It is currently Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:27 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2005 10:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:47 pm
Posts: 1845
I've been looking around for various mapper information and it seems that existing docs are either severely outdated and incomplete/inaccurate (*cough*firebug's doc*cough*), difficult if not borderline impossible to understand (and also often inaccurate) *cough*goroh's docs*cough*, or information is just lacking all around.


The only mappers that are documented really well are the biggies... MMCx, various discrete mappers. Even on the wiki... it seems documentation is just not there.

Then I turn around and look at all these emus that support hundreds of mappers... and I'm wondering where all that information comes from. The only way I've been able to get various mappers working is by examining other emus' (Nintendulator) sources. There's got to be another way.

Is there a better source for mapper information? Is there an updated version of firebug's doc? sort of like a collection of various mappers rolled into one?

Would something like that be welcome on the wiki? The iNES mapper page lists a few (already well documented) mappers, but those links just say which boards the mapper represents and you have to go elsewhere for information. Would relatively large description pages be welcome on the wiki? I've never really worked with a wiki before but I'd be willing to put some stuff up there. I guess I'm just afraid of screwing it all up =P


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:02 pm
Posts: 210
Location: San Diego
KH has some good info that he has reverse engineered up at http://tripoint.org/kevtris/mappers/mappers.html
A quick look at the wiki shows that most of that information is already there (though not all). If Kevin is cool with it, maybe we can update the docs with his info.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:17 pm
Posts: 355
Martin Korth's http://nocash.emubase.de/everynes.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 8:33 am
Posts: 3715
Location: Central Texas, USA
Quote:
I guess I'm just afraid of screwing it all up


Don't worry, it's already screwed up. :)

Maybe we can discuss how to present mapper information, rather than each taking our own direction (Bregalad's commentary on game teams is relevant here too). I'm thinking that a concise means of presentation can be developed.

I second that everynes document as far as mapper information.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:30 am
Posts: 121
Location: San Francisco, CA
Quote:
Maybe we can discuss how to present mapper information, rather than each taking our own direction (Bregalad's commentary on game teams is relevant here too). I'm thinking that a concise means of presentation can be developed.


I think Wiki is a great way to present this information. Concise, verified information similar to what's present in
everynes would be fabulous. I think there are enough members of this forum who can verify hardware information for at least the most popular board types at a cursory glance, so i don't see any reason why this format wouldn't work well. It's easy to index, maintain, and it avoids the problem of having outdated text files being circulated.

$.02

_________________
...patience...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:47 pm
Posts: 1845
Yeah kevtris docs are great, for sure. But they only cover a handful of mappers. Even after implimenting everything on kevtris page you'll only support like 12 mappers.

That everynes doc looks like it is EXACTLY what I was looking for! Thanks for the heads up hap =)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:49 pm
Posts: 7314
Location: Chexbres, VD, Switzerland
I had once the idea to make a table included witch features would be featured by witch mapper, so someone writing a game could easily choose witch one to pick I.E.

Code:
|MaxPRGSize|PRGSwapSize|MaxCHRSize|CHRSwapSize|MidFrameIRQ|etc...

With data below for each maper. However, non-sililarities between them seems to render the task nearly impossible.

_________________
Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary components.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:47 pm
Posts: 1845
hehe, I think you mean "which", not "witch". funny error ^^

Anyway, people developing a game should probably stick to "standard" mappers like MMC3/MMC1 or maybe even MMC5. It doesn't do any good for them to be researching obscure mappers.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:49 pm
Posts: 7314
Location: Chexbres, VD, Switzerland
Effectively, but I think someone would think that N106 or Sunsoft FME-7 has some interesting features, but find a card using those mappers are quite hard, while founding a MMC4 card is MUCH harder, even if this one would be considered as a standard mapper. I like MMC4 pretty much because all 3 games using it rocks it all. On anyother mapper... you'll probably find at least one game using it that will suck, hehe. That doesn't mean that this mapper is the best, but still, it's too often ignored, as be both a standard MMC and a very obscure mapper.

_________________
Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary components.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:47 pm
Posts: 1845
Well part of what I meant by 'standard' was common/popular. Hence why I listed MMC1/3 (and to a lesser extend 5) but not MMC2/4/6.

Homebrewers should consider availability/compatibility/documentation before looking for ways/reasons/excuses to use wacky mapper features like what N106 etc provide. And on those major points... the popular standard mappers proove themselves to be the best options.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 11:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:49 pm
Posts: 7314
Location: Chexbres, VD, Switzerland
The MMC5 is definitely not standard, but it features so many things that... well, using it is cool, even if cards using it are rare.

_________________
Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary components.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group