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?
o If so, is it possible to disable the SB's built-in gameport?
o Has anyone encountered any problems with the SB 16/32 PnP
card while running sims or other game software?
Thanks.
--
Instrumental, Inc. Phone: 612-603-0985
St. Paul, MN USA Fax: 612-603-0781
Whether a dedicated joystick game card is needed
A buyer asked whether a dedicated game card was needed with a fast Pentium and a Sound Blaster. Many users reported no problems with sound card ports. Creative Labs' Mike Carrothers and Buzz Hoffman, who appeared to speak for ThrustMaster's ACM card, argued in detail about Windows 95 Plug and Play conflicts, port addresses and CPU overhead. ThrustMaster's Matt asked how to use alternative ports.
With Mike Carrothers (Creative Labs); Matt (ThrustMaster)
hardware: wheels/pedalstech support
Automated summary.
> o Has anyone encountered any problems with the SB 16/32 PnP
> card while running sims or other game software?
I have a SB16/IDE here - no problems. TM FCS + CH Pedals.
I did have to recalibrate everything after I switched from 100mhz to
133mhz recently, but no biggie. Both DOS and Win95 games work fine.
Oh, I have the IDE port on it disabled. I've heard this combo works
great, while some other Soundblasters (SCSI's mostly) are not so great.
YMMV.
writes:
necessary?
I use my AWE32 gameport with my T1 and NASCAR all the time with no
problems.
It is under DOS6.22/Win31. Win95 has a bug where it will not allow you
to really free the port.
Never.
>Thanks.
>--
>Instrumental, Inc. Phone: 612-603-0985
>St. Paul, MN USA Fax: 612-603-0781
Your welcome.
Mike Carrothers
Creative Labs
>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?
In some cases it really is. I had a Thrustmaster ACM game card. I really thought
it is an absolute nessissity. I now upgraded to a P5-133. SO I *really* though
a seperate game card is required. My TM-ACM card crapped out a few days ago.
TM sent me a new one, but I have been using the gameport on my Ensoniq Sound-
scape. No problems at all. I suppose I will eventually pop the TM-ACM card back in,
but I am going to use the Ensoniq gameport for a while to really check the
situation.
It should be. Either via jumper or thru setup software. My SB Pro had a jumper,
while my Ensoniq is configured via WINDOWS95 setup software. The software even
sets the up for DOS too.
Yep... Especially the ones that are built into their MotherBoard. Avoid those.
>Thanks.
>--
>Instrumental, Inc. Phone: 612-603-0985
>St. Paul, MN USA Fax: 612-603-0781
> I'm about to get a new system (133 mhz P5 & ET6000 vid. card)and am wondering:
> o Has anyone encountered any problems with the SB 16/32 PnP
> card while running sims or other game software?
I have an AWE32 Soundblaster running on my Pentium 120,and have never
had an ounce of trouble with it for any game.
rgs
John.
Quoted text (11 lines)
>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? > o If so, is it possible to disable the SB's built-in gameport? > o Has anyone encountered any problems with the SB 16/32 PnP > card while running sims or other game software? >Thanks. >-- >Instrumental, Inc. Phone: 612-603-0985 >St. Paul, MN USA Fax: 612-603-0781>> 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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 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 haven't found that a high speed gamecard was necessary. I run 133 and 150 and use
old SB & SB Pro cards with no problems.
Also check your bios to see if it has a speed setting for the AT Bus. On my
motherboard (AMI bios), I have a selection for "AT Bus" speed - from clock divided by
2 to clock div by 8 or 9...or something like that. It's been a while. I forget some
details. Whatever, it lets you slow down the bus speed so the old cards won't freak
out.
Funny thing, no matter what I set it to, my cheap SB Pro card's gameport works fine.
You do have to re-calibrate your joystick/wheel every time you change this value, but
it's something you play with once and then leave alone. (maybe) :-0
Mike
: 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 used a P133 and now a P200. Both with my Thrustmaster ACM card and had no
problems. Due to lack of 16-Bit slots I had to remove the ACM card for a while
and reactivated the gameport on my SB16 (normal - no PnP). I couldn't tell
any difference at all. Of course I had to recalibrate every installed game,
but the performance is the same.
One should consider, that the ACM card has two complete gameports built in.
With that, you could actually connect four 2-axis joysticks to your computer
or eight analog devices of any other kind. That might become handy if we'll
ever see a sim with analog throttle support for a two or more engine plane.
UNfortunatly the second port isn't supported by any software yet - as far as
I know.
Robin
_______________________________________________________________________________
cand. Ing. \ /
Robin Breyl \ /
\ __ _ __ /
______________\/__\/(_)\/__\/______________
\__| \___/ |__/
WWW: wwwfb12.ikb.uni-essen.de/~breyl
_______________________________________________________Impact! Boom! Oh, Yes!__
: 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?
: o If so, is it possible to disable the SB's built-in gameport?
: o Has anyone encountered any problems with the SB 16/32 PnP
: card while running sims or other game software?
I know that the majority of the followups for this in r.a.s., have said
there is no real need for a dedicated gamecard. Or at least that this
is their experience. However, I've read an article in an old issue of
Computer Game Review that states that not using a gamecard that is
adjustable can create a 6-12% CPU overhead. This happens while the CPU
waits for joystick information from a card set for the old 8mhz ISA bus.
Can anyone confirm this? Is this really an issue that many of us are
overlooking? This is the first that I remember hearing of this issue.
--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Michael,
Well, yes this is true, however I don't think it qualifies as an issue.
We are talking MICROSECONDS here. You could not distinguish the impact
that a 6 to 12% impact on CPU overhead would have on your frame rates or
joystick movment unless you were Superman (and he likely wouldn't care
anyway the impact would be so small).
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
Quoted text (15 lines)
>: 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? >: o If so, is it possible to disable the SB's built-in gameport? >: o Has anyone encountered any problems with the SB 16/32 PnP >: card while running sims or other game software? >I know that the majority of the followups for this in r.a.s., have said >there is no real need for a dedicated gamecard. Or at least that this >is their experience. However, I've read an article in an old issue of >Computer Game Review that states that not using a gamecard that is >adjustable can create a 6-12% CPU overhead. This happens while the CPU >waits for joystick information from a card set for the old 8mhz ISA bus. >Can anyone confirm this? Is this really an issue that many of us are >overlooking? This is the first that I remember hearing of this issue.Stephen,
It will indeed, despite all you've read here. Used to be Creative Labs put
a paragraph in the back of the SB manuals that pretty much said the same thing.
If you are experiencing difficulty, then get a better game card and disable the
one on the SB card (although they hinted it was the software's fault and not
theirs. Couple years ago or so they removed that and said nothing except that
they admitted there could be problems with the game port on SB cards with high
speeds on the bus.
Lately, however, they seem to be saying everything is just 'hunky-dory' with the
SB game port. I haven't seen any changes to the design of it to suggest that
is true, of course, there is that:
"You CAN disable it in Win 3.1, and DOS (the SB pnp built into the motherboard
on some computers), but "Win 95 has a bug in it..." that won't allow you to
disable it...
Win 95 doesn't have a bug, it's pnp and it is detecting a pnp sound card with
a game port on it that CL did not put a hardware (jumper) provision to allow
you to disable it. Geeze, this is not a big deal CL.
Put a half cent jumper on the damned thing and the problem will go away. Blaming
it on a Win 95 bug is the wrong thing to do.
You will note that it will likely work fine as a game port for most software. But
sooner or later, the majority of people will run into games that have a joystick
routine that cannot work properly with a non speed-adjustable game card on a
sound card or multi i/o card - they simply do not reset fast enough (among
other things to work with some joystick routines.)
Never mind that the danged software's joystick routine is as much to blame for
this - it could be written to avoid this type problem and make speed adjustable
cards unnecessary in almost all situations. But, the fact of the matter is,
there are some games that do have joystick routines that lack this type of
attention.
The facts are:
1. The Creative Labs sound cards with game ports are excellent (the best IMHO)
sound cards that happen to have some shortcomings in the game port area - to wit:
a. Lack of a jumper to disable the pnp ones - that was extremely short sighted
IMHO.
b. Lack of high enough quality components or speed adjustability to allow ALL
users to get around problem joystick routines. Leaving this up to the software
companys is not a PRO-ACTIVE solution - it's an avoidance solution.
2. Many people can operate most games just fine with a sound card game port.
3. Many people cannot operate all games just fine with a sound card game port.
It ain't just the game port or the software - it's the whole danged system -
including the game port AND the software and how they work together with a
person's particular motherboard and what different cards he has in that system.
4. IF ALL software had the best joystick routines that handled every possible
problem that can arise in a joystick routine - motherboard (bus speed, power
levels, etc) - game port then speed adjustable game ports would be totally
unnecessary.
5. Think about it:
a. The joystick consists of wires, pots and buttons - nothing else affects the
game port - the extra electronics in the programmable ones only use the keyboard
line.
b. The game port has the electronic circuitry on it that controls how the stick
responds to the software's joystick routine and the signals it sends to the
game port.
c. The software's joystick routine has more to do with it than many people want
to admit, but it's natural for programmers who are excellent at doing graphics
and other things well to misunderstand how to interface with hardware properly.
Especially if they don't know that some game ports can reset too fast (or over
run the counter, among other things) on really fast computers and muck things
up they know should work perfectly well in their program code.
What this all adds up to is this:
In ThrustMaster's (and CH's - I've talked to them) tech support, a major share
of the problems we deal with every day are caused by people running a game
with a joystick or other controller (gamepad, whatever)on a sound card game port.
In fact, they are the biggest problem and have been for years. A speed
adjustable game card will solve about 90+ % of these problems.
Getting a pnp sound card with no hardware provision to disable it, thus forcing
the end-user to use the game port on it in Win 95 does not assist the problem
in any way - it simply makes it more difficult.
Calling it a "Win 95" bug does not help either. Adding a half a cent jumper
that allows the user to disable it if he chooses or finds he has a situation
where he needs to disable it would help.
It's that simple.
Buzz
Quoted text (14 lines)
>>> 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.[some very good stuff snipped]
: 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
Just a note to say thanks for the very straight forward response. And
from past experience if Buzz says something, I can trust him. If I
remember correctly he helped start Thrustmaster and they are one of the
best!
--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ah, but Buzz, there are two things you don't understand.
1. Win95 Config Manager does have a bug, where when you disable a PnP
port, it will not let you use the resource. I have tested it, and have
seen the problem. You can disable it in DOS/Win31 without any problems,
just not in WIn95.
2. In order to be "Microsoft PnP Win9X Compatible", you need to have
all ports be disabled by software ONLY. No jumpers. While I don't like
it either, most people look for the MS logo, and will not buy unless
they see it.
So while it is sucks to have a software company drivng the hardware
industry, in order for Creative (and others) to stay in business, we
need to follow the rules.
Mike Carrothers
Creative Labs
Quoted text (91 lines)
>Stephen, >>>> 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. >It will indeed, despite all you've read here. Used to be Creative Labs put >a paragraph in the back of the SB manuals that pretty much said the same thing. >If you are experiencing difficulty, then get a better game card and disable the >one on the SB card (although they hinted it was the software's fault and not >theirs. Couple years ago or so they removed that and said nothing except that >they admitted there could be problems with the game port on SB cards with high >speeds on the bus. >Lately, however, they seem to be saying everything is just 'hunky-dory' with the >SB game port. I haven't seen any changes to the design of it to suggest that >is true, of course, there is that: >"You CAN disable it in Win 3.1, and DOS (the SB pnp built into the motherboard >on some computers), but "Win 95 has a bug in it..." that won't allow you to >disable it... >Win 95 doesn't have a bug, it's pnp and it is detecting a pnp sound card with >a game port on it that CL did not put a hardware (jumper) provision to allow >you to disable it. Geeze, this is not a big deal CL. >Put a half cent jumper on the damned thing and the problem will go away. Blaming >it on a Win 95 bug is the wrong thing to do. >You will note that it will likely work fine as a game port for most software. But >sooner or later, the majority of people will run into games that have a joystick >routine that cannot work properly with a non speed-adjustable game card on a >sound card or multi i/o card - they simply do not reset fast enough (among >other things to work with some joystick routines.) >Never mind that the danged software's joystick routine is as much to blame for >this - it could be written to avoid this type problem and make speed adjustable >cards unnecessary in almost all situations. But, the fact of the matter is, >there are some games that do have joystick routines that lack this type of >attention. >The facts are: >1. The Creative Labs sound cards with game ports are excellent (the best IMHO) >sound cards that happen to have some shortcomings in the game port area - to wit: >a. Lack of a jumper to disable the pnp ones - that was extremely short sighted >IMHO. >b. Lack of high enough quality components or speed adjustability to allow ALL >users to get around problem joystick routines. Leaving this up to the software >companys is not a PRO-ACTIVE solution - it's an avoidance solution. >2. Many people can operate most games just fine with a sound card game port. >3. Many people cannot operate all games just fine with a sound card game port. >It ain't just the game port or the software - it's the whole danged system - >including the game port AND the software and how they work together with a >person's particular motherboard and what different cards he has in that system. >4. IF ALL software had the best joystick routines that handled every possible >problem that can arise in a joystick routine - motherboard (bus speed, power >levels, etc) - game port then speed adjustable game ports would be totally >unnecessary. >5. Think about it: >a. The joystick consists of wires, pots and buttons - nothing else affects the >game port - the extra electronics in the programmable ones only use the keyboard >line. >b. The game port has the electronic circuitry on it that controls how the stick >responds to the software's joystick routine and the signals it sends to the >game port. >c. The software's joystick routine has more to do with it than many people want >to admit, but it's natural for programmers who are excellent at doing graphics >and other things well to misunderstand how to interface with hardware properly. >Especially if they don't know that some game ports can reset too fast (or over >run the counter, among other things) on really fast computers and muck things >up they know should work perfectly well in their program code. >What this all adds up to is this: >In ThrustMaster's (and CH's - I've talked to them) tech support, a major share >of the problems we deal with every day are caused by people running a game >with a joystick or other controller (gamepad, whatever)on a sound card game port. >In fact, they are the biggest problem and have been for years. A speed >adjustable game card will solve about 90+ % of these problems. >Getting a pnp sound card with no hardware provision to disable it, thus forcing >the end-user to use the game port on it in Win 95 does not assist the problem >in any way - it simply makes it more difficult. >Calling it a "Win 95" bug does not help either. Adding a half a cent jumper >that allows the user to disable it if he chooses or finds he has a situation >where he needs to disable it would help. >It's that simple. >BuzzHaving tried virtually every hardware combination going during the past
several years of overclocking, upgrading, and building systems for
friends, I personally would say that game cards are the biggest waste of
money I have seen, possibly second only to these "Radio Card" things
that you see.
If the performance from the sound card JS-port is so bad, the soundcard
itself will be old and needing replaced. Why not spend the money on a
better soundcard, which comes with a free improved JS-port too?!
The soundcard market is VERY cut throat, and good quality DACs and ADCs
are very cheap. Despite all the horror stories you hear about terrible
quality soundcard gameports, why would they compromise a product in a
cut-throat market just to save a few cents? Think about it! Generally if
you hear unsubstantiated horror stories in the PC world, it's because
someone doesn't want you to do it - more money for them. I've NEVER seen
any problems from soundcard ports, and have used many of them in many
different PCs. Save your money and get a better soundcard.
Cheers!
John
_________________________________
__ _____| |_____ __
________| |__| :| John Wallace | |__| |________
\ :| |::| :| Team WW Racing TSW | |::| | /
> :| |::| :|_________________________________| |::| | < / :|__|::|____/ * Sim Racing News * \____|::|__| \
/______:/ \::/ http://sneezy.dcn.ed.ac.uk/simnews/index.htm \._____\
[link lost in import: /~harmon/simnews]
This 200-207 ***came from the IBM XT/AT spec, look it up. And the
Creative Labs cards can use any I/O port in this range.
Mike Carrothers
Creative Labs
In reply to Buzz Hoffman (No relation I think :) )
I have found that in the win95 Device Mangler you can disable the
joystick port by unchecking the box marked: Use original configuration.
when I reboot the port is disabled, HOWEVER, the irq is still used up
which stinks because I need the IRQ for another card. But I am able to
then use a gamecard without conflicts.... I am considering moving away
from Creative to the Crystalake cards. They have jumpers to disable
Joystick and IDE controller(Both are eating needed IRQ's on my system
now). Also I hear that they have much less buzzing, hissing and pulsing
noises like I'm getting on my current SB16 and also had on my previous
AWE32pnp.
Best,
-Jon
Mike,
Oh, but I do understand, it doesn't necessarily make it a bug. But it is an
effective way to dodge the fact that a jumper WOULD fix it. 8)
<>2. In order to be "Microsoft PnP Win9X Compatible", you need to have
I understand that too, but the fact is, since this is causing people problems,
I could care less about the Win95 sticker issue. If we have to focus on
coming down on the side of Microsoft's Win 95 sticker checklist requirements,
and not on the side of the end users then we aren't doing our customers a
service - we're aiding Microsoft in doing them a disservice. I am not blaming
Creative Labs here, but still, a jumper would fix it.
<>So while it is sucks to have a software company drivng the hardware
I doubt CL would go out of business for the lack of a Win 95 sticker on the
box of their sound cards. Creative Labs' cards (last time I checked) had a
very good reputation. Why mess that up by letting Microsoft decide for you
how you should make and market your products? Yes, I agree it sucks that they
have created this situation with their Plug 'n Play and the "Pay us a $1,000
and make your hardware the way we say it will be made...and we'll let you
put a sticker on your box." But I don't think that means we hardware mfrs have
to bow and scrape to them.
I still think the issue is this:
1. PNP requirements have created a problem whereby some people who want to use a
dedicated game port cannot do so (i.e. the sound card is on the motherboard)
when used with Win 95.
2. Yes, pnp's requirements specify no jumper - this is what's causing the
problem.
3. Saying "...it's a bug in Win 95..." Does not fix the problem.
4. Adding a jumper fixes the problem.
5. Changing the pnp requirements would also allow the problem to be fixed
and still allow a little 'Microsoft Approved' sticker on the box. But,
given MS' past history, what's the chances of this happening - especially
soon? About as much chance of that as Congress really, actually, honestly,
cutting the visible taxes and lowering visible spending without raising
the less visible taxes and less visible spending at the same time. i.e.
there is no chance.
And just think, you'd be doing this for your customers and not for 'business
reasons' (while looking frantically too and fro to see if 'Big Bro' MS was
watching you.
Buzz Hoffman
Bob,
<<<=Snipped the repetetive stuff=>>>
< Very true avout the SB PnP cards. I have a SB32 PnP that was nothing
but trouble. I eventually swapped it with an old AWE32 from my backup
computer and all the probs went away. I do use an ACM game card as
well.>
You could likely get around this with as long as it's a card by:
1. Shutting off your computer.
2. Removing the SB32 pnp card and make sure the ACM is installed.
3. Restart the computer and set up the ACM card.
4. Shut off the computer and reinstall the SB32 pnp card.
5. Reboot the computer and if it sets up the SB32 pnp card then disable
it in the control panel.
Much easier than just having a jumper on the SB32 pnp card itself. ;)
If it's built into the motherboard you can't disable it - period - you
will use it, OR ELSE. Microsoft says so. 8)
<One question for you Buzz. Is it PnP bios that assigns resource
settings or is it the cards software? My biggest problem with the PnP
port was I couldnt change the resources to 201-201(I think that was
the settings) because Win95 wouldnt let me. With the old card I can
use several different resource settings. Do you know which part of the
chain is responsible for this? >
It's the pnp bios - as per MS' requirements.
Buzz
Quoted text (10 lines)
> Very true avout the SB PnP cards. I have a SB32 PnP that was nothing > but trouble. I eventually swapped it with an old AWE32 from my backup > computer and all the probs went away. I do use an ACM game card as > well. > One question for you Buzz. Is it PnP bios that assigns resource > settings or is it the cards software? My biggest problem with the PnP > port was I couldnt change the resources to 201-201(I think that was > the settings) because Win95 wouldnt let me. With the old card I can > use several different resource settings. Do you know which part of the > chain is responsible for this?Dana,
Ahh, the 200 - 207 is part of the original PC specs. 201 was originally
used for the PC Game Port, and the rest in that range were left open for
similar type things as needed in the future. If you are ever going to
add any more capability to the PC for input devices you are going to need
to use either the available ports in the 200 to 207 range, or USB, or
something else like that. It's not really crap. The capability is there,
the problem is the software people all use strictly 201 and won't consider
using the rest - if they would - the Grip would work fine (on one of those
addresses) your normal joystick/game port stuff on 201, and so forth. But
everyone who writes a game that uses a peripheral device like a game pad,
joystick, driving wheel, throttles, etc, etc. all insist on using port
201. I guess that's as high as they teach them to count in programmers'
school (R,D,DFC) - I mean changing the refs in a joystick routine from
201 to 209 is not a really big thing - it's just changing that last digit
to 9 is apparently too intimidating for the programmers. Notice I put up
a patch on our WEB page a friend of mine did for me that changes the
joystick routines in Indycar II and Nascar from port 201 to port 209
works perfectly btw) so people could keep their T2s plugged into the
second game port on the ACM card while driving those games and still use
their joystick or game pad in the first game port. It took him all of two
hours to do it (from change to final test) once he dissasembled the code in
those two programs. The disassembly would not be needed by the original
programmer because he already knows what he did in the first place and he
could go straight to it and change it.
<>I have a question concerning using a speed adjustable game card. I have
The advanced precision IS there, but you really have to be looking for it
to see it. And, once again, it is a question of small differences that,
over time, can add up to big ones. The ACM card eliminates heat drifting,
it has mil spec components (1% tolerance) so the numbers don't vary as much
as the other cards (20% tolerance) components do. The reset happens instantly
no delay. The ability to adjust the pulse length can even eliminate most of
that 'dreaded' overhead all the marketing folks talk about (not mentioning
that they are in the realm of microseconds) by taking less time to read with
a shorter pulse length, etc. But, as with other things, if you don't really
understand it well, you can actually make it work worse by fiddling with it
and getting it set wrong.
Buzz
Quoted text (25 lines)
>Path: news.interserv.com!news-hub.interserv.net!netnews.nwnet.net!news.nodak.edu!news.uoknor.edu!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.wildstar.net!cancer.vividnet.com!hunter.premier.net!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news.mathworks.com!enews.sgi.com!news.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in3.uu.net!cisnews.cisnet.com!usenet >> Very true avout the SB PnP cards. I have a SB32 PnP that was nothing >> but trouble. I eventually swapped it with an old AWE32 from my backup >> computer and all the probs went away. I do use an ACM game card as >> well. >> One question for you Buzz. Is it PnP bios that assigns resource >> settings or is it the cards software? My biggest problem with the PnP >> port was I couldnt change the resources to 201-201(I think that was >> the settings) because Win95 wouldnt let me. With the old card I can >> use several different resource settings. Do you know which part of the >> chain is responsible for this? >I would have to think that the SB PnP card is responsible for this >glaring deficiency. The PnP firmware on the card is only giving Win95 >one option for addressing of the game port so Win95 only shows one >option. You would think the Creative Labs would be smart enough to use >the right address wouldn't you. The IBM spec address for the game port >is 201. I would like to know where this 200-207 ***came from in the >first place. Another place where this stupidity manifests itself is >with the Gravis GRiP interface. It is incompatible with PnP SB cards >because it requires the 201 address. I haven't read any other posts >about the Grip but it has to be affecting its acceptance as a standard >controller interface.>Yes, damned fine response. It gave me a little info on a problem I'm having as
well. Thanks.
Corsair
__________________________________________________________
Web CAG of The Unofficial "Jolly Rogers" Site
http://www-home.calumet.yorku.ca/mdonalds/www/home.htm
__________________________________________________________
CAG of the "VF-84 Jolly Rogers" Simulation Squadron
__________________________________________________________
99 "Knights of the Air"
in super high-tech jet fighters
- "99 Red Balloons"
__________________________________________________________
Quoted text (32 lines)
> Bob, > <<<=Snipped the repetetive stuff=>>> > < Very true avout the SB PnP cards. I have a SB32 PnP that was nothing > but trouble. I eventually swapped it with an old AWE32 from my backup > computer and all the probs went away. I do use an ACM game card as > well.> > You could likely get around this with as long as it's a card by: > 1. Shutting off your computer. > 2. Removing the SB32 pnp card and make sure the ACM is installed. > 3. Restart the computer and set up the ACM card. > 4. Shut off the computer and reinstall the SB32 pnp card. > 5. Reboot the computer and if it sets up the SB32 pnp card then disable > it in the control panel. > Much easier than just having a jumper on the SB32 pnp card itself. ;) > If it's built into the motherboard you can't disable it - period - you > will use it, OR ELSE. Microsoft says so. 8) > <One question for you Buzz. Is it PnP bios that assigns resource > settings or is it the cards software? My biggest problem with the PnP > port was I couldnt change the resources to 201-201(I think that was > the settings) because Win95 wouldnt let me. With the old card I can > use several different resource settings. Do you know which part of the > chain is responsible for this? > > It's the pnp bios - as per MS' requirements. > BuzzHi Buzz,
Whilst what you are saying is undoubtedly true, I would rather take
the attitude that "every little helps" :)
If spending a small amount of extra money on a dedicated game card
would allow me an extra couple of fps with the same processor
occupancy or having the same fps with extra textures on, I would leap
at it. Whilst I might not be able to particularly tell the difference
between a frame rate of 21 fps and 23 fps it becomes very obvious if
you look at it in terms of PO in GP2 as 100% is great but 110% is
awful :((
Pity I don't really believe that I _would_ get a real world 10%
improvement though.....
Cheers,
Richard
Quoted text (10 lines)
> <One question for you Buzz. Is it PnP bios that assigns resource > settings or is it the cards software? My biggest problem with the PnP > port was I couldnt change the resources to 201-201(I think that was > the settings) because Win95 wouldnt let me. With the old card I can > use several different resource settings. Do you know which part of the > chain is responsible for this? > > It's the pnp bios - as per MS' requirements. > BuzzI've been following this thread with interest as I have a last-generation
Dell P166, and alas the game port is on the motherboard wih the Vibra 16
chipset. I am actually having problems with my current Suncom stick and
was thinking of moving to an FLCS and get an ACM gamecard, but now I am
wondering whether there any way of disabling the on-board port. I don't
recall any jumper whatsoever on the board.
Do you know of any way around this, or am I basically lumped with a
defective gameport?
Mark
--
WWW-URL: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/mds24
~ Office ~ ~ Home ~
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory Darwin College
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street Silver Street
Cambridge CB2 3QG, U.K. Cambridge CB3 9EU, U.K.
Room: T15 Office Phone: +44 1223 334690 Phone: +44 1223 329387
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trips,
Nothing really going on. It's just one of them typical PC things. They are all
different. Mr Bios is an aftermarket bios and a darned good one too. I had to
get one of those to replace the bios I had in my 386/33 and it had lots of
improvements to it over and above the one that came with it.
I would imagine their microcode is quite a bit different than the Award one was.
For whatever reason (microcode, etc) the Mr Bios wouldn't let you disable it,
and that's not unusual. I've been seeing about a 75% success rate at disabling
SB pnp cards with people who all have different systems.
One method of disabling it will work for several people and not work for others.
I have about 3 different methods I have them try if the first one doesn't work
and the experience with them is similar - works for some people and doesn't work
for others.
That's part of what makes PCs so difficult and why you can't make general
statements about it like:
"I've been using the such & such sound card game port and have experienced
no problems whatsoever so you don't need a dedicated game port." That peron's
experience with his computer really has nothing to do with ALL pcs, however,
it does have something to do with SOME pcs which will work similar to his.
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".
Per the specs, access to the keyboard i/o ports is supposed to be
"user configurable".
Buzz
Buzz
Mark,
I assume you got my reply to your email regarding this?
Buzz
Quoted text (23 lines)
>>Getting a pnp sound card with no hardware provision to disable it, thus forcing >>the end-user to use the game port on it in Win 95 does not assist the problem >>in any way - it simply makes it more difficult. >>Calling it a "Win 95" bug does not help either. Adding a half a cent jumper >>that allows the user to disable it if he chooses or finds he has a situation >>where he needs to disable it would help. >>It's that simple. >>Buzz >I've been following this thread with interest as I have a last-generation >Dell P166, and alas the game port is on the motherboard wih the Vibra 16 >chipset. I am actually having problems with my current Suncom stick and >was thinking of moving to an FLCS and get an ACM gamecard, but now I am >wondering whether there any way of disabling the on-board port. I don't >recall any jumper whatsoever on the board. >Do you know of any way around this, or am I basically lumped with a >defective gameport? >MarkCan we please get back to AUTO SIMULATORS PLEASE !!!
This is getting a little crazy!
Tim
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
Sorry Buzz, but the SB cards will respond to 201-207 also.........
Mike Carrothers
Creative Labs
: 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.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Quoted text (10 lines)
>>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<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
ThrustMaster, Inc.) writes:
>>>The SB port only can access port 201h - there is no jumper to make it
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
Quoted text (12 lines)
>>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 thanQuoted text (7 lines)
>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".Ken,
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
Quoted text (61 lines)
><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, >KennethIn Article Re: Dedicated game card really needed? ,
> Ken, [snip]
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)
Quoted text (15 lines)
> 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.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
>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
