dis6502 for the 2600?

[Greg Zumwalt]

I recently discovered dis6502 for the Atari 800 and Win3.1

 

I updated a number of libraries, yada yada, and have it running under WinXP.

 

Not too suprising, it wont work on 2600 games.

 

So, I was wondering if anyone has this ported for the 2600?

Or, is their something simular?

 

It would be quite nice to have it, as it supports BIN, HEX, GFX

It has an assembler and disassembler built in.

It handles files over 4K

And it runs in windows.

 

Eric BACHER ported it from the C64 in 1996 but the contact information is dead.

It is freeware.

 

Perhaps Dan Boris or Bob Colbert could do this?

[CPUWIZ]

What you want is distella.exe, do a google search for it and you'll find it.

[Greg Zumwalt]

What you want is distella.exe

 

Um, no, it isn't.

 

I presently use DiStella, and Dasm, and Hack-O-Matic, and other editors, in DOS, in DOS Boxes, in Windows...

 

And I'm not looking forward to getting around DiStellas 4K limit issue... very complicated to overcome that shortfall.

 

Most of the current 2600 tools haven't been updated in years.

 

A port of dis6502 or a new tool as it were would bring all those tools together into one package. That's what I want.

 

If it could be done to the 800 nearly 7 years ago, someone should be able to do it for the 2600 now... right?

 

And before anyone says it, yes, I would do it myself, but I simply don't know these newer computers well enough.

Also, since others like Dan, Bob and Eric have already done so much, it is likely easier for them to continue.

[CPUWIZ]

Gotcha, sorry. IIRC, Thomas knows how to use distella for images larger than 4K, maybe he can help you.

[Greg Zumwalt]

He has pointed me to some of his previous posts and yes indeed, they did help, but it is still very complicated.

 

Updating DiStella to handle the proceedure would not only make it easier on the rest of us, but also make it inviting for new comers to attemp more complex projects.

 

While I am greatly into nostaglia, I don't think it should include the tools I use... save perhaps for wood carving...

 

I do believe that DOS should always be available, but sadly, many do not know or want to use it in the age of Windows.

 

A modular interface/GUI for windows, that included all 2600 tools, which could still be individualy updated, is really the way to go.

The 2600 and programmers would greatly benefit from such an upgrade.

The easier it becomes to use the tools, the more games one will see.

 

Simply look at the Hack-O-Matic as an example.

This isn't even the most advanced tool, yet...

When the DOS GFX tools were put asside for a Windows based version, the hacks just rolled out.

 

If the DOS assembly tools were brought to windows, I'm sure the same would happen with new games.

 

Imagine it...a 2600 programming enviorment where all tools come together and work as one.

[Paul Slocum]

A modular interface/GUI for windows, that included all 2600 tools, which could still be individualy updated, is really the way to go.

 

It's easy to set up most good text editors to run the assembler and emulator, etc. with single keystrokes. With that setup, you've pretty much got a 2600 IDE.

 

-Paul

[Greg Zumwalt]

Can you, simply (if at all), using keystrokes or batch scripts (as I do), load for example, frogger.bin, via point and click, then, click the disassemble button, select graphic/binary view, edit the graphics, select source code view, locate the colour codes, select HEX view, alter the colour and sounds, and click on assemble and test?

 

I dare say no.

 

One program, all tools, windows...

(I'd even accept DOS with a windows like GUI.)

 

Simplify, simplify, simplify.

 

The C64 has such a tool, the Apple IIe does, the Atari 800 does... so too can the 2600.

[Cybergoth]

Hi there

 

The C64 has such a tool, the Apple IIe does, the Atari 800 does... so too can the 2600.

 

Wow! What is the name of the Atari 800 Tool?

 

Greetings,

Manuel

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Simplify, simplify, simplify.

There is one thing that prevents it from becoming simple: Bankswitching!

 

You can't automatically disassemble 8K+ ROMs, because without running the binary you can't trace code over several banks.

 

Sorry.

[Greg Zumwalt]

There is one thing that prevents it from becoming simple: Bankswitching!

 

Okay. I was thinking perhaps z26 would help in this, but you would know far better then I.

 

Still, the idea of an all in one interactive program capable of manipulating the data in various formats should be viable.

 

Even if done, modular, to only allow for roms up to 4K, until/if the code can be redone to handle larger roms "automaticly", it would be far simpler then all the seperate components.

 

Perhaps I'll just have to make some more batch scripts to assist in the automation.

 

This is alright for myself.

But I've friends who have watched me and stated point blank, reguarless how automated it seems, they'd never try to make/hack a rom using DOS

 

Probably just windows envy.

But as the programmers get younger, and the tools get older, the gap grows bigger.

 

I was rather hoping to hear more of a "lets give it a try" perspective, but it seems most are content to stick with the older DOS tools.

 

Pehaps I'll have to break down and do a bloatware VB program to carry out my ideas.

 

I do still appreciate the input.

[Greg Zumwalt]

Wow! What is the name of the Atari 800 Tool?  

 

Yes, dis6502.

Several ports exist, all using the same name.

The 800 version also have disk image support.

[Cybergoth]

Hi there!

 

Wow! What is the name of the Atari 800 Tool?  

 

Yes, dis6502.

Several ports exist, all using the same name.

The 800 version also have disk image support.

 

Hm... last time I checked it was just a disassembler. How do you edit/recompile in your version? And where did you get it from?

 

Greetings,

Manuel

[Greg Zumwalt]

options:

set output format

decompile

assemble

 

(odd choice... assemble rather then complie, or decompile rather disassemble...)

 

unfortunately, I've greatly altered mine in an attempt to make it work under XP, and removed most of the 800 specific features.

I didn't fully test it, as I don't have any Atari 800 files around.

 

I was placing focus on the 2600.

 

As to where, I saw the name on Google search and followed a link to a description.

 

I then used CopperNic to find the executable, thus, I'm not certain of the specific link.

 

The version number should help though.

1.5

[Cybergoth]

Hi there!

 

options:

set output format

decompile

assemble

 

The version number should help though.

1.5

 

Hm... my version number is the same, but it doesn't offer this choice. Instead, I can choose the number of words & bytes per line and the length of strings, that's all.

 

Greetings,

Manuel

[Nukey Shay]

Stupid question:

Have you tried using that progam with Atari800Win? You would be able to load 2600 roms into it by using the Hard Drive function (set up the 2600 roms folder as a hard drive folder). You'd probably have to build your own 2600 library file, tho.

[Cybergoth]

Hi there!

 

Stupid question:

Have you tried using that progam with Atari800Win?  You would be able to load 2600 roms into it by using the Hard Drive function (set up the 2600 roms folder as a hard drive folder).  You'd probably have to build your own 2600 library file, tho.

 

I do what?!?

 

Greetings,

Manuel

[Nukey Shay]

Why not? I did it using Atari800Win when I was looking through the Raiders data. It wouldn't display the hardware equates correctly though (because the disassembly showed the 800's equates instead)...but it was still readable.

[Christopher Tumber]

But I've friends who have watched me and stated point blank, reguarless how automated it seems, they'd never try to make/hack a rom using DOS

 

Blink. Blink.

 

Okay, let me get this straight. These guys are all set to A) work in assembly language on B) an obsolete console with C) extremely sparse resources and D) particularly esoteric and difficult video hardware BUT having to run DOS apps which are functionally almost identical to what a Windows version would do is just too much of an impediment?

 

This may sound elitist as hell, but, really, dealing with DOS is the least of their worries and it sounds suspiciously like kids who are really, really dedicated to being the next great guitar god except the blisters on their fingers really, really hurt...

 

I've said similar before and I'll say it again. Working with these classic consoles is like playing the accordian. If they're not really, really into for its own sake and if they can come up with any excuse not to do it then they shouldn't. They're much better off sticking to Java or Visual Basic or Flash or whatever and actually enjoying what they're doing...

 

Chris...

[Nukey Shay]

Um...you mean it won't be simple to hack or create a game if the tools are only Dos-friendly? j/k

[Thomas Jentzsch]

This may sound elitist as hell, but, really, dealing with DOS is the least of their worries and it sounds suspiciously like kids who are really, really dedicated to being the next great guitar god except the blisters on their fingers really, really hurt...

[Greg Zumwalt]

Probably just windows envy.

But as the programmers get younger, and the tools get older, the gap grows bigger.

 

elitist as hell...

kids who are really, really dedicated

 

Okay, let me get this straight. These guys are all set to A) work in assembly language on B) an obsolete console with C) extremely sparse resources and D) particularly esoteric and difficult video hardware

 

I think you have both re-itterated and mised my points exactly.

 

People should not HAVE to be elete, the best of the best, the smallest percentage, to be able to make/hack 2600 games.

 

Blame it on schools, society, Microsoft, but the fact remains, that DOS is being removed/replaced. The new people learning this stuff are doing so from within Windows enviorments. And many of them, do not want to even attempt to use DOS.

I'm not saying it is right, only that, it is the way it is.

 

Perhaps they don't have the dedication that the eletist have.

Perhaps they do.

Perhaps we should tell everyone who ever made a HACK that they should hide them and treat them as contraband until the person can create a completely new game?

Or, perhaps we can make new tools for new people with new mindsets...

 

BUT having to run DOS apps which are functionally almost identical to what a Windows version would do is just too much of an impediment?  

 

Did someone miss a post?

 

Can you, simply (if at all), using keystrokes or batch scripts (as I do), load for example, frogger.bin, via point and click, then, click the disassemble button, select graphic/binary view, edit the graphics, select source code view, locate the colour codes, select HEX view, alter the colour and sounds, and click on assemble and test?

 

While it is true that a windows version would have all the features of the DOS tools, their are still many things the DOS tools can not easily accomplish which a Windows enviorment program can.

 

Maybe I'm just in a role of devils advocate in this matter, or maybe I just don't like the idea that a 2600 game might go unrealized because new tools for new views don't exist and the old tools are driving all but the eletist away.

 

Maybe, it is just that the "eletist" are too concerned that a windows version of all those tools in one simple package, would make it too easy for a "lamer" to create a game?

 

Either way, keeps the crys of discontent flying.

I do enjoy the perspectives and comments here

[Thomas Jentzsch]

And many of them, do not want to even attempt to use DOS.

That's "elitist" too, isn't it? What makes you believe that those people are really interested to do more than just another MeTo-hack?

 

Maybe I'm just in a role of devils advocate in this matter, or maybe I just don't like the idea that a 2600 game might go unrealized because new tools for new views don't exist and the old tools are driving all but the eletist away.

If DOS tools alone are driving somebody away, then IMO this person will never ever have the motivation to dig deeper into 2600 coding. We had plenty of examples in this forum of people starting with "great ideas" who disappeared when they realized that there is some serious work involved.

 

Maybe, it is just that the "eletist" are too concerned that a windows version of all those tools in one simple package, would make it too easy for a "lamer" to create a game?

Maybe. And maybe we are just too lazy (or "elitist") to do all the hard work and prepare "hackers heaven" for those who are too lazy themselves.

[Cybergoth]

Hi Thomas!

 

Maybe. And maybe we are just too lazy (or "elitist") to do all the hard work and prepare "hackers heaven" for those who are too lazy themselves.

 

Hehe, same here

 

The point is, that when I have those 3-4 free hours every once in a while, actual 2600 programming easily wins over any of the *dirty* work.

 

Hey, I'm coding Windows crap 10-14 hours a day at work, so the less I see of that at home, the better

 

Greetings,

Manuel

[Godzilla]

I belive that to achieve any worthwhile results on the 2600, a certain barrier to a level of a entry is neccessary, and good. Helps protect the world from 5,000 .bins of breakout with different color schemes for the bricks.

[Paul Slocum]

People should not HAVE to be elete, the best of the best, the smallest percentage, to be able to make/hack 2600 games.

 

I think part of the confusion is that you're using "hack" and "make" like they're almost the same thing. Hacking a game is very easy and some easier tools might motivate people to make hacks that wouldn't otherwise. Making a game is extremely difficult, and porting tools to Windows isn't going to recruit any more 2600 game programmers. I think anybody that would attempt programming an Atari game is already familiar with command line tools.

 

And most of the people who write and update the tools give priority to making stuff easier for game developers, not graphic hackers. So you're probably going to have to write your own user friendly hacking tools. Although I think you can do some of what you're talking about by just adding to the "right-click" menu in Windows Explorer.

 

-Paul