Tyrant

I will be buying one from Nick H as soon as he starts selling them (even $40 shipping is more than I can justify). Thanks so much for getting this released Carl, like everyone else, I've been waiting a long time to play this one.

Excellent news. When can we order them?

I'm impressed you found one at all. They're very hard to come by in the 24 pin (2x12) variety, as evidenced by the way digikey list almost 2000 different types, but only have stock of that one, and then only a thousand of them left (and I doubt they'll replace them when they run out). It is a lot easier to find 26 (2x13) pin connectors though, and then with the addition of a small bit of plastic shoved in the hole you have a stable fit; and (in my case at least) the edge of the jaguar case means that the plug will only connect one way round, making sure I don't plug it in the wrong way.

Yeah it seems quite clear to me that it's "Jaguar CD", not least because that's what the game was always talked about being written for.

You can play Worms with 4 players but you need 1 Controller Or the MultiTap adaptor by Steven Moss. Looks a bit like a TeamTap, but designed specifically for Worms and only worms. Lets each player have their own controller even though the game only supports hotseat mode.

Also on the subject of fonts, various games and most example programs shipped with the dev kit make use of the Atari ST 8x8 bitmap font, so I thought I'd throw that into the mix too. One thing I've always loved about this font is the inclusion of the subgenius, spread over 4 characters in the nonprinting section.

Actually with UDP hole punching it's actually easier to establish a direct connection via UDP than TCP. Only the most paranoid of corporate sysadmins totally firewall off UDP, and due to the way it's a stateless protocol, it's possible to punch holes in firewalls and NAT tables to provide direct connections even when both sides are firewalled.

CJ I agree wholeheartedly except for one thing. A bus mouse plugged in would report horizontal movement in a way that is identical to rotary input. You'd probably lack a sufficient number of buttons, and it would probably be rather sensitive, as mice tend to use more pulses per revolution and a lot more revolutions per inch or work, but the method is the same.

I would like to agree, but I've been here too long and seen too many divisions and flamewars.

Exactly, T2k, as the only game that supports them so far, defined the standard, and the published material can be safely ignored. Also CJ, as well as a keypad button to toggle it, throw in one simple extra check please: when parsing joypad input, if you ever detect both left and right pressed at the same time, switch to rotary input. You can do that only on the menu to be safe, but it's a pretty reliable method of auto-detecting rotaries, as it shows up 1/4 of the time, and people will twist the knob to try see if it works before they look for an enable button.

Afaik T2k doesn't auto-detect anyway, even with the C2/C3 bits set correctly. I know for a fact it doesn't support the techref rotary (which uses teamtap port B) as I've grepped my way through it's source. I didn't see any auto-detection either, although Yak says he thought he had put some in. Also it's really not very hard for other games to detect rotaries by looking to see if both left and right are ever pressed at the same time, and most rotaries don't use the C2/C3 identifiers anyway.

Hooooooooooooly crap man! Well done.

That does indeed look pretty cool but your camerawork makes it unwatchable. Get yourself an easycap usb stick, only about £5 from ebay including postage, it'll do a much better job than a mobile phone held up (shakily) to a tv.

The header is there as a security measure to ensure Atari got paid royalties for each title released on the system. It consists of a cryptographic hash of the cartridge contents. A retail Jaguar won't boot without the header being in place and valid. There is a universal header you can use to replace it, if, for some reason, the rom image you're trying to burn doesn't have it's original header.

Finally had a chance to play this today. Excellent release, nice work guys. It's more than a little addictive, despite it's simplicity (or maybe because of it?) Anyway I got a fairly decent score. At first I was gutted when I hit the bottom (those red shoe levels are haaard), but then I saw the score, and I'm quite happy to be branded a leet one

You'll want to use an Atari tool by the name of ROMSPLIT, but I'm afraid I don't know where you can find it. It's not something I've had need of.

There's an interview with Carmak somewhere in which he says that they started off just porting the entire thing onto the 68k, with just enough extra code to get the graphics and sound working. It ran incredibly slowly, of course, but then they would compile and test one routine at a time for the riscs until they got it running at a reasonable speed.

Fascinating, thanks kskunk.

Gah! The attribution of that extract failed to show up, it should have been attibuted to http://www.princeton.edu/~refdesk/primary2.html Make that quad-post... maybe the edit button isn't so bad after all?

One last thing: You really seem not to understand what counts as a source. Citing your sources is not about "giving credit", but about gaining credibility, something you seem to be entirely lacking in. Note how in the extract above, I included the url I obtained it from? Also note how it is from a rather prestigious american university? Sure it happened to be the first hit google returned, and sure anyone can find out more about what constitutes a reliable source, as opposed to hearsay, but do you note that when given the context from whence the information comes, it gives it a more authoritative tone? The link Agent X posted earlier is a historical record, and as such must be considered fairly authoritative. While it confirms the date you said, the important part is not the date, but the authoritative proof of that date. P.S. Yes I know there is an edit button, which would avoid me having to tripple-post, but since the subject at hand concerns historical records, it seems bad form to amend the records of my own words.

Replying to edited bits: As Sauron just said, it's not that I personally don't trust your dates, (as it happens, I did trust them until you started ranting at me, now I'm not so sure), it's that any fact, be it about Jaguar history or world history, science, engineering, knitting, whatever. Any fact is only useful if someone else, maybe in ten or twenty years time, can come along and say "This is true, and I know that it's true because ...." What your timeline is, is you looking at the historical evidence, and saying "This is true", and when someone asks "how do you know that?" you start going on a rant saying that they are "just going to have to trust you" because you are "a long time forum member". Well sorry, but that doesn't exactly cut it in most circles.

Try taking that attitude to wikipedia and see how far it gets you, or better yet, go to college/university and try it on there. Also (although I'm not sure why I'm still talking to you), for your information I did search, repeatedly, and after two days of finding nothing I came here to ask, because I knew AA to be full of helpful, knowledgeable, and above all friendly people.

That is worth loads to me. Have yourself a rep point and the promise of a cookie (or a beer) if I ever meet you in person. Thank you!

Right, like you think I just fucking lied about all these dates? Don't you notice how some dates are exact and some are not? These dates all came from official sources. Give me a break, it was enough work just finding this information... I am not a liar, you are just going to have to trust me. Really your comment is quite pathetic when all I tried to do was help you in your little search... And I put together the timeline for everyone's enjoyment and it did take quite awhile, so thanks for giving me absolutely no appreciation / benefit of the doubt and insulting me / calling me a liar at the same time. FFS Man! I did not in any way call you a liar or imply you were wrong, just, as Sauron pointed out, said that I can't verify your facts, and, since I'm trying to write an academic paper on the Jaguar and its history, verifiable facts are something of a necessity. You really need to chill the fuck out. Any hope you had of people taking your "research" seriously will disappear in an instant when you start making wild rants at the first hint of professional scrutiny. If you still have your notes from that "research" (I put it in quotes since any researcher worth his title would know the importance of citing sources), I would strongly urge you to go back, verify your sources, and then cite them, otherwise your timeline is only useful as a rough estimation of a guide, or in other words, as vague as asking the residents of an old-folks home what they remember about history.

I know I've got my receipt from Kay*Bee around here somewhere That wouldn't show a release date anyway. Documenting the source of knowledge is just as important as the knowledge itself, it lends credibility to your claims and reduces the potential for arguments.