am1933 Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 In a clear case. Lee?! heheheheheh Or possibly a translucent blue case with a couple of bubbles in it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omega-TI Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Or possibly a translucent blue case with a couple of bubbles in it. Yeah, I'd still like to know who outbid me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Lee Stewart Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 In a clear case. Lee?! heheheheheh If you mean to suggest that I distribute my one-day-to-be-completed fbForth cartridge as a real cartridge in a clear case, that is certainly close to my plan. I do, indeed, plan on real cartridges for fbForth. The "clear" part will only depend on availability and price of cases when I get to the hardware part of this project. ...lee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omega-TI Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 If you mean to suggest that I distribute my one-day-to-be-completed fbForth cartridge as a real cartridge in a clear case, that is certainly close to my plan. I do, indeed, plan on real cartridges for fbForth. The "clear" part will only depend on availability and price of cases when I get to the hardware part of this project. ...lee About this... would it be possible to, add extra memory to this future cart (like on a Super Cart) and have fbForth be able to utilize it in addition to the memory already in the TI? If this new cart came delivered like this, it would be AWESOME! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
am1933 Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Yeah, I'd still like to know who outbid me. If it helps-it was definately not me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Lee Stewart Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 About this... would it be possible to, add extra memory to this future cart (like on a Super Cart) and have fbForth be able to utilize it in addition to the memory already in the TI? If this new cart came delivered like this, it would be AWESOME! Not so much. I would be using Jon Guidry's (@acadiel's) 64KB PCB, which has no provision for RAM. One reason for wanting to put fbForth on cartridge in the first place was to gain RAM for the user by hoisting the resident dictionary into ROM space, not to mention the convenience of booting directly into fbForth. This gains over 8KB of RAM. I will probably include SAMS mapping as per @Willsy's TurboForth; but' that'll probably be the extent of it. ...lee 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Ksarul Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Lee, would you want the Inverted 64K version that Jon's boards have or the 512K Non-Inverted version that I just recently put into the CAD program? The advantage of the latter is that it can also be burned into the 512K Uber-GROM carts once we get those working. Like Jon's cart, it uses a standard DIP EPROM and will work with everything from an 8K to a 512K EPROM. I'll know in a couple of weeks if they work like they're supposed to, as I have a small batch on order for testing. There are a lot of Jon's boards out there too, which is a plus for them (I like both types, but I had a wild hair last weekend and decided to modify the 512K inverted board I pictured in the cartridge thread last week to act as a contiguous 512K cart as opposed to 4 128K cartridges in a single case). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Lee Stewart Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Lee, would you want the Inverted 64K version that Jon's boards have or the 512K Non-Inverted version that I just recently put into the CAD program? The advantage of the latter is that it can also be burned into the 512K Uber-GROM carts once we get those working. Like Jon's cart, it uses a standard DIP EPROM and will work with everything from an 8K to a 512K EPROM. I'll know in a couple of weeks if they work like they're supposed to, as I have a small batch on order for testing. There are a lot of Jon's boards out there too, which is a plus for them (I like both types, but I had a wild hair last weekend and decided to modify the 512K inverted board I pictured in the cartridge thread last week to act as a contiguous 512K cart as opposed to 4 128K cartridges in a single case). I'm not sure it matters to me. I don't see fbForth needing more ROM than the 64K—it will likely not need more than 32K. I think I will write it first for the inverted version since I have a handful of the 64K boards with the 379s; but, it shouldn't be difficult to modify the trampoline code to run with the 378s. ...lee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unhuman Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 Noticed Road Hunter made this list: http://atariage.com/forums/topic/220326-what-have-you-actually-played-tracker-for-2014-season-7/page-7?do=findComment&comment=2940851 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OLD CS1 Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 Of course, Flappy Bird got a mention, too. http://atariage.com/forums/topic/220326-what-have-you-actually-played-tracker-for-2014-season-7/?p=2944957 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+acadiel Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 Lee, would you want the Inverted 64K version that Jon's boards have or the 512K Non-Inverted version that I just recently put into the CAD program? The advantage of the latter is that it can also be burned into the 512K Uber-GROM carts once we get those working. Like Jon's cart, it uses a standard DIP EPROM and will work with everything from an 8K to a 512K EPROM. I'll know in a couple of weeks if they work like they're supposed to, as I have a small batch on order for testing. There are a lot of Jon's boards out there too, which is a plus for them (I like both types, but I had a wild hair last weekend and decided to modify the 512K inverted board I pictured in the cartridge thread last week to act as a contiguous 512K cart as opposed to 4 128K cartridges in a single case). I'm sure that we can probably hack together a program very easily that can take a >=16K ROM image and flip the 8K banks. We can call it "The deinverter" LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+acadiel Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 This game reminded me of Bump and Jump, Rasmus. Hehe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omega-TI Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 ...or the 512K Non-Inverted version that I just recently put into the CAD program? I'm curious, will this new layout facilitate the inclusion of an 8K RAM chip and a space to mount a CR2032 battery holder with one or two other tiny discrete components? If this design were able to house a SuperCart with all the other goodies, it would be the "Cartridge of Century" (IMHO) HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT ;: HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Ksarul Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 The biggest problem with doing that is space, Kevan. If you're running a board with the Atmel, you have to deal with a 40-pin chip, and that eats up almost half of the board. Add another DIP chip for the memory and you have pretty much no real estate left to run the necessary traces to connect everything together. It would be extremely difficult in a TI cartridge case. It might be doable on a ROMOX ECPC footprint though--but cases for those are a bit more difficult than TI cases. I've been toying with the idea of doing a new version of a ROMOX-like modified case though, as it will facilitate some other ideas I have. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omega-TI Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 (edited) The biggest problem with doing that is space, Kevan. If you're running a board with the Atmel, you have to deal with a 40-pin chip, and that eats up almost half of the board. Add another DIP chip for the memory and you have pretty much no real estate left to run the necessary traces to connect everything together. It would be extremely difficult in a TI cartridge case. It might be doable on a ROMOX ECPC footprint though--but cases for those are a bit more difficult than TI cases. I've been toying with the idea of doing a new version of a ROMOX-like modified case though, as it will facilitate some other ideas I have. Thanks for the reply. I understand about things being tight, I guess that is just a reality of life (for now). You guys know me though, I'm always dreaming about the next thing to keep my interest level up. Who knows, maybe someone will design a modified case and print one out on a 3D printer as a master that can be used to make a mold for the next generation of TI projects. I'm thinking that time is near. Since you guys are always amazing me with the stuff you think up, design and build, I'm also optimistic that a proper case/cartridge will come to pass. Once that case becomes a reality, I'm sure you guys will figure out a way 'fill it up' Build it, and they (the designers) will come! On a side note, that program you guys use to design PCB's, will it handle multi-level designs? In the next generation/evolution would you rather build up (stacked) for a fatter cartridge, or would you prefer to just make longer boards? EDIT: Taking this to a new thread (sorry to pollute this one) Edited April 3, 2014 by --- Ω --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertLM78 Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Finally testing this out on the RI - superb work!!! :thumbsup: I think all the best new games are coming from Rasmus Games™ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertLM78 Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 (edited) So, getting back to this again this evening - this is a frickin' great game - and highly addictive! I was just to the end of the 3rd track when I died - but my Hi was 13715 points . Edit - well I just nearly doubled that Hi - now I have 25715 Edited April 4, 2014 by RobertLM78 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omega-TI Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Hey guys, I was browsing old message threads today, trying to build up my declining interest and this message grabbed my attention; hey guys, i'm having a blonde moment. i can't load this game with the xb cart, i have to use the ea cart. is there an ea3 loader for xb? As far as I'm aware, and I could very well be ignorant of alternatives, the E/A module is the ONLY way to load an E/A 3 file right? Everyone knows E/A5's can be loaded through XB, but I've never seen a E/A3 loader. Is there a reason for this? Is it GROM related or am I missing something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asmusr Posted April 4, 2014 Author Share Posted April 4, 2014 The TI Workshop cartridge (available in Classic99) has an E/A#3 loader. This is a ROM cartridge only - I have even made one. Have you tried making your own cartridges? It's really easy and great fun to see them work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senior_falcon Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Funnelweb can load both EA5 and EA3 out of XB. It was meant as a universal loader program regardless of the cart that was in the slot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Lee Stewart Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Hey guys, I was browsing old message threads today, trying to build up my declining interest and this message grabbed my attention; As far as I'm aware, and I could very well be ignorant of alternatives, the E/A module is the ONLY way to load an E/A 3 file right? Everyone knows E/A5's can be loaded through XB, but I've never seen a E/A3 loader. Is there a reason for this? Is it GROM related or am I missing something. The reason that E/A5 programs can be easily loaded by the XB loader is that they are memory images and are simply placed where the image data tells the loader to place them. The XB loader can, indeed, load E/A3 programs, but there are limitations. ALC programs can be written to be loaded by both loaders, but they usually are not. The XB loader does not allow external references, so all utility references like VMBR, SOUND or SPCHRD must be explicitly specified. It does not allow automatic starting via an entry point on the END instruction. Any relocatable program will start loading in low memory, whereas the E/A loader starts in high memory. Absolute code can be made to load where you want by either loader. Another problem that must be managed by the ALC author is the different locations of the utilities and utility vectors unless s/he is loading a copy of the E/A utilities in the expected places. One E/A utility (convert integer to floating point) is missing from the low-mem utilities because XB has its own version, which to my knowledge is unavailable to the ALC programmer without more work. There are other gotchas like no compressed object code allowed by the XB loader. There is evidence in the ALC of TI Forth's boot program (FORTH) that the TI Forth programmers intended to make TI Forth loadable by XB. It was ultimately released into the public domain without that possibility. So...loading E/A3 programs with the XB loader is certainly possible, but it ain't easy on the ALC author. That said, I am pretty sure that third party XB loaders have been written to mannage loading E/A3 programs. There are others on this forum who know more than I on this matter. ...lee 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RXB Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 I wrote Tony McGovern about the bugs in the XB loader in FW and the reason it does not work with RXB that has GKXB installed. I do not know if he fixed this in later versions but it still does not work in RXB so I doubt it. RXB fixed this issue by just using the EA cart and avoids all the Loader issue entirely. Why make a XB loader for XB when EA does the job exactly like it is supposed to? Besides a RXB program to load EA 5 or EA 3 is this easy: 10 CALL EAPGM("DSK4.TESTPGM") ! Loads EA 5 program 20 CALL EALR("DSK3.OBJFILE") ! Loads EA 3 Object files. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+arcadeshopper Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 http://atariage.com/forums/topic/225936-3-in-1-rasmus-scrolling-games-solid-state-cartridges-available-now/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazoo Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Why does anyone even bother with EA3? I never really understood that. By the time you sit there waiting for the object code to go chugging away and load, then type in the entry point for it, you could have run Rag Linker and made an EA5 file named UTIL1 that will run from a few keypresses. I haven't even bothered testing EA3 code for quite a few years, seems to be a waste of time. Gazoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Lee Stewart Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Why does anyone even bother with EA3? I never really understood that. By the time you sit there waiting for the object code to go chugging away and load, then type in the entry point for it, you could have run Rag Linker and made an EA5 file named UTIL1 that will run from a few keypresses. I haven't even bothered testing EA3 code for quite a few years, seems to be a waste of time. Gazoo You're making assumptions! Code I've written and emulated (fbForth, TI Forth, ...) requires nothing more than typing the name of the program. There's no requirement to type in an entry point because the programmers associated the entry point with the END statement to handle that part. It actually escapes me why any programmer would do anything else—except for testing. Not putting the startup label with the END statement does allow loading several modules manually for testing. But, I see no reason to do that for production code. ...lee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.