rec.autos.simulators

Dedicated game card really needed?

Buzz Hoffm

Dedicated game card really needed?

by Buzz Hoffm » Sat, 31 Aug 1996 04:00:00

Dana,


{snipped the repeat...}

The SB port only can access port 201h - there is no jumper to make it read
the other unused ports in that range.

The ACM card was designed with jumper on the board - the jumpers can be
moved so you can address different ports with each ACM card you pu in
your computer.

You can have up to four ACM cards installed in your computer and they won't
conflict with each other - each can address two different unused ports in
the computer.  The ACM card has two complete IBM game cards on so with four
of them in your computer you have 8 complete game ports that gives you up
to 32 analog inputs, and 32 buttons.  Software producers have so far not
used this capability, however we designed the card (back in 1991) with
the idea of allowing more analog inputs so people could have multiple
individual throttles, analog toe brakes, switch inputs, rheostats, whatever
you want.

The port address would be as follows typically, although you can mix or
match them as you want so long as you don't have two game ports on the
same address:

                             A               B
First ACM Game Card         201             209  
Second ACM Game Card        203             20B
Third ACM Game Card         205             20D
Fourth ACM Game Card        207             20F

We even have a patent on this stuff. 8)

Also, MS saw this and adopted it for Win 95, but it's not all working in
there yet - notice they have what appears to be support for 16 joysticks
in the Win 95 Applet.  You can't use them all - unless the SDK is used,
but theoretically they would allow accessing the above port assignments
for all sorts of inputs and controllers.

In fact, I have a joystick driver we wrote that allows you to plug in
any controller to any of the above four ACM cards and using an interface
that looks similar to our TMS.EXE diagnostics program, you can drag and
drop the controls logically or physically to any of the 32 inputs you
want and it will work there in a game programmed to simply read the file
that driver outputs.

I have it hooked into Falcon/Mig/Hornet, Red Baron, F-14 and F-15III and
it works great.  I've flown with other friends with F-14, Falcon, Mig,
Hornet, F-15III where he flies as the back seater and we can hand off
any of the controls to each other we want (stick, throttle, rudders, etc.)

It's a real kick flying F-14 with him in the back operating all the buttons
and hats on his stick and throttle to run the radars and do the targeting,etc.

I gave this stuff to all the sim companies (SH, Microprose, etc.) none of them
used it.  Of course.

<  You have several options for the other card functions.

It is supposed to be possible - the issue is - it doesn't work with
many of the systems out there.  I do not know which ones do work and
which do not, but with the cards actually built into the motherboard
as far as I know at this point none of them work like they are supposed
to leaving you with one option - you use the game port that comes with
the sound card on the mother board or you use none at all.

<>What would happen if the ACM was a pnp card also.  How would the bios

Well, first off it would not be a true 'pnp' card because we'd put a jumper
on it - so it wouldn't get the 'Blessed Holy Water Sticker' from Microsoft.
And the jumper would let you disable it if you needed to, but that wouldn't
help if you need it to correct a problem with a game card on a sound card
that can't keep up with whats in your somputer system.

<  I just can't believe there is no effective

Oh, I don't know that they are spineless.  Consider Mike Carruthers who was
typing here - I'm sure he's not the guy who makes the decisions to do  what
they did with the cards at CL.  The specs say you can't have a Win 95 sticker
if you put a jumper on it so someone there had to make a call.  His call was
to not put a jumper on it - for whatever reason and it's not just as simple
as saying that they're all spineless.  CL is a pretty big company so decisions
are spread out.  Tough to make a decision like we'd make in that kind of
environment.

Yeah, I wish they had put a jumper on it, and I really do think they should and
MS be damned and their sticker too - the customer is more important IMHO.  But,
they have to make their own decisions based on conditions at their own company.
I can only say what I think is right for ThrustMaster.  CL does what they do
for whatever reasons they do it and they didn't become the best sound card
company by operating in the dark.  But, all that aside, I still think they
SHOULD have put that jumper on there - but I don't expect they will or will
I get real upset if they don't.  I will point out that it causes problems when
someone is encountering the problem though.

< They would rather lose business than risk having to stand up to Bill G.>

As in the above, I don't think it's quite that simple, although it seems like
it on the surface.  Got to have that Win 95 sticker ya' know. 8)

< I am sure they(MS) wouldn't even care.  They have bigger fish to fry. >

I'm 100% with you on that statment.  I know many people at Microsoft and they
are not evil at all.  They're pretty much just like all the rest of us and they
don't make all the decisions at MS either. 8)

Buzz

Mike Carrothe

Dedicated game card really needed?

by Mike Carrothe » Sat, 31 Aug 1996 04:00:00

Sorry Buzz, but the SB cards will respond to 201-207 also.........

Mike Carrothers
Creative Labs

Michael E. Carv

Dedicated game card really needed?

by Michael E. Carv » Sat, 31 Aug 1996 04:00:00

: Can we please get back to AUTO SIMULATORS PLEASE !!!

: This is getting a little crazy!

I disagree. This does have something major to do with enjoying one's
auto simulators.  Hopefully when the 3rd RFD comes out, you will see
that one of the division will be hardware related.  This way, this cross
posted thread is one you would be able to ignore (by staying out of the
rec.autos.simulators.hardware).  I for one think this applies.  If
one can't get his soundcard to work with his joystick port, what kind of
auto simulator is it?  I want to race with a steering wheel and pedals.

Sorry that you feel we have strayed too far from r.a.s....
--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
     Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./.  [-  < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Matt - ThrustMaster, In

Dedicated game card really needed?

by Matt - ThrustMaster, In » Sun, 01 Sep 1996 04:00:00


>>The SB port only can access port 201h - there is no jumper to make it
>read
>>the other unused ports in that range.

>>Buzz

>Sorry Buzz, but the SB cards will respond to 201-207 also.........

>Mike Carrothers
>Creative Labs

Mike,
        So it is possible to address is to other addresses other than 201?  
Like 203, 20B, 205, and 20D?.....How?  We've got a SB32 PNP, and I'd like to
see how this is done!  thanx.

Matt

Kenneth Lars

Dedicated game card really needed?

by Kenneth Lars » Tue, 03 Sep 1996 04:00:00


<snip>

IMHO you simplify things just a little bit :) I agree that 12% might not
seem like a lot in some contexts - but some people spend a lot of time
(and money) optimizing their code to get that kind of improvement.

I think the real point is the archaic PC architecture. As has been clearly
demonstrated for many years joystick routines are hard to get right.
Why don't you just eliminate the problem by including a $1 chip
on your gamecard that will do the AD and allow the joystick values
to be read directly from a port? That's how it used to be before the
PC's came along (on my BBC at least :) TM's strong profile along with
a potential 10% performance improvement and flawless joystick operation
would probably assure quick acceptance of this "new" standard. The only
problem would be that the soundcard producers would follow suit in no
time. Is that why you haven't done it? It shure would make me happy to
watch all that useless joystick code disappear.

Cheers,
Kenneth

Mike Carrothe

Dedicated game card really needed?

by Mike Carrothe » Wed, 04 Sep 1996 04:00:00


ThrustMaster, Inc.) writes:



>>>The SB port only can access port 201h - there is no jumper to make
it
>>read
>>>the other unused ports in that range.

>>>Buzz

>>Sorry Buzz, but the SB cards will respond to 201-207 also.........

>>Mike Carrothers
>>Creative Labs

>Mike,
>        So it is possible to address is to other addresses other than
201?  
>Like 203, 20B, 205, and 20D?.....How?  We've got a SB32 PNP, and I'd
like to
>see how this is done!  thanx.

>Matt

The SB cards will respond to the joystick at I/O port 201-207. If the
s/w will write to the joystick at these locations, the cards will
respond.

Mike

Greg Cis

Dedicated game card really needed?

by Greg Cis » Wed, 04 Sep 1996 04:00:00


>There is such a garden variety of "100% IBM PC compatible" computer systems
>out there that 100% IBM compatible doesn't really mean much any more and
>hasn't for some time now.  There are systems that do proprietary things on
>their keyboard lines, and in the bios and still have all the IBM PC specs
>covered.  I guess they are 101% PC compatible - although it causes problems
>sometime.  One has a bios that totally blocks the users access to the
>keyboard i/o ports and they still call themselves "100% IBM compatible".

I'll second that!

People and companies can call "themselves" what ever they want. It does not
mean they are what they say. I can think of at least one recent instance where
this is true.

Buzz Hoffm

Dedicated game card really needed?

by Buzz Hoffm » Wed, 04 Sep 1996 04:00:00

Ken,




><snip>

>>Think about it - suppose the DREADED 12% impact were true and you were
>>running a sim or game that you got 7 fps on - a better game port could
>>improve that to about 7.8 fps.  On the highest end of the spectrum, say
>>at 25 fps, that would go to 28 fps.  25 fps is where things look smooth
>>to you and any more really doesn't help all that much.

>>On the lower end (6% improvement) the numbers are:

>>7 fps to 7.42 fps
>>25 fps to 26.5 fps

>>Likely you'd see it somewhere in between - maybe the 9%???

>>that's:

>>7 fps to 7.63 fps
>>25 fps to 27.25 fps.

>>And that's assuming you can ignore everything else that's going
>>on inside the computer and in the software itself that also can
>>interfere at different points.  Unfortunately, although you, and
>>magazine writers and marketing people can ignore them, the computer,
>>the software, and the game port can't ignore them.

>>The issue is simply how the joystick routine is written, how the
>>game port responds to the signals from it, and how everything else
>>in that particular person's computer is impacting things all have
>>something to do with it.  For those who have the problem, they should
>>get a speed adjustable game port and fix the problem.

>>For those who do not run into this situation, they should use what they
>>have and not fix something that is not broken - UNTIL and IF they run
>>into a game or sim that they encounter the situation with.

>>Saying "You don't need one because it all works fine on MY system is not
>>an intelligent answer."

>>Saying "You may need one on your system for some software IS the answer.

>>Buzz

>IMHO you simplify things just a little bit :) I agree that 12% might not
>seem like a lot in some contexts - but some people spend a lot of time
>(and money) optimizing their code to get that kind of improvement.

>I think the real point is the archaic PC architecture. As has been clearly
>demonstrated for many years joystick routines are hard to get right.
>Why don't you just eliminate the problem by including a $1 chip
>on your gamecard that will do the AD and allow the joystick values
>to be read directly from a port? That's how it used to be before the
>PC's came along (on my BBC at least :) TM's strong profile along with
>a potential 10% performance improvement and flawless joystick operation
>would probably assure quick acceptance of this "new" standard. The only
>problem would be that the soundcard producers would follow suit in no
>time. Is that why you haven't done it? It shure would make me happy to
>watch all that useless joystick code disappear.

>Cheers,
>Kenneth


I simplified, huh?  After spending over five years now trying to get you
software developers to change to something else, the net result is this:

The ACM Pro has an A/D on it and we aren't releasing it - why?

After sending out hundreds of developer kits, the result from 100% of you
joystick developers who claim you'd like to see all that joystick code
disappear is this:

"We don't have the resources to devote to changing to a new joystick routine."

The ACM Pro and the TM Driver we did with it would let you do just what you
asked for and you guys "don't have the resources to devote to it."

Now what I hear is how USB is gonna' cure all the problems.  Hah.

Buzz

ma..

Dedicated game card really needed?

by ma.. » Wed, 04 Sep 1996 04:00:00

In Article Re: Dedicated game card really needed? ,


> Ken,
[snip]
> I simplified, huh?  After spending over five years now trying to get you
> software developers to change to something else, the net result is this:

> The ACM Pro has an A/D on it and we aren't releasing it - why?

> After sending out hundreds of developer kits, the result from 100% of you
> joystick developers who claim you'd like to see all that joystick code
> disappear is this:

> "We don't have the resources to devote to changing to a new joystick routine."

> The ACM Pro and the TM Driver we did with it would let you do just what you
> asked for and you guys "don't have the resources to devote to it."

> Now what I hear is how USB is gonna' cure all the problems.  Hah.

        Don't be bitter, Buzz!! After years of working and living with
        software developers, it has become obvious to me that they
        inherently hate hardware. And it hates them. :)

        We will stick with archaic architectures and interface systems
        'till doomsday, because *any* change in handling hardware is to
        be feared and loathed - regardless as to how much better or
        easier it is.

        This is partly why I beg my software weenie friends to call me
        instead of opening up their machines when they have a hardware
        issue. Otherwise I will never hear the end of it about how their
        system mysteriously died (it wasn't their fault, of course) and
        now they can't work 'till the box comes back from the shop.

        The paradox, of course, ya gotta have the software to get the
        hardware to do anything. Kinda makes _your_ job tough, 'tho.
        My sympathies. :)

        -Matt (hardware weenie, as opposed to software weenie)

Jhana Bro

Dedicated game card really needed?

by Jhana Bro » Thu, 05 Sep 1996 04:00:00



Um, are you saying your SB16 card uses an IRQ for the game port!? I thought
thay just used an I/O range like the CLMI 140 & TB Tropez+ do.

OK, clarification here: The IDE has a jumper, the gameport does not. The
gameport, however *can* be disabled completely.

I've been following this thread with interest and have a few comments.

About disabling Gameports:
I do not understand why the gameport on the AWE32 PnP cannot be disabled. I
was under the impression that to be PnP you have to have an E-squared ROM. If
there is an E-squared ROM why can't it be reprogrammed?

On the 140 we had problems with the IDE interface built into the CS4232 CODEC
so we said forget the MS seal of approval and put a jumper on the board. But
the gameport didn't need a jumper, it *can* be completely disabled. You make a
boot disk, copy a few batch files onto it, boot once from the floppy and the
E-squared ROM reprogramms PnP, and displays a message saying the gameport has
been disabled. Done.(of course there's a batch set that enables as well)

About Gameport performance:
My *personal* opinion is try the gameport on your sound card, if it works for
you great. If not, get a game card.

I have a Thrustmaster ACS and I *must* have a TM game card!<g>(Last time I
went shopping they were sold out) I love to fly and I used to have access to
the complete TM ACS set so I know what I'm missing w/o the game card,
precision. My joystick is very 'loose' w/ the gameport on the sound card.

I'm more than a little surprised no one has mentioned Analog vs. Digital in
this discussion. Isn't the interface on sound cards, so far, the basic
time-delay analog circuit?

Any comments?


        CrystaLake Multimedia, Inc.
        Visit CrystaLake's WWW site at http://www.crystalake.com
        "There's magic in the web of it. . ." -William Shakespeare

Frederick Y M

Dedicated game card really needed?

by Frederick Y M » Thu, 05 Sep 1996 04:00:00


>I'm more than a little surprised no one has mentioned Analog vs. Digital in
>this discussion. Isn't the interface on sound cards, so far, the basic

A digital input for joystick is a lot smoother and reponsive than the
normal analog stick.  It is impossible to use a joystick for games like
Doom (not that I would anyway, except maybe those newer multi-input ones)
because the response is so poor.

)
--

http://widget.ecn.purdue.edu/~fmah

Mark Turne

Dedicated game card really needed?

by Mark Turne » Fri, 06 Sep 1996 04:00:00



> >> I'm about to get a new system (133 mhz P5 & ET6000 vid. card)and am wondering:
> >>     o With 133-200 mhz. Pentiums and Soundblaster 16 or 32 PnP
> >>       soundcards, is a dedicated gamecard (e.g., TM or CH) really necessary?

> I was using my AWE32 in a P90, and had no problems with the built-in
> gameport.

> I recently upgraded to a P166, and using the same AWE32 card, I've
> been having lots of probs.
> In Grand Prix 2, it works fine. Then, in for eg. Screamer, the Y axis
> doesn't register.

> I would like to know wether a dedicated gamecard will solve these
> probs before forking out $39.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>             SPYBYTE
> Wherever you go... there you are.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Are you using win95/msdos ? If so try calibrating your joystick from the

control panel then set up both screamer & Gp2. I know what your saying,
It does become a pain in the back side to keep recalibrating the
joystick. Good luck.
The Lord Leto I

Dedicated game card really needed?

by The Lord Leto I » Mon, 09 Sep 1996 04:00:00



>>I'm more than a little surprised no one has mentioned Analog vs. Digital in
>>this discussion. Isn't the interface on sound cards, so far, the basic

>A digital input for joystick is a lot smoother and reponsive than the
>normal analog stick.  It is impossible to use a joystick for games like
>Doom (not that I would anyway, except maybe those newer multi-input ones)
>because the response is so poor.

Who cares about joysticks in Doom-alikes, anyway?  The mouse is an
almost-perfect input device.  A joystick is just too cumbersome, even
if the response was better.

************ The Lord Leto II   God Emperor of Arrakis *************
* You did one thing wrong  * F--A--C--E  * You woke up             *
* It looked better before  * F--G--Bb-D  * More -- more!           *
* When the headache's gone * E--G#-B--D# * The sun's not           *
* Forgot to turn the alarm *   Faith No  * On -- on!               *
* Don't look at me         *     More    * I'm ugly in the morning *


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.