicates that local RAM occupies the address range $F03000 – $F03FFF which is 4K (4069, $FFF) addresses and I do not recall reading anything stating that any of these addresses are unavailable or used for another purpose. Therefore either...

    1) All the indicated address are available and I need to amend the states size of local RAM to 16K or

    2) Not all the address indicated for Local RAM are available in which case which addresses are available and where does it specify that as I need to amend the memory map to show the unused addresses as “reserved” (unless someone knows they serve another function).

    But which one would be correct?


    Divide Unit:

    The section on the “Divide Unit” (pages 42 & 45 respectively) mention 16.16 bit values, does this mean it is a 32 bit values who’s high word is an Integer value and low word is a fractional value, i.e $0F.08 (15.08 decimal)? If not then what is a 16.16 bit value?


    Source Z registers:

    The section on the Source Z register 1 & 2 “B_SCRZ1” and “B_SCRZ2” respectively (PDF pages 76 & 64 respectively) states that they are “also used”, is the use of “also” and error and if not what else are they also used for?


  5. In the months leading up to its closure the quantity of posts on JSII had dwindled to the point where only weekly visits were necessary and even then most (in my opinion) were not worth reading. JSII was a good place to be when I first joined it, however I think its time had come to an end.


    I wish you all the best with you venture however I personally cannot see any point in recreating what was at the end and is therefore likely to continue to be (if only attracting old JSII members) a low traffic forum especially when you consider that...

    a ) most if not all JSII members were also/may now be members at AA which receives much more traffic (even if some of it is rot) and

    b ) you can find low volume (generally because it tends to be of a more technical than general nature) both here and at AP if that is what you are seeking.





  6. I imagine a great deal of the files are available elsewhere anyway. Anything particular you were looking for?

    I can't remember what I wanted as knowing they were there I could just trawl them for anything that looked interesting and download whenever I had the time/inclination to check them out. If we had been given something like a weeks notice of the closure I would have probably just grabbed everything and gone through them at leisure. If I can remember anything specific someone probably has a copy it was just convenient having them all in one place.


  7. To self publish or not depends on several things...

    a ) By self publishing you maintain control over cost and quality.

    b ) Providing that the quality of the manuals & service a third party would provide is at least equal to that you could provide yourself would you consider what (if anything) they would charge for publishing for you to be value for money considering the time and effort it would save you


    Perhaps you could arrange a hybrid system where you produce the 256K carts and the third party to does the rest?


  8. Jaguar Sector II has been sporadically up and down the last couple of weeks but it looks like it is finally closed - all you get now when going to the site now is a statement as to why Jason has closed it. I wonder what will happen to all the resources in the download section? It would have been nice it still be able to access them for a few weeks so that people could download the files they wanted.

  9. I've seen encryption bypass carts floating around the net. Are these still useful given the utilities out there nowadays?

    Only if you have no other way to boot an unencrypted CD although there are not that many of those around, the American Hero & Veruna's Forces demo cd's spring to mind although there are probably encrypted versions around now. I may be wrong by IIRC mine also has game save facilities, I have not tried to use it as such but it may function as a secondary memory tracker with an encrypted CD.

  10. You could also try the GUI live CD from the Hillsoft website.

    However it is not necessarly the most convienent option as you have to reboot your PC from the CD drive everytime you want to use it so that it can load the linux OS and mess about a bit to mount your HD to access your own files so it is not perfect but it should have everything you need.


  11. For me the Jaguar CF has allways been an interesting project, it is nice to see you are still making progress and I hope all goes well.


    I heard that the CF has a network function the other day which was news to me as I was not aware of it being mentioned prevoisusly, what exactly is the purpose of the JagCF Network?

    If it is for networked gaming will it be comaptiable with the existing Jaguar network specs and interfaces such as the Catbox and JagLink 2 or is it a totally new networking solution that will only work in CF to CF networks?

  12. in the pdf file I can read:

    1) under "team tap compatibility" at the end i can read "to prevent damage to your jaguar....." ..."not more than 3".


    2) under multi tap comp. i read again.. "to prevent potential damage to your jaguar..."

    ?.... I never said that connecting 1 controller would destroy your jag, read my post again.. *handen i pannan* ..Nor did i say that I would not include that in "my controller manual"...


    - cut -

    On the contrary!.. I just thought to say my thoughts Before final production of the units, since I want EVERYONE to have one!..

    I don't object to anyone voicing an reasoned & informed opinion in fact I requested so that I could see what people wanted/expected from it before finalising the design/firmware, however by making you first comments, and I quote "but my project had much less "will destroy your jaguar" in the specs.." you could give anyone who has not read the full document the impression that it is likely to damage their Jaguar if connected which is untrue if the limits are adheared to.


    Well... I understood what you point out. but my point is that I want to use my old PS controller without sending it 2u =) (if you pardon my honesty). Ie an adaptor would be the easiest way for me, cut&solder would still be childsplay to most people.

    And i cant beleive Im the only one that feels like that?

    I could sent the new PCB to anyone who feels confident enough to install it themselves and you are not the only one who feels that an adaptor is the way to go, someone on AA also expressed a preference for an adaptor. As I said on AA I have not ruled out an adaptor entirely but with a lack of reliable information on the controller specs and then only data for the PS One controller and not also the Dual Shock 2 I felt that modification was the easier and quicker option for me (6 months from concept to working unit).

    No point asking Sony for infomation either as they just ignor you, well they ingored me anyway.

    3) no need for hard words..

    I did not want it to sound as harsh as it did but at the time I could find no better way of expressing my opinion, if your estimate had been closer to double what you stated I would have found it more reasonable as unless you can get things very cheaply where you are just a PIC, a case and the sleeving for the Jaguar connector (using my normal method) would be about £10 (roughly 15 Euros).

    5) Nop.. sockets stay... =) btw Im not "blaiming" you for my desision to buy them... though Im assuming this is what you implied (?).

    No, I was mearly pointing put that someone wanted to purchase some if you wanted to sell some.


    Well if you do manage to produce an adaptor before I go into production I assume you would still have to conform to the bank switching protocol for the Jaguar to read it, in which case if you could arrange your bank output data to be the same as mine any software written for one will work with the other regardless of which one ends up being produced and purchased by the user.

  13. ...well.. I started a similar thing some year ago..

    but my project had much less "will destroy your jaguar" in the specs..

    I am not really sure where you get that from as a single controller connected to a port will not damage a Jaguar, however it would be irisponsible not let people know of combinations that could do so if exceeded. Are you saying you would not provide people with such information?

    I like the idea of a analouge gamepad for the jaguar.. and any future projects I will release will defenitely support one, but I beleive he's going about it in a bit of the wrong way.

    1st Im sure atari never intened more than one, or max 2 intelligent devices to be connected to the jag at the same time (currentconsumption,time to read them all, usually an advanced controller means advanced game -> have the jag got time for more than 2 simultaneous players?,....)

    Hence Id make it detect a team tap & shut down if its present.. (Not to blowUp your jaguar! this should Never!! be an option!). and make max2 controllers / jag, one to each port.

    You can not be certain of that, at the time Atari wrote the specs virbation feed back was probably not concidered (as it is not mentioned) and without that feature my conversion only uses 7mA of current and so connecting four via a team tap would only consume about 60% of the available current per controller port. My conversion only uses 10mA when connected to a Team Tap as Team Tap operation is indicated by an LED.

    It takes about 1mS to read a controller and the VBL occures every 20mS (50Hz, PAL), I am no expert on the software instruction timing for the Jag but considering that both ports are written and read simultanously I would estimate that it would take no more than 6ms to read and decode the data for 8 controllers connected via two team taps which leaves 14ms for the Jag to do other things so it may be possible to read 8 depening on the overhead required by the game software itself. Just because you are using the features of an advanced controller for say moving the player at different speeds depening on the analogue value does not mean that the game objective or graphics also have to be so advanced to make reading 8 advanced controllers impossible.

    If what you are trying to say is that the number of way of connecting the controller to the Jag may be confusing and could lead to people inadvertantly overloading their Jaguar then you have raised a valid point as such information would need to be clear and included with all compatible software. If people feel that is a problem then Team Tap support can easily be removed and multiplayer gaming would be restircted to either two players or via a network it's just that it was possible to include so I did.

    With Team Tap support removed the only valid connection would be direct to the Jaguars controller ports and if connected to a Team Tap it would only consume 7mA and would not respond to any control codes recieved.

    2nd If i got it right, hes going to make a custom made, controller..(alter internals?) and as i hear it will be dificult to find good enough controllers to sell as new products.. ?.. this I beleive will limit the product to "rare" status even before its official release. and it will be useless to jaguar gamers, since no games will be made for a market of only 15 (or so) controllers.

    Why not instead make it more a "true" adaptor: 15pinHDsub,pcb,CPU,a PS socket + a bit more electronics, at a production cost of... well.. 120SEK Im not exagurating.. (~13euro,8pounds).

    Thas what I planed for my project.. (now I will atleast have ALLOT of PS sockets over for other projects since i bought them already :)

    With regard to the 15 units, that is only the number of new controllers that I have available to me at this time and therefore the number of complete controllers that I could sell in the knowledge that they will not fail shortly after devliery to the customer, I could use second hand controllers but without that certainty. Taking the adaptor approach will not make any extra new controllers appear or improve the life span of used controllers, also the adaptor firmware would have to (at a mimimum) be able to identify the different controller types and be able to drive them appropriately.

    That is why I announced this now so that people who want to can obtain a couple of cheap used controllers off e-bay for conversion at a later date (one for spares) and and in doing so accecpt that the usefull lifetime for such a controller is unknown and that conversely I can only vouch for the relaibility of the hardware I have added and not the controller as a whole, thus more than 15 can be produced, just not sold as complete New units.

    I could also build more than 15 by modifying the Dual Shock 2 however with these units feedback is unavailable, if you don't mind loosing the feedback function then don't pick up a used PS One controller for modification at a later date, its your choice. I know the controller situation is a little messy and that is unfortunate but I am not responcible for the design changes made to the controllers by Sony.


    For those who have not read the entire thread on AA my reasons for doing a modification as opposed to an adaptor are...

    1) Plugging A into B into C possibly via D = messy setup

    2) From what little data is available on line the original controller uses a system that is similar in style to both SCI and I2C but is neither. It is therefore probably a preparatory system designed by Sony and so writing software to read and communicate with it may incure a licencing fee or result in being sued for breach of copyright either of which would be impossible and impractical to pay. Modification avoids those issues.

    3) In my opinion the cost difference in creating an adaptor verses a modification are small, however if you think you can build one that supports all PS controllers for 13 Euros then by all means do so and I will continue along the modification route. The fact that you have not yet produced such a unit would lead me to think that it is not as cheap and easy as you make it sound.

    4) Data on the controllers is scarce and may not be accurate as what I have seen does not include buttons L3 & R3 so what else could they have missed/be incorrect and is only for the PS one controllers.



    Someone on the Hardware forum at Atari Age was looking for some PS sockets if you want to sell some.

  • Create New...