Jump to content

ol.sc

Members
  • Content Count

    107
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ol.sc

  1. Both Dracarys variants (XE and XL) are pass-through PBI devices. They are both supposed to co-operate with other PBI devices (or carts in case of the XE).
  2. I thought this thread would be about a W5100-based cart. The W5100 offers TCP offloading for sure.
  3. @JoSch: There are several sources of information / sample code to get started. When the time has actually come and you have issues finding the relevant info let me know. @_The Doctor__: Even after reading your recent post several times carefully I still can't follow you :-( If you want feedback from my side you need to elaborate.
  4. Unfortunately it's not that simple. My statement "The question of implementing "PCLINK over Ethernet" is of course equally relevant to both upcoming Ethernet solutions." was a generic statement about a hypothetical software. IP65 isn't that software for (at least) two reasons: 1. The PCLINKoE software wants to be small by making use of the TCP/IP stack inside the W5100 chip. In contrast IP65 allows to use both the CS8900A chip of the existing Dragon Cart as well as the W5100 chip. The CS8900A doesn't have a TCP/IP stack so IP65 comes with its own TCP/IP stack (running in the ATARI RAM on the 6502). Even when actually working with a W5100 (in constrast to a CS8900A) IP65 doesn't make use of the TCP/IP stack inside the W5100 at all. Rather it uses the W5100 just as an Ethernet controller (like the CS8900A). 2. I don't see the IP65 that I provide support the Atari solution discussed in "the other" thread. You can read about the details in that thread. However to summarize: I asked about the technical details of "the other" solution necessary to support it several times and got no answer. I offered to commit to support "the other" solution with IP65 and Contiki if "they" commit to support the Dracarys with their software and got no answer. When adapting my W5100 driver code to the ATARI I had to make a choice to either have larger/slower code that could potentially support both W5100-based solutions or smaller/faster code only supporting the Dracarys. Guess which route I chose given my communication experience. By now my driver implementation is finalized so I'm by now not interested anymore in whatever whoever has to say about "the other" solution. Regards, Oliver
  5. Just to make sure there's no misunderstanding: The question of implementing "PCLINK over Ethernet" is of course equally relevant to both upcoming Ethernet solutions.
  6. You may want to check out http://atariage.com/forums/topic/287229-new-dragon-ethernet-cartridge-interest-check/?p=4204284 ff.
  7. To me the 8bit-Hub falls into a different category of network solutions. They offload the complete networking from the 6502 with their own micro controller. You can love them because they allow to do things otherwise simply impossible and because they make things way more easy. You you can hate them because they reduce your retro machine to a terminal (which you then can customize with e.g. a multiplayer game UI). Anyhow, the 8bit-Hub is for sure not the first solution of that kind: - The ESP-based "WiFi-modems". - For the C64: - The Coment (http://cometplus.net/) - The 1541 Ultimate (http://www.1541ultimate.net/) now that its network API was published (https://github.com/xlar54/ultimateii-dos-lib) Just my two cents, Oliver
  8. @flashjazzcat: Thanks for your detailed explanation - honestly! @Mr Robot: Thanks for trying to help, but there's no need for introduction - at least from my POV: flashjazzcat (Jon ?) has been there helping with answers in about every question thread I opened so far in this forum. I admire his work (been reading through the many pages of the thread on his GUI development) and appreciate his advice.
  9. Just deflecting responses like "Just give the hardware to someone who knows the A8 and isn't intent on making the hardware work in some absurd proprietary manner." What would you propose to do with insults like this instead?
  10. Yes, I'm indeed pissed off. Sorry if that wasn't obvious enough. And thanks in case you actually wanted to help.
  11. I don't know if it makes any sense to talk about technical details with you. Just trying... If you have one device requiring to be selected via $D1FF and being addressed via page $D1 and have another device "just" being addressed via page $D5 (?) than no software will out of the box work with both devices, will it? I certainly don't see an "absurd proprietary manner" in that. Apart from that I don't think your advice will work. E.g. several persons have shown interest in using an Ethernet device for playing http://8bit-slicks.com/- and I don't see if giving any hardware to "someone who knows the A8" will make that game automagically work with that hardware. But maybe I'm wrong - after all it's not that hard to grab my open source software and change it to work with another device. That's the difference between my software and other Reading the posts helps
  12. So with one week since my posts http://atariage.com/forums/topic/287229-new-dragon-ethernet-cartridge-interest-check/?p=4206370, http://atariage.com/forums/topic/287229-new-dragon-ethernet-cartridge-interest-check/?p=4206372 and http://atariage.com/forums/topic/287229-new-dragon-ethernet-cartridge-interest-check/?p=4206458 without any reaction whatsoever I see that I'm asked to come to the conclusion that no coordination and/or collaboration in order to foster software interoperability are wanted. So I'm doing as I'm asked for: My upcoming releases will only support the Dracarys. Thanks for clarifying this before I actually invested effort to do otherwise )
  13. It's in fact not that easy to find anymore these days. The Dragon Cart was built around the module "IP Dragon" from a very small company named "Invector Embedded Systems AB". Some traces: https://www.sparkfun.com/datasheets/IET/IET8900DOC_4.PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20060621205825/http://www.invector.se/iet8900.asp Some trivia: Glenn's Apple II Ethernet card "Uthernet" was built with the very same module. However, the module is mounted upside down on the base PCB. So what you read on the old page linked above... "Our production and design line is customized to be able to quickly adapt the production to meet your needs. We will customize the modules to whatever your needs are. Below is an example of a customer specified module with a slightly different connector layout." ...(and the picture below that text) was actually Glenn's Apple II project :-) Here's a picture of the complete Uthernet card showing the benefit of the unusual setup - which is to make it "flat" enough to not block the neighbor slot in the Apple II. BTW: I'm a bid proud to say that this setup was my idea...
  14. Oops, I forgot one aspect about the software: In the lack of great alternatives programs tend to set the Ethernet MAC to just some fixed value. All my programs do so. I suggest to use the same fixed value for all programs following that approach. All my programs use 00:08:DC:11:11:11 with the first three bytes being the OUI of WIZnet. Using the same addr avoids unnecessary duplicates in the DHCP server database and in general simplifies things for users. Regards, Oliver PS: I'm fully aware of the downsides of fixed MAC addrs. No need to discuss them here.
  15. Interesting thought. That would fall back on Glenn. He's following this thread so if he feels concerned he'll let me/us know...
  16. First of all thanks for the interest in the device(s) announced here :-) I've followed the naming discussion with interest. However, the name "Dragon Cart II" wasn't born out of lack for ideas for other names - as I explained in both threads in question. So there actually was no need to find a new name for the two device(s). Rather they will be named Dracarys. In case you're interested in the background see e.g. https://www.elitedaily.com/entertainment/daenerys-dracarys-game-of-thrones/2037837
  17. Given that we now know that Duddie's device is supposed to stay a cart device it's obviously too confusing to name the two non-cart devices "Dragon Cart II" I'll provide the new name for the PBI/ECI devices in the respective thread. Regarding Duddie's cart I'd personally ask to give it some name that's different from just "Dragon Cart" in one way or another in order to allow e.g. configuration programs to clearly differentiate between the original Dragon Cart and the new cart without having to resort to something like "Dragon Cart (2019)" or alike.
  18. @ZuluGula: First of all thanks for you detailed posting ! If "someone else" refers to Glenn and me then this isn't the case. We started our project totally independently. The idea of Glenn's and my project goes back to mid 2015 - see: http://atariage.com/forums/topic/241526-tcpip-offloading-with-the-wiznet-w5100/ Do you happen to know if "existing programs" refers to anything I mention in http://atariage.com/forums/topic/287376-preannouncement-dragon-cart-ii/?p=4203077 ? Thanks for providing this relevant information here :-) So it seems we can put on record that: * Duddie's project stays a cart device (about to change into a pass through cart). * Glenn's and my project is a set of two pass through devices, one PBI, one ECI. * Both projects are supposed to be continued regardless of the other existing. Nope. What do you consider "working software"? Working on the Atari? About all my software works on the Atari. Working with the W510? All my software works with the W5100. Working with Duddie's prototype? Surely not without knowledge, how/where the W5100 is mapped. I asked you about that 4 days ago without any response - see: http://atariage.com/forums/topic/287376-preannouncement-dragon-cart-ii/?do=findComment&comment=4203122 What do you refer to with "share with us"? All my software is open source. Conclusion from my POV: The Atari community can be happy to very likely be able to choose from three Ethernet devices soon: * Pass through cart * Pass through PBI * Pass through ECI All three device use the same W5100 Ethernet chip. This asks of course for software interoperability. I'm willing to commit to support with my software all three devices if the same commitment comes from the people coding primarily for the cart. I presume that the cart maps the four W5100 registers to four successive addresses in the $D5 page. I presume that those addresses are fixed as it is supposed to be hard enough in the first place to find four addresses providing a high compatibility with carts plugged into the pass through port. The PBI and ECI devices will have DIP switches to select the PBI device ID. Being activated by writing that device ID to $D1FF they will map the four W5100 registers to $D1F0-$D1F3 (at least until we learn that these addresses are a bad idea for some reason). I guess the coders in question know that they should set $0248 just before setting $D1FF. So the software needs to know the PBI device ID to access the PBI and ECI devices. We could even go so far to agree on a common way to tell it so the user doesn't need to to it for every software again. E.g. I could see a file named W5100.CFG. It would contain just a single byte. This byte would be either binary $0-$8 or ATASCII '0'-'8'. $0 / '0' would mean the cart while $1-$8 / '1'-'8' would mean the PBI device ID. Furthermore I'd like to point to https://github.com/a2retrosystems/uthernet2/wiki/W5100-Shared-Access All my software follows the convention for "the program". If the programs primarily written for the cart would follow that convention too then it would become possible to create a RAM-based OS-driver/handler that e.g. provides access to a network drive by following the convention for "the system" - and have that driver/handler use the W5100 simultaneously to the the program using the W5100. On the Apple II I demoed a HTTP download program saving the data to a file - and that file being located on a network drive. The W5100 serves both the HTTP download program as well as the network drive handler. I hope you agree that there's great potential in cooperstion here...
  19. So you want one of the two projects to stop? Which one? At least I do certainly know where the name came from. But with the artwork done on the shell of the original Dragon Cart this was already "abstracted away". So at least to me 'Dragon' has by now nothing to do anymore with the hardware used. I always felt that puppetmark didn't want to earn money, own the market or whatever. There are design files on the website inviting others to continue where he left off. My idea was to honor that attitude by carrying on with the name. I asked him before doing so. So much for the background. However, I understand that at the point we decided to go for a PBI/ECI device the name "Dragon Cart" wasn't exactly great anymore. But I still wanted to keep it for the reasons given above. By the time I noticed that there's another Ethernet project actually being a cart and - as far as I can tell - not having come up with any own name so far I of course knew it would cause confusion. So maybe it would be nice to get together. But I don't see the "other" producer represented here. Maybe he has a totally different naming idea. May he will decide to migrate from a cart to a PBI/ECI too. We don't know. And this brings me to an even more general aspect: Why is there no communication? Is it uncool, boring, old-school to talk to each other? I mean, from the translation of the http://www.atari.org.pl/thread I get that the decision for the W5100 was driven by the fact that there's W5100 support in Contiki and/or IP65. I've implemented that code. If I would have been him I'd contacted me long ago asking about adding "official" support for his upcoming device in my code. What will happen instead? Let me tell you: Users of 8bit-Slick will complain that the game isn't working with their nice new gadget. 8bit-Dude contacts me asking me to support it. I can't deny it because I like his work and want him to be successful. So I look up "somewhere" how the W5100 is mapped and implement "something". Me catching up with fulfilling expectations. Me the stupid guy nobody needs to talk to as I'll do whatever needs to be done anyhow? Do you have an idea how demotivated (aka fed up) I'm playing this game? Oliver
  20. Thanks :-) I asked Atari8bitCarts for the file of the original Dragon Cart. It turned out that the "full dragon" was the original design that then was replaced by the dragon head. So I simply cleanup up and transformed his original design...
  21. - "Dragon Bus" doesn't seem nice to me as the device isn't the bus, it uses the bus. - "Dragon Cart" (without any addition) doesn't seem a good idea for any W5100-based device as it's totally incompatible with the CS8900A-based 'Dragon Cart'. Thanks.
  22. According to my experience all Ethernet solution in question work like a charm with any stock "wireless bridge".
  23. I know And if I wouldn't I would have guessed )
  24. Nobody said anything different - apart from you
  25. Nope, the existing DHCP server in your network stops you from doing so! For sure, but only if they work. And BOOTP or DHCP doesn't work if there's an existing DHCP server that can't be configured!
×
×
  • Create New...