+JAC! Posted May 30, 2018 Share Posted May 30, 2018 I'm trying to add a bunch of plain ROM files to a new empty MaxFlash Cartridge Studio workbook. But no matter what I do/try it considers them XEX files, even when importing as .CAR... From the log: [image Converter] Valid Atari EXE file, imported 7052 bytes from ATARIMAX ROM-001.ROM[image Converter] Valid Atari EXE file, imported 4894 bytes from ROM-00115.CAR MaxFlash Cartridge Studio 2.4. Is there maybe any newer version? - Peter/JAC! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roydea6 Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 rom files not car files and may need to be 8k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a8isa1 Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 MaxFlash Cartridge Studio 2.4. Is there maybe any newer version? - Peter/JAC! I've been using version 2.9 (as of 2015). I don't think there is a more recent version. You can download it here. The post is dated 2009 but it contains a link to version 2.9 installer. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Stephen Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 I've been using version 2.9 (as of 2015). I don't think there is a more recent version. You can download it here. The post is dated 2009 but it contains a link to version 2.9 installer. Thanks for the link - I didn't realize I am only on 2.6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FULS Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 In fact, version 2.9 of MaxFlash has added support of 16k roms. 8k roms were the limit before, as rdea6 posted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tep392 Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 In fact, version 2.9 of MaxFlash has added support of 16k roms. 8k roms were the limit before, as rdea6 posted. Cool! I didn't know it was updated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+JAC! Posted June 2, 2018 Author Share Posted June 2, 2018 Thanks FULS, first test look like 2.9 is no mistreating the 8k ROM as XEX anymore! >[image Converter] Imported 8192 bytes from JAWBREAKER II.ROM 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+JAC! Posted June 3, 2018 Author Share Posted June 3, 2018 This is really an odyssey. I finally figured out it is a bug in the MaxFlash Studio and it is still there in 2.9. All of my self-generated 8K ROM files (which all have different conent for the most part) are recognized as XEX. I found that having $ff $ff $00 $00 $00 $00 as the first 6 bytes of the ROM forces the Studio to correctly treat them as ROM files. Crazy, but true :-) 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FULS Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 I was wrong in posting that the new version supported 16k roms. It will try to convert 16k roms to xex files and run them, but if the cart is protected it will crash. Also your rom files must be exactly 8192 bytes or 16384 bytes for them to be recognized as rom files. I don't think car files work. I'll have to try your 6 byte header work-around sometime. Good Luck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjlazer Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 Why are you messing around with ROM files? Use XEX. Get them at Homesoft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+JAC! Posted June 4, 2018 Author Share Posted June 4, 2018 Why are you messing around with ROM files? Use XEX. Get them at Homesoft. They are my own unit test ROMs have coded to test the hardware ROM emulation and AtariMax menu parsing of The!Cart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjlazer Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 Ah ok. Did you get them to work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+JAC! Posted June 5, 2018 Author Share Posted June 5, 2018 See my previous post: "I found that having $ff $ff $00 $00 $00 $00 as the first 6 bytes of the ROM forces the Studio to correctly treat them as ROM files." I've posted that in the Atarimax Forum, Let's see what the experts there can find. https://www.atarimax.com/flashcart/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&p=11142#p11142 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+JAC! Posted December 22, 2018 Author Share Posted December 22, 2018 Update: The 2.14 version available at https://www.atarimax.com/flashcart/documentation/downloads/Maxflash_Studio_Installer.exefixes part of the problem. When adding via the "Load 8k ROM from File(s)", it is correctly treated as ROM and not as XEX. Drag & drop still guesses incorrectly, but this fix is already very helpful. Thank you Steve! 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+MrFish Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 Update: The 2.14 version available at https://www.atarimax.com/flashcart/documentation/downloads/Maxflash_Studio_Installer.exe fixes part of the problem. When adding via the "Load 8k ROM from File(s)", it is correctly treated as ROM and not as XEX. Drag & drop still guesses incorrectly, but this fix is already very helpful. 2.14 is Newer? This is an odd style of versioning, since the number itself is smaller than a previous version (2.9 -> 2.14), and is not the common protocol. It honestly just creates confusion... Thanks for heads up on the fixes though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanny Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 Version numbers are often not considered to be fractional numbers but in the format MAJOR.MINOR. And there 9 < 14. See for example MAME which switched from 0.99 to 0.100. But I agree, it's confusing. One has to know which scheme is in effect for a given prorgram. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+MrFish Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 (edited) Version numbers are often not considered to be fractional numbers but in the format MAJOR.MINOR. And there 9 < 14. See for example MAME which switched from 0.99 to 0.100. But I agree, it's confusing. One has to know which scheme is in effect for a given prorgram. Yes, I've seen it used before, and I think it stinks. If that style is used, it's much better to separate the two number, rather than using a decimal point, which has a specific, standardized meaning when used in conjunction with numbers. So... Atarimax Cartridge Studio 2 version 14, version 2 revision 14, or something similar would help alleviate confusion. Edited December 22, 2018 by MrFish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_The Doctor__ Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 (edited) My theory way back in the beginning was that the numbers were separated by commas and then somewhere along the line it transmuted into decimal points only... forever confusing folks as to what major and minor numbers were forever more... it's still going on to this day... Edited December 22, 2018 by _The Doctor__ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+JAC! Posted December 22, 2018 Author Share Posted December 22, 2018 2.14 is Newer? This is an odd style of versioning, since the number itself is smaller than a previous version (2.9 -> 2.14), and is not the common protocol. It honestly just creates confusion... Fun fact: For me as German it was not confusing at all, but logical, since "." is not our decimal separator :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+MrFish Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 Fun fact: For me as German it was not confusing at all, but logical, since "." is not our decimal separator :-) Yeah, I thought about that for Europeans; but what do you guys use for separator on thousands, millions, etc.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+JAC! Posted December 23, 2018 Author Share Posted December 23, 2018 The period to ensure non-Europeans are confused :-) 12345/10 = 1.234,5 But since version numbers are typically below 1000, it is not an issue after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+MrFish Posted December 23, 2018 Share Posted December 23, 2018 The period to ensure non-Europeans are confused :-) 12345/10 = 1.234,5 Haha... marvelous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+MrFish Posted December 23, 2018 Share Posted December 23, 2018 Fun fact: For me as German it was not confusing at all, but logical, since "." is not our decimal separator :-) OK, but you still needed the information of knowing this 2.14 was the newest version. If you had two files labeled "Maxflash Studio 2.9" and "Maxflash Studio 2.14" and no additional information about them, you'd have no way of knowing which was the latest version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+kheller2 Posted December 23, 2018 Share Posted December 23, 2018 OK, but you still needed the information of knowing this 2.14 was the newest version. If you had two files labeled "Maxflash Studio 2.9" and "Maxflash Studio 2.14" and no additional information about them, you'd have no way of knowing which was the latest version. Yes you would, because 14 > 9. Yes, 2.9 as a number is greater than 2.14 but that isn't how versioning works. Its Version 2 Release 14 (patch 14?). Always take the numbers to the right of decimal as a whole number. I've run into this a million times with even "professional" software / programmers: IE.. I used to have to fix a lot of linux installers that choked on dealing with RedHat Enterprise Linux 5.9 (5U9) vs 5.10 (5U10). Many installers choked on that thinking it was 5.1 let alone dealing with 5.11 being newer than 5.2. The dot is a separator only, it serves no mathematical function. But I digress... the only time I would wonder about this question is when seeing "studio 2.9" and "studio 2.90" -- I would wonder if someone mistakenly labeled it or if there really were 90 some releases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+MrFish Posted December 23, 2018 Share Posted December 23, 2018 (edited) Yes you would, because 14 > 9. Yes, 2.9 as a number is greater than 2.14 but that isn't how versioning works. Its Version 2 Release 14 (patch 14?). Always take the numbers to the right of decimal as a whole number. I've run into this a million times with even "professional" software / programmers: IE.. I used to have to fix a lot of linux installers that choked on dealing with RedHat Enterprise Linux 5.9 (5U9) vs 5.10 (5U10). Many installers choked on that thinking it was 5.1 let alone dealing with 5.11 being newer than 5.2. The dot is a separator only, it serves no mathematical function. But I digress... the only time I would wonder about this question is when seeing "studio 2.9" and "studio 2.90" -- I would wonder if someone mistakenly labeled it or if there really were 90 some releases. Nope, decimal versioning has been used for decades, where something like this would fail your logic test: 1.7, 1.8, 1.81, 1.82, 1.9 To avoid confusion, from the other side (those who expect the decimal point to always just be a separator of two complete numbers), a lot of developers have opted to put trailing zeroes. So the above sequence would be: 1.70, 1.80, 1.81, 1.82, 1.90, which is what phaeron does for Altirra. I always pop the zeroes off before posting them on my website; because I find it unnecessary; but to each their own... Edited December 23, 2018 by MrFish 1 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.