Jump to content
Posted Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:19 AM
Posted Thu Jun 16, 2011 12:14 PM
Posted Thu Jun 16, 2011 1:59 PM
Posted Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:21 PM
Posted Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:03 AM
Posted Sun Jun 19, 2011 1:34 PM
Posted Sun Jun 19, 2011 1:40 PM
Good luck. The Internet is my daily vacation.
I won't be checking AtariAge during this time, and probably not even checking my email. Or at least that's the intent; we'll see how it goes.
Posted Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:17 AM
Posted Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:43 PM
Edited by Keatah, Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:44 PM.
Posted Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:57 PM
Posted Sun Jun 26, 2011 6:07 PM
You can make a video jump to the place you want:
Stella is officially sanctioned by David Crane of Activision. He says to download it and ALL the roms!
Edited by Random Terrain, Sun Jun 26, 2011 6:10 PM.
Posted Sun Jun 26, 2011 6:33 PM
Thanks for that info, RT! Very useful to know.
You can make a video jump to the place you want:
Posted Sun Jun 26, 2011 8:00 PM
Posted Sun Jul 3, 2011 9:35 PM
Posted Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:59 PM
Posted Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:33 AM
It seems like maybe to do this properly-- ideally, being able to step back an instruction at a time-- you'd need to save the status register after every instruction, not to mention the state of any RAM, the RIOT timer, all the CPU/TIA/RIOT registers, bank selections, input ports, collisions, etc.
Posted Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:00 AM
I'm back! Well not yet really, it will be another week or two before I start coding again WRT rewind, this has been a frequently requested feature, and one that I've been considering for some time. Your description here is exactly what Stella currently does. When entering the debugger, each step performed (whether by a single instruction, a frame, or a scanline) saves the entire state of the emulation in a memory-backed data stream. That is, it's never written to disk, and recycles when it reaches the end (so the oldest state is thrown away). Then, each time you do a rewind, you simply step back one in the state queue and do a state load. It's actually a very simple concept. The main problem right now is that it's only done when you enter the debugger, usually after a bug has been triggered.It seems like maybe to do this properly-- ideally, being able to step back an instruction at a time-- you'd need to save the status register after every instruction, not to mention the state of any RAM, the RIOT timer, all the CPU/TIA/RIOT registers, bank selections, input ports, collisions, etc.
I see what you mean about maybe just saving one snapshot of everything at the beginning of each frame, so you could at least back up one frame and start going forward again from there. But if you don't yet know what caused the error, could you rule out things like "the joystick was pressed in direction A at the wrong time"? If it were possible to save an actual cycle-by-cycle stream of all the data needed to truly "rewind" a program one cycle at a time, including rewinding any input, that would be awesome, but probably too resource-intensive-- unless you could perhaps save the stream to a "RAM disk" or memory block (rather than, say, writing it to the hard drive), but have a set length for how much you could save before the stream "wrapped around" and started to overwrite itself-- like you could always rewind up to a maximum of one or two frames, maybe depending on how much memory you've told Stella to allocate for your "virtual tape recorder" (or "virtual state recorder"? ) data stream.
Posted Thu Jul 14, 2011 1:00 PM
Posted Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:46 AM
Posted Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:53 PM
Posted Wed Jul 20, 2011 1:26 AM
For the time when I started, z26 was best, and now I use Stella and don't really have a reason to switch. We'll see if things change once I'm somehow forced to move up to Windows 7 (I moved down to XP after using Vista for a bit more than a month due to a missing scanner driver and some other oddities). If Stella works on Windows 7 (and since it worked on Vista, there's no reason to assume it won't work on 7), I'll probably continue to use it.
The main function still for me is to emulate the 2600 and all its games correctly, without crashing. Features like filtering or video recording aren't that important to me.
In closing, I want to thank you for having developed Stella, and even if it doesn't evolve further, it's definitely a great emulator. I think the most important thing would be to "keep it running" which actually isn't that much work, I think, but only ensuring it works on current hardware and the most important current OS's (which for me is still Windows XP, but might soon be Windows 7, and apparently already is in some countries).
Posted Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:13 AM
Posted Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:07 AM
Posted Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:18 AM
Since Snow Leopard won't run on PPC, you can definitely drop PPC support if Stella comes to require it! Leopard is viable, though I personally have stuck with Tiger since it's generally faster on PPC hardware.
I'll probably be moving to OSX Lion soon, which has a new version of Xcode. So the default-released version of Stella for OSX will be Intel-only, 32 & 64-bit. It will probably require either Leopard or Snow Leopard at minimum. However, unlike the case with Windows 98/2k, older versions of OSX/Xcode do have OpenGL, so I'll still do a PPC release (at least as along as I can keep Xcode 3.x working in OSX 10.7).
Posted Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:45 AM
Right, I group 98 and 2000 together because they need an older version of Visual Studio (2005). Getting rid of one implies the other. Conversely, keeping 2000 means I may as well keep 98 too. But in general, getting rid of the separate build is the main issue. Also because it's all done in a VM, and I can't test it on real hardware anyway. The OpenGL thing is more for Win98.
What version of OpenGL are you using?
I can see the logic here for dropping Win98 but not Win2k - Many of the OpenGL video cards have a single driver for either Win2k or WinXP. I think the reason newer emulators support XP and above is because the newer M$ compilers produce code that doesn't run under Win2k. Is that driving the change?
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users