Jump to content

Photo

Joystick Port interfacing - TI BASIC & CONSOLE ONLY


40 replies to this topic

#26 Stuart OFFLINE  

Stuart

    Dragonstomper

  • 666 posts
  • Location:Southampton, UK

Posted Sat Jun 3, 2017 2:25 PM

If you really are just limiting yourself to the joystick port and TI BASIC, I would think that any mouse (whatever the interface/protocol) would have such jittery movement that it would be impossible (or very annoying) to use. Any 'modern' mouse has a resolution of probably 200 dpi or more, and BASIC trying to read and decode the protocol at any sensible mouse movement speed just isn't going to happen. If you're working in assembly however you can get a reasonable response ... http://www.stuartcon...ng_serial_mouse.


  • RXB likes this

#27 RXB OFFLINE  

RXB

    River Patroller

  • 2,646 posts
  • Location:Vancouver, Washington, USA

Posted Sat Jun 3, 2017 10:41 PM

If CALL IO is that versatile then could it be used to decode the PS/2 protocol? So much easier than re-inventing the wheel (mouse) and we get a full keyboard too so no conflict with the internal keyboard.

That said, the reason all peripherals have their own DSR etc. is to avoid using console memory in which case I stand by my suggestion of using the side bus port.

Mean-while let us see who spots that I typed 9902 instead of 9901 and we can nominate them as they obviously know a thing or two. ;)

Actually yea it would help. As the IO (Input/Output chip) gives you direct access to the CRU lines on keyboard that also are tied to the joystick port.

 

If you are using CALL IO to scan for inputs then when you use the joysticks it should return values into A and B variables as I demonstrated.

 

This video is using RXB and talking to devices with RXB CALL IO



#28 Sinphaltimus OFFLINE  

Sinphaltimus

    Stargunner

  • 1,780 posts
  • Distracted at the Keyboard
  • Location:Poconos, PA

Posted Sun Jun 4, 2017 6:45 AM

This is off topic but I need to know and I think you know the answer.

Joystick port on console. Pins 2 and 7 are output the rest are input. Is that true? I'm trying to figure out what direction to install diodes on all lines except 2 and 7. Thanks for your help.

Edited by Sinphaltimus, Sun Jun 4, 2017 6:46 AM.


#29 Meddler OFFLINE  

Meddler

    Star Raider

  • Topic Starter
  • 54 posts

Posted Sun Jun 4, 2017 10:54 AM

This is off topic but I need to know and I think you know the answer.

Joystick port on console. Pins 2 and 7 are output the rest are input. Is that true? I'm trying to figure out what direction to install diodes on all lines except 2 and 7. Thanks for your help.

All keyboard inputs (i.e including Joystick) are held 'high' by 10K resistor to +5v and are strobed 'low' to activate therefore anode to inputs -I>I-+ cathode to output.



#30 Meddler OFFLINE  

Meddler

    Star Raider

  • Topic Starter
  • 54 posts

Posted Sun Jun 4, 2017 11:19 AM

If you really are just limiting yourself to the joystick port and TI BASIC, I would think that any mouse (whatever the interface/protocol) would have such jittery movement that it would be impossible (or very annoying) to use. Any 'modern' mouse has a resolution of probably 200 dpi or more, and BASIC trying to read and decode the protocol at any sensible mouse movement speed just isn't going to happen. If you're working in assembly however you can get a reasonable response ... http://www.stuartcon...ng_serial_mouse.

I agree that a proper interface makes more sense (joystick port mouse not my idea, btw) but the 200dpi of the "mouse" is not relevant as that is the resolution of the "mouse" not the screen i.e scaling would be required to suit any particular screen resolution and you are also right in that to get smooth(ish) movement would require direct drive at bitmap level. Not a difficult task really, hence my question to/on RXB.

Limited to the Joystick port and BASIC means that you might as well use the joystick as a mouse using the existing methods, jumping one square at a time.

Using XB ACCEPT AT & DISPLAY AT provides more realistic "mouse" operation but we are now getting far beyond the initial scope of the post.


Edited by Meddler, Sun Jun 4, 2017 11:25 AM.


#31 RXB OFFLINE  

RXB

    River Patroller

  • 2,646 posts
  • Location:Vancouver, Washington, USA

Posted Sun Jun 4, 2017 9:28 PM

I agree that a proper interface makes more sense (joystick port mouse not my idea, btw) but the 200dpi of the "mouse" is not relevant as that is the resolution of the "mouse" not the screen i.e scaling would be required to suit any particular screen resolution and you are also right in that to get smooth(ish) movement would require direct drive at bitmap level. Not a difficult task really, hence my question to/on RXB.

Limited to the Joystick port and BASIC means that you might as well use the joystick as a mouse using the existing methods, jumping one square at a time.

Using XB ACCEPT AT & DISPLAY AT provides more realistic "mouse" operation but we are now getting far beyond the initial scope of the post.

Ok first off RXB is NOT BASIC, it is a UPGRADED version of Extended Basic.

 

Secondly it would use a Spite for a mouse CURSOR.

 

Thrid RXB has CALL IO that allows direct access to the 9901 Input/Output CRU chip.

 

I have no idea why you think we need to jump one character at a time on screen when we can use auto motion sprites.



#32 Meddler OFFLINE  

Meddler

    Star Raider

  • Topic Starter
  • 54 posts

Posted Mon Jun 5, 2017 12:29 PM

...

 

I have no idea why you think we need to jump one character at a time on screen when we can use auto motion sprites.

 

That would be because Sprites are not available to TI BASIC & CONSOLE ONLY users

which is the challenge of this post so, unless RXB can be loaded to a basic console then your comments have no place on this thread.



#33 RXB OFFLINE  

RXB

    River Patroller

  • 2,646 posts
  • Location:Vancouver, Washington, USA

Posted Mon Jun 5, 2017 4:11 PM

 

That would be because Sprites are not available to TI BASIC & CONSOLE ONLY users

which is the challenge of this post so, unless RXB can be loaded to a basic console then your comments have no place on this thread.

Why can't you put a RXB Cartridge into the Cartridge Slot? 

(You do not need a 32K to use RXB)

 

Why would you even want to use TI Basic and RXB can run TI Basic programs already and faster?

 

This strikes me like asking figure out how to make your car drive on 3 wheels when what is the point?

 

Is this some kind of silly challenge that has zero value?


Edited by RXB, Mon Jun 5, 2017 4:12 PM.


#34 Meddler OFFLINE  

Meddler

    Star Raider

  • Topic Starter
  • 54 posts

Posted Wed Jun 7, 2017 1:06 PM

If you really are just limiting yourself to the joystick port and TI BASIC, I would think that any mouse (whatever the interface/protocol) would have such jittery movement that it would be impossible (or very annoying) to use. ...

Hi, I found this, same video chip:

http://atariage.com/...ll#entry2616436

 

There is nothing new under the Sun!!



#35 senior_falcon OFFLINE  

senior_falcon

    Dragonstomper

  • 855 posts
  • Location:Lansing, NY, USA

Posted Fri Jun 9, 2017 8:05 AM

Why can't you put a RXB Cartridge into the Cartridge Slot? 

(You do not need a 32K to use RXB)

 

Why would you even want to use TI Basic and RXB can run TI Basic programs already and faster?

 

This strikes me like asking figure out how to make your car drive on 3 wheels when what is the point?

 

Is this some kind of silly challenge that has zero value?

Why would anyone use a TI99 these days?  My desktop computer was in the trash when I rescued it.  It is 1000 to 1,000,000 times more powerful than the TI99 and cost nothing. 

Of course, everyone here has a different reason for using the TI.  Nostalgia is a factor for many of us.  For most of us it is the challenge of doing something useful with a computer design that is 36+ years old.  This takes many forms.  Some people like to extend the hardware limitations (SAMS, F18A, HRD etc.)  Some, like me, take a middle ground, using only XB, a disk drive and 32K.  Others like to see what can be done using the simplest system possible - a bare console and a tape drive.  Since this whole hobby is a colossal waste of time anyway, what is wrong with working with  such a simple system?


Edited by senior_falcon, Fri Jun 9, 2017 8:05 AM.


#36 --- Ω --- OFFLINE  

--- Ω ---

    --- Ω ---

  • 10,180 posts
  • TI-99/4A Fanatic
  • Location:In the den playing with my FinalGROM 99!

Posted Fri Jun 9, 2017 8:11 AM

Why would anyone use a TI99 these days?  My desktop computer was in the trash when I rescued it.  It is 1000 to 1,000,000 times more powerful than the TI99 and cost nothing. 

Of course, everyone here has a different reason for using the TI.  Nostalgia is a factor for many of us.  For most of us it is the challenge of doing something useful with a computer design that is 36+ years old.  This takes many forms.  Some people like to extend the hardware limitations (SAMS, F18A, HRD etc.)  Some, like me, take a middle ground, using only XB, a disk drive and 32K.  Others like to see what can be done using the simplest system possible - a bare console and a tape drive.  Since this whole hobby is a colossal waste of time anyway, what is wrong with working with  such a simple system?

 

Very well said.  There is no right or wrong way to use a TI... just as long is it gets used!

But... by definition a hobby is something enjoyable done in one's free time, so if it's enjoyable how can it be a colossal waste of time?  



#37 Vorticon OFFLINE  

Vorticon

    River Patroller

  • 2,670 posts
  • Location:Eagan, MN, USA

Posted Fri Jun 9, 2017 9:27 AM

All hobbies are by definition a waste of productive time. Fortunately, we all need to indulge in them because life is no fun when it's all work and no play!



#38 senior_falcon OFFLINE  

senior_falcon

    Dragonstomper

  • 855 posts
  • Location:Lansing, NY, USA

Posted Fri Jun 9, 2017 9:44 AM

Amen!  I remember reading in a telescope making book many years ago that the purpose of a hobby was "to kill time, to murder it, slaughter it wholesale."  I guess I've done my share of that!



#39 Vorticon OFFLINE  

Vorticon

    River Patroller

  • 2,670 posts
  • Location:Eagan, MN, USA

Posted Fri Jun 9, 2017 10:56 AM

Amen!  I remember reading in a telescope making book many years ago that the purpose of a hobby was "to kill time, to murder it, slaughter it wholesale."  I guess I've done my share of that!

 

Indeed  :lolblue:



#40 digdugnate OFFLINE  

digdugnate

    Moonsweeper

  • 377 posts
  • Location:SW Missouri

Posted Fri Jun 9, 2017 11:09 AM

Why would anyone use a TI99 these days?  My desktop computer was in the trash when I rescued it.  It is 1000 to 1,000,000 times more powerful than the TI99 and cost nothing. 

Of course, everyone here has a different reason for using the TI.  Nostalgia is a factor for many of us.  For most of us it is the challenge of doing something useful with a computer design that is 36+ years old.  This takes many forms.  Some people like to extend the hardware limitations (SAMS, F18A, HRD etc.)  Some, like me, take a middle ground, using only XB, a disk drive and 32K.  Others like to see what can be done using the simplest system possible - a bare console and a tape drive.  Since this whole hobby is a colossal waste of time anyway, what is wrong with working with  such a simple system?

Mine is because there's just *something* about having 35+ year old technology connected and still working, and able to do things (even if they're not fancy).  My wife agrees if I spend my mid-life crisis dorking around with my TI, she's fine with seeing the Paypal charges periodically on our bank statement. ;)

 

Physically using it appeals to the 'tactile' part of my personality, and collecting carts/disks appeals to my 'completionist' nature.  :)  

 

I was teaching myself Assembler, but I've put that on hold until I can get through some stuff that's occupying my time for work (studying for CCNA)



#41 RXB OFFLINE  

RXB

    River Patroller

  • 2,646 posts
  • Location:Vancouver, Washington, USA

Posted Fri Jun 9, 2017 12:07 PM

Why would anyone use a TI99 these days?  My desktop computer was in the trash when I rescued it.  It is 1000 to 1,000,000 times more powerful than the TI99 and cost nothing. 

Of course, everyone here has a different reason for using the TI.  Nostalgia is a factor for many of us.  For most of us it is the challenge of doing something useful with a computer design that is 36+ years old.  This takes many forms.  Some people like to extend the hardware limitations (SAMS, F18A, HRD etc.)  Some, like me, take a middle ground, using only XB, a disk drive and 32K.  Others like to see what can be done using the simplest system possible - a bare console and a tape drive.  Since this whole hobby is a colossal waste of time anyway, what is wrong with working with  such a simple system?

1. You have NO SUPPORT FOR SPRITES IN TI BASIC....NONE! (XB and Assembly does have support for Sprites.)

2. You have NO SUPPORT FOR ASSEMBLY IN TI BASIC....NONE! (Unless you put in a cartridge or device to do that.)

 

I am only pointing out the obvious factors in limitation of console only joystick support.

Unless you are talking major hardware and software modifications.

 

But then that ignores the original post does it not?


Edited by RXB, Fri Jun 9, 2017 12:09 PM.





0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users