Re: Re[2]: New joystick communication standard proposal
>Depending on the exact SCSI protocol you're using the max. cable length >can vary between 1.5 and 25 meter. I don´t think you will ever get to 25 meters. For AFAIK max lenght is 6 meters... (:-) Greetings Maico Arts MSX-NBNO MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
Re: New joystick communication standard proposal
>At 09:16 21/08/98 +0100, you wrote: (It's exactly the same reason that the length of e.g. SCSI cables is limited) >>> >>> Well, I've a 2 meter-long SCSI cable, and it works very well! >> >>Congratulations. >> >>I don't know the exact specs for SCSI cablelengths, but I'm fairly sure >>2 mtr is not even close to the max. Anyway, we're not discussing SCSI >>here, but MSXNet (This is the land of confusion (Genesis) *GRIN*). >>Defining the max cable length will be a matter of trial and error, I guess. > > If you remember that IDE can be only 0,5 mts long... SCSI rulez! I have worked with a scsi cable for more than 4 meters loong. I used 1 or 2 harddisks with 3 computers That was fun! Greetigns Maico Arts MSX-NBNO MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
Re: New joystick communication standard proposal
:> ] :A long cable is used for sending (MSX pin 6,7,3) and has a male DIN5 plug. :> ] :A short cable is used for receiving (MSX pin 1,2,8) and has a female DIN5 :> ] :plug. :> ] :> ] Ah, didn't add that (about the long and the short cable) yet on my page. : :I don't understand why the cable-sizes are different, for sending or receiving! :Isn't it all in the same cable? Actually, both cables (both send/recv) should be the same size. Reason for that is that a different length is of no use, for you can't connect send to recv and vice versa for the connectors are different (male/female). In addition, when having different-size cables to the DIN-connectors you can get unhandy situations like that the one cable is shorter than the other. ~Grauw 'if u get what I mean...' MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
Re: New joystick communication standard proposal
> > The length of the cable will not have much limitations, except for the > > resistance of it: > Which is exactly the reason to mak it not too long. The longer the cable, > the higher the resitance (and impedance) will become. The result of this is Note: Impedance is the general from of resistance. When only talking about DC components (like resistors) we can talk of resistance. Otherwise the term impedance should be used. > that the flanks (signal changes) will 'flatten': How do you know about this, and how do you explain it? > Well, this is what _I_ know about it, having studied neither physics, nor > electronics :-) Grtjs, Manuel PS: MSX 4 EVER! (Questions? See: http://www.faq.msxnet.org) PPS: Visit my homepage at http://www.sci.kun.nl/marie/home/manuelbi MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
Re: New joystick communication standard proposal
At 10:55 PM 8/20/98 +0300, you wrote: >And we should make sure that the protocol is smart enough to handle 'slow' >(compared to the cpu speed) changing lines. When the line is somewhere >between low and high for a too long time, you can get flipping 0/1 levels >because of noice. Flipping long enough for the CPU to notice it... Is there really a voltage level that is exactly between 0 and 1? I can imagine a system like this that would have far less problems: 0V means "0" 5V means "1" When the level goes from 0V to 5V, at 3V the bit flips to "1". When the level goes from 5V to 0V, at 2V the bit flips to "0". Does anyone know how things work in the MSX ICs? Bye, Maarten MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
Re: New joystick communication standard proposal
Ricardo Jurczyk Pinheiro wrote: > > At 09:16 21/08/98 +0100, you wrote: > >>>(It's exactly the same reason that the length of e.g. SCSI cables is > >>> limited) > >> > >> Well, I've a 2 meter-long SCSI cable, and it works very well! > > > >Congratulations. > > > >I don't know the exact specs for SCSI cablelengths, but I'm fairly sure > >2 mtr is not even close to the max. Anyway, we're not discussing SCSI > >here, but MSXNet (This is the land of confusion (Genesis) *GRIN*). > >Defining the max cable length will be a matter of trial and error, I guess. > > If you remember that IDE can be only 0,5 mts long... SCSI rulez! Don´t forget that SCSI has impedance calibration on the cable (Terminators) and IDE doesn´t. I think if you all want to use largue cables on this network it will require terminators or impedance control circuits. (No I don´t forgot that SCSI is a bus , but SCSI need terminators even when there is only 2 dispositives connected to the bus.) Grettings from Brasilia , Brazil . -- Leonard Silva de Oliveira MSX user since 1987 MSX users channel on the undernet : #MSX the MSX user's channel Nickname : Vic_Viper [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
Re: New joystick communication standard proposal
>> that the flanks (signal changes) will 'flatten': > >How do you know about this, and how do you explain it? Some electronics expert told me :-) Ultra-short explanation: longer line means higher capacity of the line (in (micro)Farad, not in Baud :-)) and therefor 'slower' response of the line to voltage level changes. (It's exactly the same reason that the length of e.g. SCSI cables is limited) Ciao, Eric Note & Disclaimer: I haven't got the foggiest idea at which cable lenghts these effects will actually occur. I guess this depends heavily on cable diameter and IC specs (voltage ranges which define and distiguish logical '0' and '1') etc... MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
Re: New joystick communication standard proposal
At 05:42 PM 8/20/98 +0200, you wrote: >:I don't understand why the cable-sizes are different, for sending or >:receiving! >:Isn't it all in the same cable? > >Actually, both cables (both send/recv) should be the same size. Reason for >that is that a different length is of no use, for you can't connect send to >recv and vice versa for the connectors are different (male/female). The length convention is part of the preliminary standard. If you think it's a bad idea, say so, and we can discuss it. But please don't go telling people they should make equal sized cables when the standard says they shouldn't. >In addition, when having different-size cables to the DIN-connectors you >can >get unhandy situations like that the one cable is shorter than the other. That would only be a problem in 2-computer networks. The nice thing about the long/short convention is that the plugs are always near the computer. If both cables are equally long, the plugs will end up halfway between computers, which is less practical if for example 'halfway' means the floor between two stands on a computer fair. Bye, Maarten MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
Re: New joystick communication standard proposal
>>(It's exactly the same reason that the length of e.g. SCSI cables is >> limited) > > Well, I've a 2 meter-long SCSI cable, and it works very well! Congratulations. I don't know the exact specs for SCSI cablelengths, but I'm fairly sure 2 mtr is not even close to the max. Anyway, we're not discussing SCSI here, but MSXNet (This is the land of confusion (Genesis) *GRIN*). Defining the max cable length will be a matter of trial and error, I guess. Eric MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
Re: New joystick communication standard proposal
] Maarten ter Huurne wrote: ] ] :A long cable is used for sending (MSX pin 6,7,3) and has a male DIN5 plug. ] :A short cable is used for receiving (MSX pin 1,2,8) and has a female DIN5 ] :plug. ] ] Ah, didn't add that (about the long and the short cable) yet on my page. ] ] ] :> The maximum transfer speed is theoretically only limited by the MSX ] :>clock but the cable impedance (lenght and the existence or not of ] >shielding) ] :>may decrease the rate. ] : ] :So the standard should also include "you must use shielding" and "maximum ] :cable length is xx meters"? ] ] No man, that has no use. A cable without shielding can do as fine as a ] shielded cable, the only thing is that **theoretically**, the dropout-rate ] can be a little higher. Too bad that things which can happen theoretically also will happen practically. When the transfer speeds are high enough. So I do not think it will be such a big issue with our Z80's at 3.58MHz. But then again, if somebody wants to make a really long cable it could become a problem. Anybody around here that knows more about physical limitiations, possible radio interference problems (caused by higher harmonics generated by the square wave) and other kind of to be expected problems? Are there any good technical books about this topic? Or should we just start experimenting ourselves? Do we have to re-invent the wheel? I mean, datacommunication is not something new. It is just as old as computers are. Kind regards, Alex Wulms -- Alex Wulms/XelaSoft - MSX of anders NIX - Linux 4 ever See my homepage for info on the *** XSA *** format http://www.inter.nl.net/users/A.P.Wulms MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
Re: New joystick communication standard proposal
> The length of the cable will not have much limitations, except for the > resistance of it: Which is exactly the reason to mak it not too long. The longer the cable, the higher the resitance (and impedance) will become. The result of this is that the flanks (signal changes) will 'flatten': signal on short cable: ___ |___| |___ ^---^ flanks signal on long cable: ___ |___/ \___ signal on very long cable: ___ |_.-' `-._ signal on way too long a cable: |- When the cable is too long, the flanks become that 'flat' that they may lead to a undetermined signal state on the line, or the flanks and low/high signals may disappear completely, with the line signal floating somewhere in between. This of course implies a lot of transmission errors. >So don't make the cable too long. I'm not an expert in this too, but I >know something of it (at least, I should, I'm a 4th year physics-student >now...) Well, this is what _I_ know about it, having studied neither physics, nor electronics :-) Eric (hard core CompSci :-)) MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
Re: New joystick communication standard proposal
At 09:16 21/08/98 +0100, you wrote: >>>(It's exactly the same reason that the length of e.g. SCSI cables is >>> limited) >> >> Well, I've a 2 meter-long SCSI cable, and it works very well! > >Congratulations. > >I don't know the exact specs for SCSI cablelengths, but I'm fairly sure >2 mtr is not even close to the max. Anyway, we're not discussing SCSI >here, but MSXNet (This is the land of confusion (Genesis) *GRIN*). >Defining the max cable length will be a matter of trial and error, I guess. If you remember that IDE can be only 0,5 mts long... SCSI rulez! Ricardo Jurczyk Pinheiro (\__/) Star Trek, X-Files, M. Sc in Numerical Modelling (..) _) Comics, MSX, Anime, Universidade Federal Fluminense/\/\ (Gospel & Christian __ .___ _ _(m__m)_)_ _ \__ \| |\_ ___ \ / _ \ \__ \ \__ \ \_ \ | _/| |/\ \/ / /_\ \ | _/ || \ / | \ || \| |\ \/|\|| \ |` \/|\ ||_ /|___| \/\|/||_ //___ /\___ / \/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://pagina.de/rjp \/ \/ \/ "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings." - Optimus Prime Say NO to Internet censorship! Say NO to monopolies! Say NO to Microsoft! And, why not... Say YES to Jesus Christ?! MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
Re: New joystick communication standard proposal
Alex Wulms wrote :] Software is not important to standardize. But it can be usefull to :] distribute a sample/default protocol so that software developers can create :] software with less effort. :Huh? Ever heard of the internet? The only reason that it works is because the :protocols are standardised! : :I for example have two nice tools in mind: :One for transferring files :One for sending messages to other people Well, these tools should all come from the same developer, or you should think about a standarized protocol for that and if someone else is going to make something which he wants to be compatible with the things you are planning to make, then he should go to your page and look up how your protocol works. If so, I'll, ofcourse, link to your page from mine... But I think a standard protocol is only useful when you're planning to make a real network. But I'm afraid JoyCom (or whatever the name will be) will turn out too slow for a real network. For games, a standarized protocol has no use, and for a simple file-transfers you can simply use the same program on both computers. :How would the receiving computer know to which program to send the incoming :data if there was no standard way for doing so? If you're planning to make a network using JoyCom (although I think SCSI or so would bu *much* better for that), then you should develop a standard for that. By the way, I really encourage the development of the tools you talked about above! Would be great to have these. :How would the receiving computer know to pass on some data to another :computer if there was no standard way for doing so? Well, that's true. :Having no standard protocol is fine as long as all computers are playing the :same game. Then you can use a proprietary protocol. But as soon as you have a :ring with for example four computers, called A, B, C and D, and computer A :wants to send a file to computer C while computer B wants to send a message :to computer D you do have a big problem if there is no standard protocol. Correct, but I think that if you want to do that you'll just have to link computer A with computer C and computer B with computer D. Anyway, go invent some JoyCom standard Network-protocol (and give it a name *grin*, something like Alex Wulms' JoyCom Network Protcol (awjnp:// *grin again*)!!!) Anyway, I'm just developing a protocol for games. :It's just a thought... Do your best! ~Grauw MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
Fw: New joystick communication standard proposal
-Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Werner Augusto Roder Kai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Datum: maandag 17 augustus 1998 8:11 Onderwerp: New joystick communication standard proposal (I'm unable to send mail to the msxmailinglist because my account at basemail is off-line. Please forward this to msxmailinglist for me. Thnx) Hi MSX people, After a weekend working and thinking about the matter of joystick communications, we have something to say. And maybe after that there will be nothing more to discuss concerning the hardware: The connections of the cable to play F-16 in combat mode are: 1 - 6 2 - 7 6 - 1(this pin numbers are for DB-9 female) 7 - 2 9 - 9 And to play F1 Spirit 3D in battle mode (thanks to Sean Young): 1 - 6 2 - 7 3 - 8 6 - 1(Also for DB-9 female) 7 - 2 8 - 3 9 - 9 LAURENS wrote: > I have a proposal about a standard for joystick-connections. Read below > about what way I had in mind to let it work like. It is meant to be put in > Joystick-port 2 of both computers. > My idea was to connect both joystick-connectors like this: > pin 6 : 1 (trig1 > fwd) > pin 7 : 2 (trig2 > back) > pin 8 : 3 (output > left) MAARTEN wrote: > SEND (DIN8 male)RECV (DIN8 female) > > d0 1 ---+ +-- 1 d0 > d1 2 -+ | | + 2 d1 > ack 3 ---+ | | | | +-- 3 ack > gnd 8 ---|-|-|--|-|-|--+--- 8 gnd > | | | | | | | > | | | | | | | > 3 7 6 1 2 8 9 > > MSX (DB9 female) > And what about the auto detect option? I asked a couple of days ago, but > there was no reaction, so I'll ask again: > Would it be a good idea to connect TRG_A to RIGHT? Using this, we could > make an "auto detect" option: the program would be able to see in which > joystick port the network connector is plugged in. > Also, is it a good idea to connect the ground to the cable shielding? I've > seen that on a couple of cables. - Linking joystick ports with a cable is really the simplest and the cheapest way to connect two or more MSX computers. - Everybody agrees that the basic pin connections are 1-6, 2-7 and 8-3. That keep the compatibility with the old games F-16 and F1Spirit3D. - The cables for F-16 and F1Spirit 3D were made to connect only two computers, using one joystick port. Conneccting more than two MSX computers with these cable would force the use of the two joystick ports. It's too bad. - Maarten found the solution. Using only one port we can connect several MSX computers, keeping another port free to use the joystick (for a game) or the mouse (for an application). And for two computers, the cable keeps the compatibility with F-16 and F1Spirit 3D cables. - Is NOT good to standartise that the cable will be always in port 1 or port 2. If you have a MSX with problems in the specified port, you won't be able to connect it... - So, The port can be 1 or 2, and the new softs MUST detect in which port is the cable, though F-16 and F1Spirit3d need the cable in port 2. - DIN-8 has too much pins and is hard to obtain in some places. The DIN-5 connector is enough for us and more easy to find. SEND/OUT (DIN-5 male) RECV/IN (DIN-5 female) NC 5 5 NC out0 4 ---+ +-- 4 in0 out1 3 -+ | | + 3 in1 in2 1 -+ | | | | +-- 1 out2 gnd 2 --+--|---|-|--|-|-|--++-- 2 gnd | | | | | | | || ext -+ | | | | | | |+- ext | +-+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3 4 7 6 1 2 8 9 MSX (DB-9 female) DIN 5 DIN 5 MALE FEMALE ------ / 2 \ / 2 \ / \/ \ / 5 4 \ / 4 5 \ / \/ \ \ 3 1 /\ 1 3 / \ / \ / \ /\ / \ +-+ / \ +-+ / --+ +----+ +-- extext We think is not important to standartise pin usage or software. If the hardwa
Re: New joystick communication standard proposal
At 06:11 AM 8/17/98 -0700, Werner Augusto Roder Kai wrote: >- Maarten found the solution. Using only one port we can connect >several MSX computers, keeping another port free to use the joystick (for a >game) or the mouse (for an application). And for two computers, the cable >keeps the compatibility with F-16 and F1Spirit 3D cables. Actually that was not my idea. But it's a good idea anyway. > - Is NOT good to standartise that the cable will be always in port 1 >or port 2. If you have a MSX with problems in the specified port, you won't >be able to connect it... I agree. >- So, The port can be 1 or 2, and the new softs MUST detect in >which port is the cable, though F-16 and F1Spirit3d need the cable in >port 2. Someone (Laurens?) remarked that hardware autodetect is not such a good idea. A protocol which can detect the cable as part of the initialisation is easier and more flexible. >- DIN-8 has too much pins and is hard to obtain in some places. The >DIN-5 connector is enough for us and more easy to find. DIN5 was chosen for the final standard. >SEND/OUT (DIN-5 male) RECV/IN (DIN-5 female) > > NC 5 5 NC >out0 4 ---+ +-- 4 in0 >out1 3 -+ | | + 3 in1 > in2 1 -+ | | | | +-- 1 out2 > gnd 2 --+--|---|-|--|-|-|--++-- 2 gnd > | | | | | | | || > ext -+ | | | | | | |+- ext > | +-+ | | | | | > | | | | | | | | > | | | | | | | | > 3 4 7 6 1 2 8 9 On the mailinglist, we agreed on using a different connection scheme for DIN5: 1: data0 (D0) 2: data1 (D1) 3: data2 (ACK) 4: NC 5: gnd shielding: gnd A long cable is used for sending (MSX pin 6,7,3) and has a male DIN5 plug. A short cable is used for receiving (MSX pin 1,2,8) and has a female DIN5 plug. >We think is not important to standartise pin usage or software. Software is not important to standardize. But it can be usefull to distribute a sample/default protocol so that software developers can create software with less effort. Pin usage is important, because ACK (data3) is connected to a different computer as data0 and data1. The names "data0" (D0) and "data1" (D1) are very general, so you can always decide the actual use for yourself. > The maximum transfer speed is theoretically only limited by the MSX >clock but the cable impedance (lenght and the existence or not of >shielding) >may decrease the rate. So the standard should also include "you must use shielding" and "maximum cable length is xx meters"? > We should make a official homepage to spread the new standard, with >instructions and examples about how to make the communication and some >basic routines (but not standard routines). I made a page: http://www.stack.nl/~mth/msx/hardware/ Laurens also made a page. I don't mind who will make the official page. I volunteer. Any other volunteers? >The MSX clubs shoud prepair some kits >to show and sell in the next MSX fairs with some soft. The start is always >hard, but the sky is the limit. I hope a little demonstration can be given at the Zandvoort fair (second half of september). > We would like to thanx Sean Young for the information about >F1Spirit3D, Laurens and Maarten for their ideas and work in way to make the >new standard possible. Also Patrick Lina, Jeroen Smael, Alex Wulms and some other people participated. > Yesterday (16/08/98) we made three new cables just like above and >re-programmed our game to work with the new pinout. Tomorrow the game in >BASIC and the whole source code in Z80 assembly will be in my Homepage to >download, and then you will have something more funny to test your cables. Great! Sander Kooijmans is willing to give the sources of Triplex (multiplayer Tetris clone using Music Module MIDI). It should be easy to modify it for the joystick network. The problem is that he's not sure he has the sources on disk. He does have printed sources, so maybe they have to be typed in from paper. Or I can test if OCR (Optical Character Recognision) software really works... By the way, according to my WWW statistics, about 6 people downloaded the cable tester this weekend. Reactions (positive or negative) are welcome at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bye, Maarten MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
Re: New joystick communication standard proposal
On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Manuel Bilderbeek wrote: > > I can imagine a system like this that would have far less problems: > > 0V means "0" > > 5V means "1" > > When the level goes from 0V to 5V, at 3V the bit flips to "1". > > When the level goes from 5V to 0V, at 2V the bit flips to "0". > > > > Does anyone know how things work in the MSX ICs? > > At my electronics course, I learned there are conventions/rules/standards for > this. The level for 0 and for 1 is in these conventions. The most used > conventions are CMOS and TTL. It depends on which one is used ofcourse. > > CMOS is 'stiffer' than TTL. But I don't know what the limits are exactly. CMOS chips has a transfer curve infinitely differentiable, i.e., there's no abruptous transitions. For example: Output ^ | |... | .. | . | . | . | . | . |.. | ... | . ---> Input This means that, if the source is 5.0V, the inversion voltage of a CMOS inverter is exactly 2.5V (theoretically). But if you want to know what happens if you apply 1.5V to the input of a CMOS inverter, I can say that an approximated value is 3.5V. So, for digital signals, it's strongly recommended that the low level doesnt' exceed 1.0V and the high level doesn't be below 4.0V, supposing that the source (VDD) is 5.0V. In TTL circuits, the standard says that: source voltage: 5.0V +/- 10% maximum low level input signal: 0.8V minumum high level input signal: 2.4V But what happens when you apply a signal between 0.8V and 2.4V? Everything can happen! In this range, each integrated circuit from each manufacturer can do what it wants! It's unpredictable. To solve this problem there are an special family of TTL integrated circuits called "SCHMITT TRIGGER", that implements an special transfer curve called "HYSTERESIS". The phenomenom of hysteresis was first discovered in magnetic materials, and after the concept was applied in conversion of analog signals to digital. It works like Manuel explained, and below there is a transfer curve of an SCHMITT TRIGGER: Output ^ 5V |..>.. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ^V | .. | .. | .. | .. 0.4V| .< ---> Input 0V 0.8V 2.4V5V The arrows in the graphic above show that this graphic can be read only in the indicated directions. Let's interpret this transfer curve: when the input is very low, the output is high. Increasing the input voltage until lower than 2.4V the output will keep the output high. If the input becomes higher than 2.4V, then the output will go to low level, and if you decrease the input of a small voltage, the output will keep low! This means that the transfer curve is not linear and not continuous (so, not differentiable). Increasing the input until 5V will keep the output low. Now, decreasing the input voltage until higher than 0.8V the output will keep low. If the input becomes lower than 0.8V, then the output will go to high level, and if you increase the input of a small voltage, the output will keep high! This is the principle of hysteresis: when a transition happens, the input voltage should "come back" a big value! When you asked "Does anyone know how things work in the MSX ICs", you mean externally to the chip or internally? I think I explained externally, but if you wanna know internally, it's a long long story! PS: It's obvious that the network cable MUST HAVE a ground! And 9600 bauds if only 4 times faster than a tape. So, anyone should create a network cartridge for MSX. And why not a wireless network? Best regards! Marco Antonio MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
Re: New joystick communication standard proposal (fwd)
On Mon, 17 Aug 1998, Jeroen Smael wrote: > Werner Augusto Roder Kai wrote: > > > > <> > > > > SEND/OUT (DIN-5 male) RECV/IN (DIN-5 female) > > > > NC 5 5 NC > > out0 4 ---+ +-- 4 in0 > > out1 3 -+ | | + 3 in1 > > in2 1 -+ | | | | +-- 1 out2 > > gnd 2 --+--|---|-|--|-|-|--++-- 2 gnd > > | | | | | | | || > > ext -+ | | | | | | |+- ext > > | +-+ | | | | | > > | | | | | | | | > > | | | | | | | | > > 3 4 7 6 1 2 8 9 > > > > MSX (DB-9 female) > > > > <> > > > > Hi all, > > THIS CONNECTION SCHEME SEEM WRONG TO ME. It is not what was posted > earlier on in this discussion. The comments with this connection > scheme are minor (nothing at all is another way of describing it :-) > ), so could someone please explain this or correct it. > > The big question is: DO I NEED TO RESOLDER MY CABLE (hope not :-( )! No you do not have to make a new cable. The schematics above are -WRONG-! At least to our new 'JoyCom', 'JoyNet' or whatever you want to call it, standard. DO NOT MAKE THE CABLE DESCRIBED EARLIER. IT IS EVIL! ;) Just stick to our earlier schematic and you'll do fine. Greetz, Patsie MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
Re: New joystick communication standard proposal
> ] :A long cable is used for sending (MSX pin 6,7,3) and has a male DIN5 plug. > ] :A short cable is used for receiving (MSX pin 1,2,8) and has a female DIN5 > ] :plug. > ] > ] Ah, didn't add that (about the long and the short cable) yet on my page. I don't understand why the cable-sizes are different, for sending or receiving! Isn't it all in the same cable? > ] :> The maximum transfer speed is theoretically only limited by the MS X > ] :>clock but the cable impedance (lenght and the existence or not of > ] >shielding) > ] :>may decrease the rate. > ] : > ] :So the standard should also include "you must use shielding" and "maximum > ] :cable length is xx meters"? > ] > ] No man, that has no use. A cable without shielding can do as fine as a > ] shielded cable, the only thing is that **theoretically**, the dropout-rate > ] can be a little higher. > Too bad that things which can happen theoretically also will happen > practically. When the transfer speeds are high enough. So I do not think it > will be such a big issue with our Z80's at 3.58MHz. But then again, if > somebody wants to make a really long cable it could become a problem. > > Anybody around here that knows more about physical limitiations, possible > radio interference problems (caused by higher harmonics generated by the > square wave) and other kind of to be expected problems? Shielding seems very useful (and is very easy to make in this case), since indeed there is much less interference, and at higher rates, the cable can act as "transmission line" if it's shielden (like COAX cables). In this way higher frequencies can be transmitted. I hope it's true what I'm saying here. Anyway, USE SHIELDING! Won't cost extra, is much safer. The length of the cable will not have much limitations, except for the resistance of it: make sure it's not to high, to prevent loss of data. So don't make the cable too long. I'm not an expert in this too, but I know something of it (at least, I should, I'm a 4th year physics-student now...) MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
Re: New joystick communication standard proposal
Werner Augusto Roder Kai wrote: : Hi MSX people, : :After a weekend working and thinking about the matter of joystick :communications, we have something to say. And maybe after that there will :be nothing more to discuss concerning the hardware: : :The connections of the cable to play F-16 in combat mode are: : :1 - 6 :2 - 7 :6 - 1(this pin numbers are for DB-9 female) :7 - 2 :9 - 9 Seems not compatible to me for pins 8-3 are not used. :- Maarten found the solution. Using only one port we can connect :several MSX computers, keeping another port free to use the joystick (for a :game) or the mouse (for an application). And for two computers, the cable :keeps the compatibility with F-16 and F1Spirit 3D cables. Correct. You can also make a simple-design 2-computer-cable, which will do fine too. :- Is NOT good to standartise that the cable will be always in port 1 :or port 2. If you have a MSX with problems in the specified port, you won't :be able to connect it... Ofcourse, but I'll add it to my homepage anyway. It shouldn't be too hard when you're trying to detect the **name** (let's refer to it as 'JoyCom') to try Joy-port 1 as well as Joy-port 2. :- So, The port can be 1 or 2, and the new softs MUST detect in which :port is the cable, though F-16 and F1Spirit3d need the cable in port 2. I'll add it. :We think is not important to standartise pin usage or software. Correct, but it will probably be useful to use a 'guideline'... :If the hardware is the same, the compatibility is guaranteed. There are many ways :to establish communication between computers, and the algorythm and the :protocol may vary a lot from case to case. So each programmer can use and :call the pins just like he wants (D0, ACK, CLK, CTS, IN0, etc...). Yup. : We should make a official homepage to spread the new standard, with :instructions and examples about how to make the communication and some basic :routines (but not standard routines). The MSX clubs shoud prepair some kits :to show and sell in the next MSX fairs with some soft. The start is always :hard, but the sky is the limit. My homepage is (partly) dedicated to this project and contains all up-to-date information. : We would like to thanx Sean Young for the information about :F1Spirit3D, Laurens and Maarten for their ideas and work in way to make the :new standard possible. Thank you too. : Yesterday (16/08/98) we made three new cables just like above and re-programmed our game to work with the new pinout. Tomorrow the game in BASIC and the whole source code in Z80 assembly will be in my Homepage to download, and then you will have something more funny to test your cables. That would be great!!! I'll link to your page as a 'JoyCom' software-source. ~Grauw MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
New joystick communication standard proposal (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 06:11:33 -0700 From: Werner Augusto Roder Kai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (I'm unable to send mail to the msxmailinglist because my account at basemail is off-line. Please forward this to msxmailinglist for me. Thnx) Hi MSX people, After a weekend working and thinking about the matter of joystick communications, we have something to say. And maybe after that there will be nothing more to discuss concerning the hardware: The connections of the cable to play F-16 in combat mode are: 1 - 6 2 - 7 6 - 1(this pin numbers are for DB-9 female) 7 - 2 9 - 9 And to play F1 Spirit 3D in battle mode (thanks to Sean Young): 1 - 6 2 - 7 3 - 8 6 - 1(Also for DB-9 female) 7 - 2 8 - 3 9 - 9 LAURENS wrote: > I have a proposal about a standard for joystick-connections. Read below > about what way I had in mind to let it work like. It is meant to be put in > Joystick-port 2 of both computers. > My idea was to connect both joystick-connectors like this: > pin 6 : 1 (trig1 > fwd) > pin 7 : 2 (trig2 > back) > pin 8 : 3 (output > left) MAARTEN wrote: > SEND (DIN8 male)RECV (DIN8 female) > > d0 1 ---+ +-- 1 d0 > d1 2 -+ | | + 2 d1 > ack 3 ---+ | | | | +-- 3 ack > gnd 8 ---|-|-|--|-|-|--+--- 8 gnd > | | | | | | | > | | | | | | | > 3 7 6 1 2 8 9 > > MSX (DB9 female) > And what about the auto detect option? I asked a couple of days ago, but > there was no reaction, so I'll ask again: > Would it be a good idea to connect TRG_A to RIGHT? Using this, we could > make an "auto detect" option: the program would be able to see in which > joystick port the network connector is plugged in. > Also, is it a good idea to connect the ground to the cable shielding? I've > seen that on a couple of cables. - Linking joystick ports with a cable is really the simplest and the cheapest way to connect two or more MSX computers. - Everybody agrees that the basic pin connections are 1-6, 2-7 and 8-3. That keep the compatibility with the old games F-16 and F1Spirit3D. - The cables for F-16 and F1Spirit 3D were made to connect only two computers, using one joystick port. Conneccting more than two MSX computers with these cable would force the use of the two joystick ports. It's too bad. - Maarten found the solution. Using only one port we can connect several MSX computers, keeping another port free to use the joystick (for a game) or the mouse (for an application). And for two computers, the cable keeps the compatibility with F-16 and F1Spirit 3D cables. - Is NOT good to standartise that the cable will be always in port 1 or port 2. If you have a MSX with problems in the specified port, you won't be able to connect it... - So, The port can be 1 or 2, and the new softs MUST detect in which port is the cable, though F-16 and F1Spirit3d need the cable in port 2. - DIN-8 has too much pins and is hard to obtain in some places. The DIN-5 connector is enough for us and more easy to find. SEND/OUT (DIN-5 male) RECV/IN (DIN-5 female) NC 5 5 NC out0 4 ---+ +-- 4 in0 out1 3 -+ | | + 3 in1 in2 1 -+ | | | | +-- 1 out2 gnd 2 --+--|---|-|--|-|-|--++-- 2 gnd | | | | | | | || ext -+ | | | | | | |+- ext | +-+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3 4 7 6 1 2 8 9 MSX (DB-9 female) DIN 5 DIN 5 MALE FEMALE ------ / 2 \ / 2 \ / \/ \ / 5 4 \ / 4 5 \ / \/ \ \ 3 1 /\ 1 3 / \ / \ / \ /\ / \ +-+ / \ +-+ / --+ +----+ +-- extext We think is not important to standartise pin usage or software. If the hardware is the same, the compatibility is guaranteed. There are many ways to establish communication between computers, and the algorythm and the protocol may vary a lot from case to case. So each programmer can use and call the pins just like he wants (D0, ACK, CLK, CTS, IN0, etc...). The maximum transfer speed is theoretically only limited by the MSX clock but the cab
Re: New joystick communication standard proposal (fwd)
Werner Augusto Roder Kai wrote: > > <> > > SEND/OUT (DIN-5 male) RECV/IN (DIN-5 female) > > NC 5 5 NC > out0 4 ---+ +-- 4 in0 > out1 3 -+ | | + 3 in1 > in2 1 -+ | | | | +-- 1 out2 > gnd 2 --+--|---|-|--|-|-|--++-- 2 gnd > | | | | | | | || > ext -+ | | | | | | |+- ext > | +-+ | | | | | > | | | | | | | | > | | | | | | | | > 3 4 7 6 1 2 8 9 > > MSX (DB-9 female) > > <> > Hi all, THIS CONNECTION SCHEME SEEM WRONG TO ME. It is not what was posted earlier on in this discussion. The comments with this connection scheme are minor (nothing at all is another way of describing it :-) ), so could someone please explain this or correct it. The big question is: DO I NEED TO RESOLDER MY CABLE (hope not :-( )! Jeroen Smael FutureDisk Homepage: http://www.futuredisk.msxnet.org MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
Re: New joystick communication standard proposal
Maarten ter Huurne wrote: :A long cable is used for sending (MSX pin 6,7,3) and has a male DIN5 plug. :A short cable is used for receiving (MSX pin 1,2,8) and has a female DIN5 :plug. Ah, didn't add that (about the long and the short cable) yet on my page. :> The maximum transfer speed is theoretically only limited by the MSX :>clock but the cable impedance (lenght and the existence or not of >shielding) :>may decrease the rate. : :So the standard should also include "you must use shielding" and "maximum :cable length is xx meters"? No man, that has no use. A cable without shielding can do as fine as a shielded cable, the only thing is that **theoretically**, the dropout-rate can be a little higher. :> We should make a official homepage to spread the new standard, with :>instructions and examples about how to make the communication and some :>basic routines (but not standard routines). : :I made a page: :http://www.stack.nl/~mth/msx/hardware/ :Laurens also made a page. :I don't mind who will make the official page. I volunteer. Any other :volunteers? I volunteer too, the Datax Homepage: http://datax.cjb.net/ :Sander Kooijmans is willing to give the sources of Triplex (multiplayer :Tetris clone using Music Module MIDI). It should be easy to modify it for :the joystick network. The problem is that he's not sure he has the sources :on disk. He does have printed sources, so maybe they have to be typed in :from paper. Or I can test if OCR (Optical Character Recognision) software :really works... That also came into my mind... If that's true, it would be great!!! ~Grauw MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
Re: New joystick communication standard proposal
At 17:05 20/08/98 +0100, you wrote: >(It's exactly the same reason that the length of e.g. SCSI cables is > limited) Well, I've a 2 meter-long SCSI cable, and it works very well! ByE! Ricardo Jurczyk Pinheiro (\__/) Star Trek, X-Files, M. Sc in Numerical Modelling (..) _) Comics, MSX, Anime, Universidade Federal Fluminense/\/\ (Gospel & Christian __ .___ _ _(m__m)_)_ _ \__ \| |\_ ___ \ / _ \ \__ \ \__ \ \_ \ | _/| |/\ \/ / /_\ \ | _/ || \ / | \ || \| |\ \/|\|| \ |` \/|\ ||_ /|___| \/\|/||_ //___ /\___ / \/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://pagina.de/rjp \/ \/ \/ "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings." - Optimus Prime Say NO to Internet censorship! Say NO to monopolies! Say NO to Microsoft! And, why not... Say YES to Jesus Christ?! MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
Re: New joystick communication standard proposal
] >We think is not important to standartise pin usage or software. ] ] Software is not important to standardize. But it can be usefull to ] distribute a sample/default protocol so that software developers can create ] software with less effort. Huh? Ever heard of the internet? The only reason that it works is because the protocols are standardised! I for example have two nice tools in mind: One for transferring files One for sending messages to other people How would the receiving computer know to which program to send the incoming data if there was no standard way for doing so? How would the receiving computer know to pass on some data to another computer if there was no standard way for doing so? Having no standard protocol is fine as long as all computers are playing the same game. Then you can use a proprietary protocol. But as soon as you have a ring with for example four computers, called A, B, C and D, and computer A wants to send a file to computer C while computer B wants to send a message to computer D you do have a big problem if there is no standard protocol. It's just a thought... Kind regards, Alex Wulms -- Alex Wulms/XelaSoft - MSX of anders NIX - Linux 4 ever See my homepage for info on the *** XSA *** format http://www.inter.nl.net/users/A.P.Wulms MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
Re: New joystick communication standard proposal
At 09:38 PM 8/18/98 +0300, you wrote: >] Software is not important to standardize. But it can be usefull to >] distribute a sample/default protocol so that software developers can >] create software with less effort. > >Huh? Ever heard of the internet? The only reason that it works is because >the protocols are standardised! I was talking specifically about software for the joystick network (vote for JoyNet! ;). I am actually very much in favor of standardized protocols, but I think it would be overkill in this case. The only situation I can think of where it is usefull to standardize the protocol, is when not all computers in the network are running the same program. Remember that the network needs to forward messages to the next computer, if one computer doesn't forward the network won't work. The forwarding would be done by the standardized protocol. But that means the protocol would have to be running at all times, not just when a program uses it. So a TSR should be made. But even a TSR will stop during disk loading (interrupts disabled) or during booting (a lot of MSX programs have no "quit" option, so reboots happen quite often). A special case where a computer doesn't forward messages, is when it is turned off. Using the joystick network as a normal LAN would require all participating computers to be turned on and running the protocol at all times. If we really want an MSX LAN, it would be a good idea to invest in more appropriate hardware first. The joystick network is simple and cheap and good enough to play games. But I don't think it's practical to use it for the kind of things you described. Bye, Maarten MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
Re: New joystick communication standard proposal
] Note & Disclaimer: I haven't got the foggiest idea at which cable ] lenghts these effects will actually occur. I guess this depends heavily ] on cable diameter and IC specs (voltage ranges which define and distiguish ] logical '0' and '1') etc... Then we really do have to experiment. Especially since the IC specs can and will differ between different MSX models. The joystick port is connected to a real PSG, to some kind of MSX engine with build-in PSG or to a buffer which has been placed between the real or cloned PSG and the port... And we should make sure that the protocol is smart enough to handle 'slow' (compared to the cpu speed) changing lines. When the line is somewhere between low and high for a too long time, you can get flipping 0/1 levels because of noice. Flipping long enough for the CPU to notice it... Kind regards, Alex -- Alex Wulms/XelaSoft - MSX of anders NIX - Linux 4 ever See my homepage for info on the *** XSA *** format http://www.inter.nl.net/users/A.P.Wulms MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
Re: New joystick communication standard proposal
] At 10:55 PM 8/20/98 +0300, you wrote: ] ] >And we should make sure that the protocol is smart enough to handle 'slow' ] >(compared to the cpu speed) changing lines. When the line is somewhere ] >between low and high for a too long time, you can get flipping 0/1 levels ] >because of noice. Flipping long enough for the CPU to notice it... ] ] Is there really a voltage level that is exactly between 0 and 1? ] ] I can imagine a system like this that would have far less problems: ] 0V means "0" ] 5V means "1" ] When the level goes from 0V to 5V, at 3V the bit flips to "1". ] When the level goes from 5V to 0V, at 2V the bit flips to "0". ] ] Does anyone know how things work in the MSX ICs? As far as I know, digital circuits work with treshold values. Something like: 4-5V = high 0-2V = low And 2-4V is undefined. Due to electronic noise in the circuitry, one moment it will be considerd low. And the other moment it will be considered high. So, yes, you can get flipping 0/1 levels. That is one of the reasons why most computersystems do have a clock. Just to give the circuits time to stabilize. A few nano to a few milli seconds after the change of the clockpuls (depending on the type of circuitry used, line length and other things), everything will be stable again. The 4-5V level or the 0-2V level will have been reached. And from that moment on you can safely read your bus again. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm no expert on this subject but it is something which I vaguely remember from years ago. Kind regards, Alex Wulms -- Alex Wulms/XelaSoft - MSX of anders NIX - Linux 4 ever See my homepage for info on the *** XSA *** format http://www.inter.nl.net/users/A.P.Wulms MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
Re: New joystick communication standard proposal
> I can imagine a system like this that would have far less problems: > 0V means "0" > 5V means "1" > When the level goes from 0V to 5V, at 3V the bit flips to "1". > When the level goes from 5V to 0V, at 2V the bit flips to "0". > > Does anyone know how things work in the MSX ICs? At my electronics course, I learned there are conventions/rules/standards for this. The level for 0 and for 1 is in these conventions. The most used conventions are CMOS and TTL. It depends on which one is used ofcourse. CMOS is 'stiffer' than TTL. But I don't know what the limits are exactly. Grtjs, Manuel PS: MSX 4 EVER! (Questions? See: http://www.faq.msxnet.org) PPS: Visit my homepage at http://www.sci.kun.nl/marie/home/manuelbi MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
Re[2]: New joystick communication standard proposal
>I have worked with a scsi cable for more than 4 meters >loong. I used 1 or 2 harddisks with 3 computers That was >fun! *SIGH* To end this mine-is-longer-than-yours discussion: Depending on the exact SCSI protocol you're using the max. cable length can vary between 1.5 and 25 meter. Basta Eric MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
Re: Re[2]: New joystick communication standard proposal
] >Depending on the exact SCSI protocol you're using the max. ] cable length ] >can vary between 1.5 and 25 meter. ] ] ] I don´t think you will ever get to 25 meters. For AFAIK max ] lenght is 6 meters... (:-) It seems like your knowledge is outdated. With differential fast scsi wide you can get 25 meters indeed. We even use it in the company where I work to link-up high availability server pairs on seperate computerfloors... Kind regards, Alex -- Alex Wulms/XelaSoft - MSX of anders NIX - Linux 4 ever See my homepage for info on the *** XSA *** format http://www.inter.nl.net/users/A.P.Wulms MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
Re: Re[2]: New joystick communication standard proposal
-Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Alex Wulms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Datum: dinsdag 25 augustus 1998 0:31 Onderwerp: Re: Re[2]: New joystick communication standard proposal ] >Depending on the exact SCSI protocol you're using the max. ] cable length ] >can vary between 1.5 and 25 meter. ] ] ] I don´t think you will ever get to 25 meters. For AFAIK max ] lenght is 6 meters... (:-) It seems like your knowledge is outdated. With differential fast scsi wide you can get 25 meters indeed. We even use it in the company where I work to link-up high availability server pairs on seperate computerfloors... Yes, ok this could be. But I think we won´t use these devices on our MSX or do we? Greetings Maico Arts MSX-NBNO MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
Re: Re[2]: New joystick communication standard proposal
] ] Yes, ok this could be. ] But I think we won´t use these devices on our MSX or do we? Don't think so. We are using SCSI1, for which the limit indeed is something like 6 or 7 meters. Still not bad for the speeds which the SCSI1 bus has been designed for. Even the megascsi interface on a MSX turbo R can not reach the maximum speed of the SCSI1 bus... Kind regards, Alex Wulms -- Alex Wulms/XelaSoft - MSX of anders NIX - Linux 4 ever See my homepage for info on the *** XSA *** format http://www.inter.nl.net/users/A.P.Wulms MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
