This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - utz
16
« on: September 03, 2014, 01:25:11 pm »
Eyyo, happy burfday omni! calculators could possibly either become a thing of the past or be adopted by vintage computer programmers and the like.
ehehe hehehe 
17
« on: August 06, 2014, 05:31:01 am »
$ is a two stroke character on German keyboards, # is one stroke. But other than that, German keyboards are anything but programmer friendly - [],{}, ~, and \ are all on an AltGr combination. Whatwheretheythinking. True, on 65xx # would be an immediate value. But on Z80 luckily we don't have that "problem"  The people who's code I studied in order to learn asm mostly use # for hex, so naturally it became a habit for me, too.
18
« on: August 05, 2014, 06:23:14 am »
Great tune! But you should really use SIDWizard. It has a bit of a learning curve, but it's totally worth it. There's a big guide here, and additional charts and stuff here.
19
« on: August 05, 2014, 06:17:19 am »
Kerm said he'll look into fixing binpac8x, so don't worry about enhancing to8xv for now.
20
« on: August 05, 2014, 06:06:07 am »
With this type of sound engine it's tricky, due to the way multi-channel pulse frequency modulation works. The main problem is that with PFM, you have a duty cycle ratio of ~1:99, as opposed to 50:50 on pulse interleaving based routines such as CalcMOD. This makes the bass very quiet compared to the rest. Adding to this, the "TIM-1" engine used here was one of the first 1-bit routines I wrote, and has particularly thin sound. In the end, both PFM and PI have their pros and cons. PI will always sound cleaner and bassier, but PFM allows for more channels, and offers more flexibility in terms of (fake) volume control. On ZX Spectrum, we now have a 16 channel sound routine Anyway, you might be pleased to hear that after a long absence, I've returned to coding for TI calcs, and am working on a new sound routine. I also have plans for a major HoustonTracker rewrite, but I won't get around to that till the end of the year.
21
« on: August 04, 2014, 07:39:41 am »
Jaa... but I need you to add the functionality to create .xxp/s files for all Z80 calcs Otherwise I could just write my own tool, obviously.
22
« on: August 04, 2014, 07:27:17 am »
Yes, gimme gimme gimme! Ima beta test the hell out of it!
23
« on: August 04, 2014, 07:05:21 am »
Ummyeah, I should probably report this at Cemetech, but somehow I doubt Kerm really cares. I mean the tool was released some 4 years ago, so these very obvious bugs should've been noticed by now.
Spasm - it's a matter of taste, really. I don't doubt that it's a good assembler, it just doesn't suit my coding style. It's mostly minor things that irk me, e.g. having to prefix hex numbers with $ when I prefer # (one keystroke less on German keyboard), strange handling of local labels, etc. Spasm is too TASM-ish, if you will. It also lacks support for some other Z80 platforms I code for, and due to the quirks in syntax porting stuff over is usually quite a hassle.
24
« on: August 03, 2014, 07:29:15 pm »
Well, I've managed to fix the TI-86 part, but it was pretty tricky. Started to look a bit into the TI-82 part, that seems even more difficult to fix. To begin with, It doesn't even add the $dc in front of the program name, which is needed by just about every shell out there. I don't think Kerm ever bothered to test his tool on anything other than the Plus models. In any case thanks Streetwalrus for offering to help. I might get back to you at some point, though at the moment I tend towards writing my own packer from scratch.
25
« on: August 03, 2014, 04:14:52 pm »
pasmo is the assembler of my choice... I'm writing code that targets different platforms, so using a TI-specific assembler is not an option for me. I've also tried spasm before, and didn't like it. Upon more careful examination, I see that binpac8x is indeed bugged. It doesn't include the mandatory $8e,$28 token at the end of the header. Consequently, the binsize info and checksum are also wrong. Meh, I don't want to learn python just to fix this 
26
« on: August 03, 2014, 03:09:35 pm »
This has been troubling me for some time, but I finally can't avoid the problem any longer. binpac8x just doesn't do the trick for me, the files it outputs simply won't run.
Right now I'm trying to compile a .86p file, though I've had issues with .82p files before as well.
I've converted the same binary with mk86p, which works just fine. A side-by-side comparison in a hex editor reveals that binpac8x' file contains a faulty header and end wrapper, and is also 2 bytes shorter.
Any ideas what could be causing this problem? I'm on Debian, using Python 2.7 and binpac8x 1.3.
27
« on: August 02, 2014, 02:26:16 pm »
Yes, the "DSO missing from command line" appeared under Debian recently. I'm getting it all the time, usually it's either a missing LIBS flag, or the order of the flags is wrong.
I'm having another error with compiling tilem though. For some reasons it keeps telling me that it can't find libticalcs2 (which is of course installed), and tells me to add the path to ticalcs2.pc to PKG_CONFIG_PATH. Which I did (export PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/pkgconfig), but that doesn't change anything. Any suggestions on how to fix this?
Edit: Nevermind. I still don't have a clue what went wrong, but the latest dist-upgrade fixed it.
28
« on: June 03, 2014, 09:56:53 am »
Thanks guys!  @keoni The speech part is essentially a simplified port of my zspeak routine. It uses sampled phonemes to construct the words. Synthesizing it would be much better in terms of intelligibility, but the CPU is simply too slow for that.
29
« on: June 02, 2014, 02:56:35 pm »
So I made a little "music" demo for Sharp PC-1403 Pocket Computer Thought you guys might enjoy this...
30
« on: June 02, 2014, 02:49:58 pm »
Cool stuff Keoni! Like the first one especially. Also yeah, pleased to have met Keoni at Outline. I can confirm that he's a very nice guy
|
Show Posts