| Re: new ProDOS ports [message #380282 is a reply to message #380280] |
Tue, 29 January 2019 02:20   |
mverpelli
Messages: 289
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
> Marco, what is wrong with 4am's version? All sides are present.
Sorry, my mistake!
I remembered a version in which a disk (#3?) was missing, evidently it was not of 4am.
Marco
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bitsy Bye vs. DOS3.3.Launcher [message #389872 is a reply to message #358647] |
Fri, 21 February 2020 21:17 |
|
|
Originally posted by: inexorabletash
On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 12:17:17 AM UTC-8, John Brooks wrote:
> On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 11:10:10 PM UTC-8, John Brooks wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 10:14:38 PM UTC-8, frank_...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> Strangely, I have never seen the game "Short Circuit" on any of these file-based cracks. Fantastic game.
>>>
>>> I'm trying to put together a games collection disk image, but realizing what a daunting task it is. FastBoot launches "type $F1" files easily, but is limited in directory size, and annoyingly requires multiple subdirectories with its glitchy display. Bitsy Bye is compact and fast but fails to load the back catalog of DOS 3.3 file-based cracks which need chaining to "DOS3.3Launcher". Ditto with the Squirt launcher, which looks great and can display graphics/text files too, but also cannot launch file-based games.
>>>
>>> Imagine a disk image with every A2 game ever... With a convenient directory and launching application that works with cross compatibility across the Apple II line to play all 8-bit games... (targeting the enhanced //e with a CFFA card)... nirvana
Oh, 2017. How far we've come since then.
>>>
>>> As a side note, I really enjoy the Bitsy Bye launcher (and 2.4.1 in general). Hard to believe the early versions of ProDOS essentially dropped you to a blind command line with zero context on BYE. ugh! I actually prefer BB's 40 column display, partly because I have old TVs in the mix, and partly because I just like the natural character height/aspect ratio.
>>>
>>> Frank
>>
>> I am not familiar with how DOS3.3Launcher works, but Bitsy Bye has the ability to use a custom launcher for any non-SYS file type.
>>
>> When a non-SYS file is selected, Bitsy Bye will pass the name of the selected file to BASIS.SYSTEM in the root directory of the drive containing the file.
>>
>> BASIS.SYSTEM can then launch the selected file however it likes.
>>
>> If there is no BASIS.SYSTEM in the root, Bitsy passes the file to BASIC..SYSTEM. If there is no BASIC.SYSTEM, it beeps and returns to the selection menu.
>>
>> Hope that helps,
>> -JB
>> @JBrooksBSI
>
> I took a quick look at DOS3.3Launcher. Copying it to /ROOT/BASIS.SYSTEM causes Bitsy Bye to pass $F1 disk images to it. Issues:
>
> 1) DOS3.3Launcher reports an error message because it requires a full pathname to be passed for some reason. Bitsy Bye passes only the 15-letter selected file name as it has already set the ProDOS prefix to the directory containing the selected file.
>
> 2) DOS3.3Launcher uses 65c02 opcodes and I believe it will fail on 6502-based Apple ][, ][+, and un-enhanced //e machines.
>
>
> Anyone want to look into a fix these DOS3.3Launcher issues?
>
> -JB
> @JBrooksBSI
Given qkumba's fantastic output plus more modern options (released and pending)... Rather than fixing DOS3.3.Launcher I just wrote a tiny BASIS.SYSTEM that chains to it with the full path. Now you can use Bitsy Bye to launch your old file cracks, at least until 4am and qkumba render them all obsolete.
https://github.com/a2stuff/basys33
(I added BASIS.SYSTEM support to Apple II DeskTop, so it can invoke them too.)
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitsy Bye vs. DOS3.3.Launcher [message #389873 is a reply to message #389872] |
Sat, 22 February 2020 11:18 |
Hugh Hood
Messages: 678
Registered: November 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2/21/2020 8:17 PM, inexorabletash@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Given qkumba's fantastic output plus more modern options (released
> and pending)... Rather than fixing DOS3.3.Launcher I just wrote a
> tiny BASIS.SYSTEM that chains to it with the full path. Now you can
> use Bitsy Bye to launch your old file cracks, at least until 4am and
> qkumba render them all obsolete.
>
> https://github.com/a2stuff/basys33
>
> (I added BASIS.SYSTEM support to Apple II DeskTop, so it can invoke
> them too.)
>
Joshua,
Thanks for putting your BASIS.SYSTEM up with the source code. That helps
clear up some of the fog in my mind concerning the operation of
BASIS.SYSTEM in John's ProDOS 2.5.
I'm curious, where does the check for the $F1-$F4 file types occur? In
other words, if one wants to make BASIS.SYSTEM change the launching
program based on the filetype, in which part of the chain should that occur?
BTW, I hadn't looked over your github site before today. You've got some
nice work there.
I hadn't heard of your BUH-BYE enhancement to BBB. I like it, and tend
to agree with you that I'm more comfortable with the Bird's Better Bye
cosmetics in the quit code.
Hugh Hood
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitsy Bye vs. DOS3.3.Launcher [message #389874 is a reply to message #389872] |
Sat, 22 February 2020 13:40 |
|
|
Originally posted by: inexorabletash
Trying to do a better job of a thread fork this time, sorry about the previous...
On Saturday, February 22, 2020 at 8:19:02 AM UTC-8, Hugh Hood wrote:
> On 2/21/2020 8:17 PM, inexorabletash@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> https://github.com/a2stuff/basys33
>
> Thanks for putting your BASIS.SYSTEM up with the source code. That helps
> clear up some of the fog in my mind concerning the operation of
> BASIS.SYSTEM in John's ProDOS 2.5.
Clarification: BASIS.SYSTEM is a convention in Bitsy Bye, which is in John's 2.4 as well.
> I'm curious, where does the check for the $F1-$F4 file types occur? In
> other words, if one wants to make BASIS.SYSTEM change the launching
> program based on the filetype, in which part of the chain should that occur?
That's up to the particular BASIS.SYSTEM. It wasn't obvious to me at first, but I believe (please correct me, John!) that the vision is that you can have a dedicated BASIS.SYSTEM on each volume (I'd prefer: each directory[1]) to handle the file types on that volume. A volume dedicated to a single file type can have a "dumb" BASIS.SYSTEM that doesn't look at file types. It would be better if it checked for $F1-$F4 and did a QUIT call if it wasn't one of those, just haven't gotten to it yet....
A more elaborate BASIS.SYSTEM that e.g. has declarative dispatching tables is possible, it just needs someone to write it.
[1] https://github.com/ProDOS-8/ProDOS8-Testing/issues/38
> BTW, I hadn't looked over your github site before today. You've got some
> nice work there.
Thanks! Contributions/corrections/feedback welcome.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitsy Bye vs. DOS3.3.Launcher [message #389876 is a reply to message #389874] |
Sat, 22 February 2020 15:58 |
qkumba
Messages: 1584
Registered: March 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
> It wasn't obvious to me at first, but I believe (please correct me, John!) that the vision is that you can have a dedicated BASIS.SYSTEM on each volume (I'd prefer: each directory[1]) to handle the file types on that volume.
That's the idea. It's the catch-all for any non-standard type, allowing "click to run". I've been using it for specific file-types so far, though - running .Z? files in Pitch Dark, and now .DSK files in Holodeck.
I understand that per-directory could be useful, but since the filename is the same, it introduces the risk that they get mixed up. Plus we were out of bytes at the time.
> A more elaborate BASIS.SYSTEM that e.g. has declarative dispatching tables is possible, it just needs someone to write it.
Pitch Dark determines the proper interpreter to run based on the aux data, so that's a start. The source for that is on 4am's Git repository.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitsy Bye vs. DOS3.3.Launcher [message #391509 is a reply to message #391507] |
Fri, 06 March 2020 09:20 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Frank M.
On Friday, March 6, 2020 at 1:18:18 AM UTC-8, Alex Lee wrote:
> On 2020-03-05 00:48:12 +0000, qkumba said:
>
>> Yes, only World Games left.
>>
>> Also: Triad 18k file.
>
> Don't forget California Games!
>
> Alex
Already up on asimov!
f
|
|
|
|
| Re: new ProDOS ports [message #391512 is a reply to message #295590] |
Fri, 06 March 2020 09:29 |
mverpelli
Messages: 289
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Speaking of One on One (from github), it suffers from the hands up and spinning head syndrome like any other port to ProDos that I happened to see.
Marco
|
|
|
|
| Re: new ProDOS ports [message #391515 is a reply to message #295590] |
Fri, 06 March 2020 11:40 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Frank M.
Is the spinning head some sort of copy-protection thing? I noticed that on the usotsuki port too. The wozaday doesn't seem to 'spin'. It also doesn't boot on my //e.
f
|
|
|
|
| Re: new ProDOS ports [message #391517 is a reply to message #391515] |
Fri, 06 March 2020 12:51 |
mverpelli
Messages: 289
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Friday, March 6, 2020 at 5:40:46 PM UTC+1, Frank M. wrote:
> Is the spinning head some sort of copy-protection thing? I noticed that on the usotsuki port too. The wozaday doesn't seem to 'spin'. It also doesn't boot on my //e.
> f
I think so. The 4AM & qkumba crack's works fine too.
Maybe something is missing the the various (2) ports.
Marco
|
|
|
|
| Re: new ProDOS ports [message #391523 is a reply to message #391517] |
Fri, 06 March 2020 14:04 |
qkumba
Messages: 1584
Registered: March 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Yes, the spinning heads is a copy-protection failure.
Marco, which options did you select before it happened?
I thought that I fixed them all.
|
|
|
|
| Re: new ProDOS ports [message #391524 is a reply to message #391523] |
Fri, 06 March 2020 15:08 |
mverpelli
Messages: 289
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Friday, March 6, 2020 at 8:04:39 PM UTC+1, qkumba wrote:
> Yes, the spinning heads is a copy-protection failure.
> Marco, which options did you select before it happened?
> I thought that I fixed them all.
PARK AND REC, COMPUTER DR.J, TIMED GAME, WINNER'S OUT
although it seems rather random
Marco
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: new ProDOS ports [message #391538 is a reply to message #391533] |
Fri, 06 March 2020 20:17 |
qkumba
Messages: 1584
Registered: March 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
|
Fixed. There's a check during the demo, which I knew. Then the protection check code is rewritten and called only after an instant replay, which I didn't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: new ProDOS ports [message #391545 is a reply to message #391541] |
Sat, 07 March 2020 04:36 |
mverpelli
Messages: 289
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Saturday, March 7, 2020 at 2:33:13 AM UTC+1, Frank M. wrote:
> On Friday, March 6, 2020 at 5:28:26 PM UTC-8, Tempest wrote:
>> Got any video of the spinning heads thing? I'm curious now.
>
>
> Just leave the demo running for a while.
It never happened to me during the attract mode (demo). But now you know it's random. Last evening while trying the settings that I then wrote to qkumba it didn't happen until the ginger bloke scored his 89. Obviously it is easier to try with an emulator where you can put it in full throttle speed, avoid to play for hours
Marco
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: new ProDOS ports [message #401545 is a reply to message #307779] |
Tue, 27 October 2020 19:22 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Jon Rowlison
On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 10:14:55 AM UTC-6, qkumba wrote:
>> How big is the file containing the highscore/save data ? If the file is a fixed size, then writing its contents without ProDOS resident is actually pretty straightforward, assuming you have a loader program that has access to ProDOS beforehand, and you store save data in its own file.
> Yes, I realized afterwards that your idea might be possible, but the game isn't a true single-loader - the highscores are read into memory before being updated and then written out again. Presumably, the overwritten content is also read back again later. Still, it's worth investigating further.
Hi qkumba. This thread is a few years old so the temporary links are of course long expired. Where is the best place to find a recent update of the Ultima4 ProDOS conversion? I was trying to use the one on Azimov but theirs is older and is one of the known-buggy versions.
Jon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
