SDrive 8.3 characters limited on-screen loader

[+Philsan]

Compared to other loading devices, all SDrive based solutions have a limited on-screen loader.

They display 8.3 characters filenames, apart the one selected.

 

Considered the fact that at the moment the newer SDrive device (SDrive Max) seems to sell a lot (especially on Facebook) and another SDrive2 will come out, would it be possible to redesign the loader to allow long filenames?

 

Examples:

 

SDrive

 

SIO2SD

 

AVGCart

 

SIDE2 (selected filename is not clear because it bounces to show full lenght)

[JR>]

Control-L will turn on long filenames in the sdrive loader.

[+Philsan]

Control-L will turn on long filenames in the sdrive loader.

I know, thanks, but selected file only (see photo).

[+CharlieChaplin]

Hehe,

 

I am creating ATR images with SIO2PC.exe (V4.21) on my MS-DOS PC for more than 20 years now. * So all my ATR images do have 8.3 file format, no matter if AVG, SIO2SD and others can display more chars. You have to be a little creative with filenames then (and don't use TOSEC filenames, which I do not like anyways)... and avoid the tilde!

 

* not one machine running for more than 20 years, instead a single core PC that was replaced with another one whenever it became faulty; last one was a 2 Ghz PC, currently running is a 1.5 Ghz PC (MS-DOS and WIN 3.11 boot quite fast)...

 

AD2044A.ATR

AD2044B.ATR

AE_V1.ATR

AE_V2.ATR

A_I_S_A.ATR

A_I_S_B.ATR

ABRACAD.ATR

ACEACES1.ATR

ACEACES2.ATR

ACTBIKER.ATR

ADAX.ATR

ADV01A.ATR

ADV01B.ATR

ADV02A.ATR

ADV02B.ATR

ADV03A.ATR

ADV03B.ATR

etc.

 

I have ATR images and XEX files in separate folders and rarely have more than 2 versions of one and the same program (unlike atarionline, which has 5 or more versions of almost every program). If there are several versions of a program, I shortly test them and keep only the one I like best... But this does not help you with your problem and renaming thousands of files to a proper 8.3 filename is most likely too much work for you, so a firmware update of the SDrive firmware to allow for long(er) filenames would be easier I guess... :-)

[+Philsan]

Thanks Andreas.

It's not a problem of mine, as I have plenty of loading devices (the photos are mine).

Moreover, I use the cheap SIO2PC-USB, because I have all the files in one place, for Atari and Altirra, and I update them often.

My filenames are not from Tosec, I selected and renamed them for years.

 

However, I think that a redesigned loader for SDrive would be a good idea, all other loading devices don't have the 8.3 filename format.

[Faicuai]

Compared to other loading devices, all SDrive based solutions have a limited on-screen loader.

They display 8.3 characters filenames, apart the one selected.

 

Considered the fact that at the moment the newer SDrive device (SDrive Max) seems to sell a lot (especially on Facebook) and another SDrive2 will come out, would it be possible to redesign the loader to allow long filenames?

 

Examples:

 

SDrive

SDrive.jpg

 

SIO2SD

SIO2SD.jpg

 

AVGCart

AVGCart.jpg

 

SIDE2 (selected filename is not clear because it bounces to show full lenght)

Side2 1.jpg

 

Strange, but... looking at your monitor visible area.... Have you tweaked it?

 

It is cutting you off a substantial amount of visible area (and I mean quite a good chunk.. in NTSC terms, you are probably showing about 220 vertical lines, per my estimation, out of the 240 available, and large horizontal chunks cut out on the left and right sides.... but you are in PAL mode, with even MORE vertical resolution available...)

 

As for long-file names, SDrive loader is about coherency and spatial organization, in a small and restrictive 40-col screen area (bottom line does show full name, if you enable it). Yes, the other loaders show many more full names at once, but look like pretty much a mess, where order and structure are more of an afterthought.

 

Just my 0,02c, though.

[Gavin1968]

I don't know, maybe I am just old school, but file names were limited to 8.3 back then and I kind of like keeping it that way since that was the way it was. I have never seen the issue with this myself on these old devices. I can understand some people wanting to use long file names, but there us just something nostalgic about it in my opinion. But you know what they say about opinions

 

I will pose the question on Github if no one else has.

 

Cheers,

Gavin

[Rybags]

Don't know why they didn't go full length names - that other info isn't critical and could easily fit into a line or two of it's own.

 

Fairly sure all the SIO type devices use a special command to get the FAT32 directory entries and that the 8.3 names are contrived by the loader itself.

 

Another oddity - strange nobody has made a "short characters" loader to allow more names to be displayed although that'd mean using DLIs and custom charsets which would add overhead and mean having to blank the screen during IO.

[pseudografx]

The reason for this is because reading the full FAT32 filenames would take quite a long time in directories with many files due to the way they are stored in the filesystem.

[TheMontezuma]

Even SIO2SD has file/directory length restrictions (up to 39 characters).

 

Since atarionline.pl uses TOSEC naming convention, the archive with the game collection can not be used with SIO2SD anymore...

I switched to Homesoft, where long names are slightly shorter, but still too long for SDRIVE.

 

Perhaps somebody could write a TOSEC parser tool for stripping down unnecessary info from the long file names, although 8+3 could still be not enough for a meaningful name...

Edited May 28, 2019 by TheMontezuma

[Mr Robot]

Given that all these devices all display on an atari screen, getting the filenames to ~35 chars sounds like a good idea.

 

All the examples so far given, and the Ultimate cart, which hasn't been mentioned so far that support long file names only display ~35 chars and then either truncate or scroll the rest.

 

A lot can be done with redundant data, space is cheap now, you can have the same file stored in multiple places.

 

My Ultimate cart image for instance has a folder for years, one for publishers, one for title alpha, one for genre. Every file in on the SD cart at least four times, once in each folder tree. I further pull out cheats, vbxe, expanded memory, version, alternative controllers, multijoy etc. it doesn't matter that the file is repeated in some cases 5 or more times, it's just easy to find things that way. My 32GB card is still mostly empty

[flashjazzcat]

Strange, but... looking at your monitor visible area.... Have you tweaked it?

 

It is cutting you off a substantial amount of visible area (and I mean quite a good chunk.. in NTSC terms, you are probably showing about 220 vertical lines, per my estimation, out of the 240 available, and large horizontal chunks cut out on the left and right sides.... but you are in PAL mode, with even MORE vertical resolution available...)

Note that the SDrive and SIO2SD loaders (especially the latter) have few extra screen lines which make the display taller. He's not really missing anything at the left and right edge, either. Even the SIDE Loader has a taller than normal display (but designed not to overshoot the top and bottom on NTSC machines), and there's still some space at the top and bottom there.

 

As for long-file names, SDrive loader is about coherency and spatial organization, in a small and restrictive 40-col screen area (bottom line does show full name, if you enable it). Yes, the other loaders show many more full names at once, but look like pretty much a mess, where order and structure are more of an afterthought.

I can't really speak for the SIO2SD menu, but I can assure you that coherency, spatial organisation, order and structure were prime considerations during the design of the SIDE Loader, while the AVG Loader seems to me a good example of clarity and minimalist, functional design. Whether the result is to your taste or not, the SIDE Loader's UI took a long time to design, and is coherent in the sense that it shares the exact same user interface as the BIOS setup menu. The 10-line descender font was also used to prevent things looking too cramped. Good to know the time spent agonising over the spacing of various visual components was so wisely invested.

[+Philsan]

Thanks for all replies.

 

Nowadays all the files you use and download are not limited to 8.3 characters.

There's really no reason to limit filenames to 8.3 format considered the fact all other Atari loading devices support long filenames (I haven't mentioned Ultimate Cart because it doesn't load ATR and I don't have UNO Cart).

 

Kudos to Jon for his SIDE2 interface, with filenames middle part omitted to show last characters, selected filename scrolling and 10 pixels high fonts.

 

I think a minimalistic interface like AVGCart would be a good solution. You don't see it in the photo but when you select a floppy disk, a number appears near filename. Pressing the letters ABCDEF... you immediately load corresponding file, withous having to select it.

 

 

@Faicuai

My monitor is perfectly calibrated with Atari Control Picture:

Thanks to your question, this morning I examined my photos and I found SIO2SD uses more screen area than SDrive (and than other devices). Never noticed that.

Jon pointed it out that SIDE2 uses a little more space too.

 

@Marcin

I don't use TOSECs, I prefer too always updated and "clean" files from Homesoft together with files collected during the last 15 years. I renamed them one by one adding informations useful for me.

[Atari Nut]

This was brought up before in the SDrive-ARM thread. Someone said they were writing a new loader to show long names. I guess it never came to light.

[Faicuai]

Note that the SDrive and SIO2SD loaders (especially the latter) have few extra screen lines which make the display taller. He's not really missing anything at the left and right edge, either. Even the SIDE Loader has a taller than normal display (but designed not to overshoot the top and bottom on NTSC machines), and there's still some space at the top and bottom there.

 

I can't really speak for the SIO2SD menu, but I can assure you that coherency, spatial organisation, order and structure were prime considerations during the design of the SIDE Loader, while the AVG Loader seems to me a good example of clarity and minimalist, functional design. Whether the result is to your taste or not, the SIDE Loader's UI took a long time to design, and is coherent in the sense that it shares the exact same user interface as the BIOS setup menu. The 10-line descender font was also used to prevent things looking too cramped. Good to know the time spent agonising over the spacing of various visual components was so wisely invested.

 

Ok, so there seems to be a mind-spaghetti here, which I hope to clear up with better and crisper context:

1. My comments regarding SIO loaders related directly to those shown HERE, ON THIS THREAD, and nowhere else.
2. SIDE Loader is just fine. In fact, it is an example of how things SHOULD be done. However, I can't and I don't use it as a substitute of my Nuxx SDrive loader.
3. The visible screen-area comments originally considered use and application beyond mere Gr.0 / E: output (which seemed chopped on first SDrive picture, above, because its loader actually outputs 26 (twenty-six) lines of text. The bottom-line (for long-file names) is, in fact, a DOUBLE LINE, and it looked like it could barely show the second one, on Philsan's monitor screen-shot.
4. Now, beyond the SDrive Loader context and use (Gr.0 / E: visualization), that monitor is STILL chopping Atari's output on left and right (and by a good chunk), because titles like Mashed Turtles, Noise-compilation Demo, Amaurote-128, Pro-Copy 2.0, and several others WILL use almost the entire visible area, up-and-down, left-and-right (one way or another), well beyond the visible 90-degree marks shown by ACP in monitor's corners.

Hope it is clear, now...

Edited May 29, 2019 by Faicuai

[flashjazzcat]

1. Why do you believe that it not blatantly obvious to the reader?

2. What does the fact you can't or don't use my loader instead of the SDrive menu have to do with the fact you said the former looked a mess by comparison?

3. If you'd looked at the photo immediately below it, you'd have seen that the SDrive menu's last line can't possibly be truncated by the edge of the CRT.

4. Only wide playfield content and PMGs tend to present information outside of the normal horizontal space, which is the horizontal space which may logically considered the standard screen width.

 

I don't know what "mind spaghetti" is supposed to imply, but it comes across as patronising. Phil's happy with his calibration and I can see no particular problem with it. And if you think the SIDE loader is an example of 'how things should be done', saying it looks a mess compared to something else which does a very similar job probably isn't the best way to express that opinion.

Edited May 29, 2019 by flashjazzcat

[+Stephen]

I don't know what "mind spaghetti" is supposed to imply, but it comes across as patronising. Phil's happy with his calibration and I can see no particular problem with it. And if you think the SIDE loader is an example of 'how things should be done', saying it looks a mess compared to something else which does a very similar job probably isn't the best way to express that opinion.

Well, that particular monitor is not going through a thousand dollar scaler to a professional monitor either Not up to Faucui Standardz

[Faicuai]

1.

 

2. What does the fact you can't or don't use my loader instead of the SDrive menu have to do with the fact you said the former looked a mess by comparison?

 

 

That's the mind-pasta. It seems we are reading two different threads / stories. I could not see (anywhere) the connection between the SDrive loader (which does the very best it can with what it has, and is the one I spoke about) and your SIDE Loader observations (the ones you addressed to me, which I found pretty confusing, to say the least).

 

As for the perspective of the SDrive loader, the last line showed pretty tight, at least in comparison to what I see on this side, and that loader happens to be a tool that I use quite often. I happen to know it very, very well. I later will post some direct screen captures, and show them later, for present and future reference.

[Faicuai]

Well, that particular monitor is not going through a thousand dollar scaler to a professional monitor either Not up to Faucui Standardz

Pfftt!!! Viewsonic 930B: U.S,. $40 (from a very nice used office equipment supplier in Canada) and the DVDO iScan HD+ U.S, $90.00, on eEbay.

 

There's your thousand-dollars pro-gear, sir! But the funniest part of all is that you won't need ANY of that for the purpose of this discussion, because Altirra shows it verbatim, as well (and for free!)

Edited May 30, 2019 by Faicuai

[Faicuai]

Here:

 

Here's SDrive Loader main screen, shown at full bandwidth (light-gray edges are "masks" digitally inserted on the video-path so you can see where the visible area ends):

 

 

Next is exact same screen with Phil's viewable area (at least the LAST one he showed):

 

 

 

Here's the ACP screen shot, in same sequence:

 

 

 

 

And here's Mashed Turtles, as an example of use beyond showing 40-col. Characters (notice the substantial loss of area on the left and right sides which is what I referred to):

 

 

 

 

Should be very clear, by now.

[Faicuai]

That's the mind-pasta. It seems we are reading two different threads / stories. I could not see (anywhere) the connection between the SDrive loader (which does the very best it can with what it has, and is the one I spoke about) and your SIDE Loader observations (the ones you addressed to me, which I found pretty confusing, to say the least).

 

As for the perspective of the SDrive loader, the last line showed pretty tight, at least in comparison to what I see on this side, and that loader happens to be a tool that I use quite often. I happen to know it very, very well. I later will post some direct screen captures, and show them later, for present and future reference.

 

Took another full read of this whole thing, and now I see what's the fuss... There *IS* a SIDE-Loader picture in Phil's bunch that I never saw (had 150% magnification left on EDGE, on an un-docked laptop that normally runs hooked to a 52" 1080p screen, instead of its puny 720p small screen which is where it has been for a few days). Being unaware of it (until now !!!), I now better understand why you thought I had referred to it.

 

Was not even on my radar, though (screen scrolls in large chunks at 150% magnification). All good here !!!

[+Philsan]

Vertical monitor settings

As showed by Atari Control Picture photo, vertical monitor size is perfect. It shows 240 pixels and there's some software and a lot of Rastaconverter PAL images that use that amount of pixels.

 

Horizontal monitor settings

My monitor shows 336 pixels, like Altirra's Normal Ovescan Mode.

I think normal CRT TVs or monitors show that amount of pixels.

 

In fact, thanks to Faicuai I discovered that Mashed Turtles has a 352 pixels resolution! Altirra's Extended Overscan Mode.

 

Mashed Turtles 336 pixels

Mashed Turtles 352 pixels

 

I don't think that there's a lot of software that uses more than 336 pixels.

Therefore, if'll set my monitor to show 352 pixels I would never see that nice overscan effect (Mashed Turtles apart), one of A8 strenghts:

 

 

Most of the time my Atari would have big ugly borders like other contemporary machines.

 

Moreover, many times the graphics at the sides of the screen would not be nice:

That's because software is made to be viewed on screens with a 336 pixels viewable area.

[flashjazzcat]

Yes: this is the exact reason for Mytek's V-Gate device on the 1088XEL, which cuts off the garbage which sometimes appears at the perimeter of the display when using LCD monitors. One advantage of a CRT is that it's extremely easy to resize the picture by twisting a couple of dials.

[Faicuai]

Vertical monitor settings

As showed by Atari Control Picture photo, vertical monitor size is perfect. It shows 240 pixels and there's some software and a lot of Rastaconverter PAL images that use that amount of pixels.

 

Horizontal monitor settings

My monitor shows 336 pixels, like Altirra's Normal Ovescan Mode.

I think normal CRT TVs or monitors show that amount of pixels.

 

In fact, thanks to Faicuai I discovered that Mashed Turtles has a 352 pixels resolution! Altirra's Extended Overscan Mode.

 

Mashed Turtles 336 pixels

Mashed Turtles 336.png

Mashed Turtles 352 pixels

Mashed Turtles 352.png

 

I don't think that there's a lot of software that uses more than 336 pixels.

Therefore, if'll set my monitor to show 352 pixels I would never see that nice overscan effect (Mashed Turtles apart), one of A8 strenghts:

 

Thetris.jpg

 

Most of the time my Atari would have big ugly borders like other contemporary machines.

 

Moreover, many times the graphics at the sides of the screen would not be nice:

Ballblazer.png Rescue on Fractalus!.png

BC's.png Blue Max.png

That's because software is made to be viewed on screens with a 336 pixels viewable area.

 

Nice!

 

You would be surprised by the significant amount of titles (past ones) that actually move stuff ALL THE WAY to the Atari's video-output boundaries.

 

In any case, we are in 2019. Our tools have changed substantially. Because our systems were designed to be displayed in (ubiquitous) home TV-systems, we were unfortunately deprived and stuck to the significant limitations of such devices (even some older CRT monitors). The name of the game, here, is to be able to RECREATE our retro-computing experience WITHOUT being stuck to such deficiencies, or without having to port-them to our present time "because they were so in the past". Such thinking will invariable reduce the overall quality of our retro-experience, as I learned years ago, by first looking at many titles, and carefully watching their rendition on my LCDs, Sony CRTs, etc.

 

Therefore, the Atari's ENTIRE, COMPLETE, FULL video-signal is the starting point of the pipeline. There absolutely no need to chop, fiddle, limit or crop it at source, in ANY form or shape. If the PROGRAMMER decides to make full use of it, we pick it up. If he sets Antic to do less, we pick it up as such. What is needed is the flexibility to very quickly (and minimally ) post-process it on a digital-to-digital path (and with the touch of a button on your remote control), which will allow you to leave your Atari HW completely untouched, thus protecting the value of the equipment itself. It does not matter if your final rendition device is a LCD or CRT. That would not be the key point.

 

The images I posted are from a 1983 STOCK Atari 800, with NO video modifications of ANY kind, other than R189 to bring down the over-driven voltage-levels of its stock Y/C signal. That's about it. The rest is done on the digital video-path.

 

There are a good # of old and recent titles that REQUIRE you to display full video bandwidth, to enjoy them at their full potential. Keystone Kapers and Stealth are older examples were varying gfx data and objects are being moved across the ENTIRE width of the video signal, for instance. Even the famous SWAN demo, animates the flying sprite from edge-to-edge of the entire field! And there are more...

 

It's just that we had shitty TVs and older CRTs (back then) that pretty much butchered the machine's output. A good studio monitor (Sony PVM) should be able to do a much better job.

Edited May 30, 2019 by Faicuai

[flashjazzcat]

Set the display however you see fit. Chop off whatever you like. Mashed Turtles does not appear to be any more or less playable owing to the existence of graphics beyond the normal horizontal bounds. It's not as if one is missing any essential UI information. Displaying the full wide playfield would only be a 'requirement' if it was impossible to use the software without doing so. 'Enjoyment', on the other hand, is entirely subjective and one might enjoy things narrow just as one enjoys things wide if the individual finds a narrower crop more pleasing in the majority of situations. There's a reason why not one single example pictured on this page is unusable at a width of 336 pixels, while some show clear evidence of targeting a cropped display. How did we ever live in the 1980s and 90s without being able to appreciate all the crap at the edges of the screen?