Opl4 and DOS2

Page 3/3
1 | 2 |

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (109)

anonymous's picture

15-09-2003, 19:26

Then I applaud you on doing the no-fun job of supporting both DOS1 and DOS2.

By sjoerd

Hero (593)

sjoerd's picture

16-09-2003, 01:25

Then I applaud you on doing the no-fun job of supporting both DOS1 and DOS2.Lot's of things that have to be done on MSX development aren't much fun. Supporting both dos1 and dos2 is just one. If one makes a game, there are 5 different sound chips to support. Or at least two. That's a lot worse. And 4 different vdp's ofcourse, 3 cpu's. No fun at all. Speaking about standard...
I say: No More. My rpg 'Quest in Vapourland' will only support moonsound/gfx9000/z80/dos1. Well, maybe also dos2. Because dos2 is such fun.

By snout

Ascended (15187)

snout's picture

16-09-2003, 01:30

no r800? Smile

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (109)

anonymous's picture

16-09-2003, 01:34

If one makes a game, there are 5 different sound chips to support. Or at least two.
The game I'm working on now supports 3 soundchips, no problem.. It's fun Smile
I even wrote the sounddriver myself Tongue

By ro

Guardian (4150)

ro's picture

16-09-2003, 12:10

I'm with guyver here, although I am concerned about the extra time it takes to make music for different chips for example. not to mention time-critical isr routines.
Gotta come up with a system that is uniform for music handeling.

I've been rather bussy on that particular topic the last few times I've flicked on my trusty ol' MSX.
It can handel: MB1.44, MBwave (partly)/FM(partly), Oracle, SCC musicc and First Rate Music hall.

One global accesport with different functions, all the same for each replayer. It even switches replayer on demand. This module featured in fk2.35 already but never got it finished.

By sjoerd

Hero (593)

sjoerd's picture

16-09-2003, 13:20

no r800? SmileI don't have a TurboR. And It's a 'slow' game, it will run on 3.5MHz just as well. I'll just optimize the code a bit more Big smile However I am thinking on: no MoonSound => no game instead of no MoonSound => No music. I think the music is an essential part of the game.

By sjoerd

Hero (593)

sjoerd's picture

16-09-2003, 13:27

The game I'm working on now supports 3 soundchips, no problem.. It's fun Smile I even wrote the sounddriver myself TongueThe game I am still working on right now supports 3 soundchips and it's no fun at all. Do you use the same musicdata for all chips, or different versions of the same songs? And ofcourse you'll have to write the sounddriver yourself, there aren't decent drivers availible.
It's strange you don't like pc because of all it's standards, while you're having fun doing the same work three times.

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (109)

anonymous's picture

16-09-2003, 15:36

I'm with guyver here, although I am concerned about the extra time it takes to make music for different chips for example. not to mention time-critical isr routines.
Gotta come up with a system that is uniform for music handeling.

The game I am still working on right now supports 3 soundchips and it's no fun at all. Do you use the same musicdata for all chips, or different versions of the same songs? And ofcourse you'll have to write the sounddriver yourself, there aren't decent drivers availible.

As my driver is based on muSICA, it supports PSG, MSX-MUSIC and SCC. The composer just have to makes sure the music sounds fine on different chip-combinations, which is generally no problem. For instance, if you play a lead on FM and use a slightly detuned SCC lead, there's no problem in removing either chip.

Future versions will at least support moonsound. Since songs are compiled from MML (which really is very nice to work with if you have a good editor) it's fairly trivial to compile for different chips or combinations of them.

It's strange you don't like pc because of all it's standards, while you're having fun doing the same work three times.
PC doesn't have standards, unless you want to code legacy VGA and Soundblaster stuff. But even then, there's huge incompatibilities between products, you can't call that a standard.
There's ofcourse DirectX, but that's no fun to use, it sucks and you still don't always get what you ask for! Different latencies, DMA problems, badly written drivers...

PC programming is absolutely NO FUN!

By sjoerd

Hero (593)

sjoerd's picture

16-09-2003, 18:12

Future versions will at least support moonsound. Since songs are compiled from MML (which really is very nice to work with if you have a good editor) it's fairly trivial to compile for different chips or combinations of them.So why not MSX-AUDIO? Somehow I'm still very happy with the decision to use only the MoonSound with my own very secret project. I don't think there are many people with gfx9000, but without moonsound.

And you're calling Soundblaster a standard? Wink

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (109)

anonymous's picture

16-09-2003, 19:09

So why not MSX-AUDIO?Ofcourse also MSX-AUDIO. MSX-AUDIO is just a slimmed down MoonSound +ADPCM anyway. Wink

Somehow I'm still very happy with the decision to use only the MoonSound with my own very secret project. I don't think there are many people with gfx9000, but without moonsound.I think you're right. For my current Z380 project I assume people have a Gfx9000 too. OTOH, some people just care for graphics and couldn't care less about music. But even if that is the case, they probably won't mind silence either Smile

And you're calling Soundblaster a standard? WinkYes, soundblaster is a standard. Otherwise dozens of products wouldn't claim to be 'soundblaster compatible'. And who can forget the 'Windows Sound System' standard?

Page 3/3
1 | 2 |