Jump to content

Photo

Instead of using the POKEY/HOKEY, why not use the DPC/DPC+?

7800 Homebrew DPC DPC+ POKEY HOKEY

28 replies to this topic

#26 Lynxpro OFFLINE  

Lynxpro

    River Patroller

  • Topic Starter
  • 3,391 posts
  • Location:Sacramento, CA

Posted Sun Apr 3, 2016 5:53 PM

You guys understand that both the HOKEY and DPC+ is implemented via an ARM CPU, right?  Fred just needs to finish the limited implementation and have them made, just like he did with the DPC+ implementation.

 

Yep. And I was speculating the ARM component of the DPC+ would be sufficient enough to drive the "DPC-ness" of it so it wouldn't steal processing power from the SALLY itself. What I didn't know was that the same person who did DPC+ is doing HOKEY. 

 

Hell, if one were to port Crystal Castles to the 7800, the DPC+ - as would a normal DPC if one could figure out how to drive it without, again, swiping CPU power from SALLY - would be the way to go about enabling native Trak-Ball controller support by making it chiefly responsible for dealing with that controller. It's been said plenty of times that the 2600 version and both A8 versions are far too CPU intense in the kernel to allow for native Trak-Ball support. It would be amusing to use one ARM as a "DPC+" for such a title while another ARM would serve up as a "HOKEY/POKEY" in single or multiple configurations.

 

Aside from SD Cart adapters, do we know if any hardware home brewers over in NES-land and Segaville are creating their own "mappers" and sound chips via ARMs and PICs?



#27 CPUWIZ OFFLINE  

CPUWIZ

    Commander

  • 32,931 posts
  • Cartridge Recycler
  • Location:SoCal

Posted Sun Apr 3, 2016 5:58 PM

You also need to understand that the way the DPC+ is designed now, could not work through the cartridge audio input line, like the POKEY does.  It would simply be silly to go down that route, let Fred figure out the last couple of incompatibility issues and HOKEY will appear.  Perhaps not everyone works full time in real life.



#28 Lynxpro OFFLINE  

Lynxpro

    River Patroller

  • Topic Starter
  • 3,391 posts
  • Location:Sacramento, CA

Posted Mon Apr 4, 2016 7:58 AM

You also need to understand that the way the DPC+ is designed now, could not work through the cartridge audio input line, like the POKEY does.  It would simply be silly to go down that route, let Fred figure out the last couple of incompatibility issues and HOKEY will appear.  Perhaps not everyone works full time in real life.

 

But if DPC audio could travel down the input line, would it sound better than POKEY? Is the DPC's sound quality "issues" solely attributed to how it inputs the audio into the 2600 due to the 2600's cartridge port not having such a line present? If it's just the chip itself, that would be kinda sad considering it was designed, what, 4 years after POKEY? Then again, SID was about 3 years after POKEY.



#29 phoenixdownita OFFLINE  

phoenixdownita

    River Patroller

  • 2,825 posts

Posted Mon Apr 4, 2016 10:14 AM

 

But if DPC audio could travel down the input line, would it sound better than POKEY? Is the DPC's sound quality "issues" solely attributed to how it inputs the audio into the 2600 due to the 2600's cartridge port not having such a line present? If it's just the chip itself, that would be kinda sad considering it was designed, what, 4 years after POKEY? Then again, SID was about 3 years after POKEY.

The way I understand it the DPC acts as an Amplitude Modulator for the TIA, as such without a TIA to actually pump the audio there's no "if the DPC audio could travel ....".

But I may be wrong so let's wait for the experts to reply.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: 7800, Homebrew, DPC, DPC+, POKEY, HOKEY

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users