| |
MC
Account closed
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 71 |
music-assembler
Any of you ever used it?
I am partly responsible for its existence.
Together with OPM who lived next door from me at the time (we lost contact) we decided after ripping lots of game tunes by Rob Hubbard and Martin Galway that we could do better technically.
We created a player routine which could play good sounding music based on tracks, sequences and presets (like hubbard's routine) minimizing RAM usage but without having big peaks in rasterline usage. The trick was working around the waiting stuff that had to be done with the SID or otherwise it wouldn't trigger. We accomplished this by having the player think ahead and make decisions for the next time the interrupt would be triggered. This routine would later become the music-assembler player code. The rest is history.
The two of us created the player routine, OPM was responsible for the track editor and I did the sequence and preset editors. We contacted Markt+Technik who also published some magazines in Germany and we had a publishing deal. They sold quite a large number of copies to my surprise at the time. I think I was about 17 years old or something back then.
I've read there were later 'updated' versions of our 1.0 release by Triad. Can anyone tell me what they changed/improved? I haven't seen a C64 in decades.
Cheers,
Marco Swagerman a.k.a. MC/DusaT
|
|
... 43 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
Mr. SID
Registered: Jan 2003
Posts: 424 |
Jan, there's no excuse for these things:
- Not using backup
- Not using revision control
- Stuffing everything into one file, writing spaghetti code
it's not oldskool. People would've used these techniques even in the 80ies if they would've been available and/or feasible. You always gotta learn. |
| |
Frantic
Registered: Mar 2003
Posts: 1648 |
I agree.. Yet I think gpz acts kinda silly too. :) I mean.. what is the point with bashing on someone cause they don't take backups (no matter if that is silly or not) in a thread about music-assembler? Doesn't exactly help the discussion stay on topic, does it? :) |
| |
Stainless Steel
Registered: Mar 2003
Posts: 966 |
What better way to welcome a long lost C64 scener could there be,
other than turning his first post into another kindergarden shitstorm off-topic thread.
By all means, go ahead. Post some memes while you're at it. Great fun.
|
| |
Mr. SID
Registered: Jan 2003
Posts: 424 |
 |
| |
MC
Account closed
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 71 |
Don't panic. I'm used to lame bitching - afterall I was a scener before ;)
|
| |
MC
Account closed
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 71 |
I was really happy with the include and incbin stuff in Devpac when I started out on the Amiga, it allowed me to re-use a lot of code... but let's drop the URE DOING IT WRONG! discussion.
Music-Assembler had several (tasm) source files to keep the src from getting cluttered and chunky AND because there were two coders, each working on different sections of it. This is different from coding a quick demo/intro type of thing where its okay to throw it all into one src file.
Just write code in a way you feel most comfortable with given the circumstances. There is no right or wrong - this is art we're talking about.
Most demos I did in the old days were coded in a debugger. We had no assemblers in those days, just a debugger and some sprite/charset editors.
Anyways, back to the topic...
I've been checking out the Triad releases of masm and can't find any improvements in there. Did they ever change anything in the music routine/editor at all? Doesn't seem so.
|
| |
Zyron
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 2381 |
I don't think so. They were merely making changes to the editor AFAIK. |
| |
SIDWAVE
Account closed
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2238 |
MC: Didnt you see my pm ?
the 1.2 version by Triad, has the improvements described in the little scroll inside the main editor screen, and you should ofcourse notice them when using it.. ?
Here's the 1.4 version
Music-Assembler V1.4 |
| |
MC
Account closed
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 71 |
Yes I read the PM and no the scroll in 1.2 didn' tell me enough. There's hardly anything in there. Disk actions window semi improved, rastertime display 'fixed' (it wasn't broken in the first place), time played display added and they changed the three track bars in the bottom into a 'graphic analyzer' type of thing in which you can't see which track is doing what so that it is just a nice looking graphic but not really useful.
In effect according to their scrolltext Triad made no useful changes at all and their subsequent releases appear to be bugfixes of their own code in their previous release.
This is why I ask if anything was changed at all in masm's functionality. As it appears this is not the case I can stick to 1.0 and safely discard the Triad releases, unless ofcourse there is some point to them I am missing?
Cheers, Marco
|
| |
SIDWAVE
Account closed
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2238 |
no, the functionality isnt changed.
its a pure "we upgraded this" (with useless gfx effect) release :D |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 - Next |
