I want to know why everything good comes out for the 83+, and then the 86. The 86 has a bigger screen, and although some will disagree, it also has plenty of program space. I have 10 games on my 86 at the moment, with room for another 20. Despite this, all the good games and general apps come out for 83+, even though it seems slower then the 86.

Since more people have 83s than 86s.

how good is the 83 emulation on the 86?

Its been a while since I used my 86, but I believe that emulation for the 82/83/83+ should be rather simple to do, with the possible exception of changing the resolution of the programs. Centering the screens for those shouldn't be all that hard to do, compared to the rest of the task of emulation:)

I personally would like to see this ported to the 89, but the 86 would certainly work (I actually also own an 83 and 85, but the 85 doesn't really have enough ram, and my 83 is rarely used anymore).

eofpi and the unimatrix's 45.599850351139 cents

Hmm. This program came out for the TI83 first, because I own a TI83 and it didn't make sense to me to write a program for a calc I don't have. The source code can *easily* be ported to the TI86, I only need to know a few things. Someone e-mail me to answer my questions:

- What's the size of the TI86's screen? (WxH)
- What's the starting address? (.org XXXXh)
- Is there a saferam location with the same size as the screen? (Y/N)
- If there is a saferam location, what's its location? (XXXXh)
- Is the graphbuf steered with a lcd driver (like the TI83), or is it memory mapped? (give me info on both questions, please)
- How can you get shell compatability and what's the maximal program size?

That's all I need to know. Now go, answer.

Greetz,
Frank

- What's the size of the TI86's screen? (WxH)

128x64

- What's the starting address? (.org XXXXh)

.org? Programs are copied to $d748 (_asm_exec_ram) before being executed, so that is what you use for the .org at the start. The screen starts at $fc00 and goes to $ffff.

- Is there a saferam location with the same size as the screen? (Y/N)

Yes. Lots. Plenty. Much free ram. Free ram is good.

- If there is a saferam location, what's its location? (XXXXh)

You can use most of ram page 1 for scratch space, which is loaded into the $8000 area when a program is first executed. Start at $8100 and don't go past $bf00 and you should be fine.

- Is the graphbuf steered with a lcd driver (like the TI83), or is it memory mapped? (give me info on both questions, please)

No, it doesn't suck like on the 82/83. It's memory mapped. You change a byte, and the screen changes immediately (well...to you, anyways). This is why you can have nice grayscale on the 86.

- How can you get shell compatability and what's the maximal program size?

The is why the 86 is the best calculator for assembly. There is no such thing as shell compatibility. Shells are optional if you want a nice interface to load programs. Your code gets copied from where it's stored in ram to $d748 and run from there. The stack starts at $fc00 and grows downwards. I have had no problems with a 256 byte stack max, but 512 bytes would be optimal if you want to be totally safe (or just see how big it is when your program starts, and know how much your program needs). So you have from $d748 until wherever the stack is, and after the stack is video ram. That gives you a little less than 8k. Not enough? Write a small loader program that loads a string to ram page 1 and jumps there. Bomber Bloke is an excellent example of how to do this.

sounds pretty neat. wasn't there a similar program named quicktyme (or something like that) for the 89 under development a while back? anyways i cant wait to see something like this for the 89

85%? of the original? hmm...

24 bit color -> 1 bit color = 95.8% smaller
320x240 (small!) -> 96x64 = 92% smaller

85% doesn't sound like a big deal, even considering you have to use much simpler compression for a z80.

I think they're talking about compressing the movie file after it's already been converted to the B&W, calc-sized format (which does make it a lot smaller). I doubt 320*240 24-bit color movies would fit on the calculator at all if they were only 85% compressed from their original size.

You are right. The 85% compression is based upon the normal size of 768 bytes. With the TIMPEG compression it is possible to have frames that are about 100 bytes (average). It wouldn't make sense to base the compression on the original file (I have videos going from 10Mb to 24.5K, this would be a VERY big compression % :)

See you later,
Frank

man, i think its just amazing period... think about this, the standard 83 pic size is 768 bytes which means the calc can only hold about 30 screens max... with this you have up to 10fps and can go for over 10 seconds... and the calc is fast enough to decompress in real time! now if only there were grayscale and audio... can't hope to much for a 27k calc =P Good work.

Audio will be possible when we get it ported to the TI-83 Plus Flash. then you can run video/audio without unarchiving! More memory!

Yes Audio!!!!!Yes Audio!!!!!Yes Audio!!!!!Yes Audio!!!!!Yes Audio!!!!!Yes Audio!!!!!Yes Audio!!!!!Yes Audio!!!!!

I considered making such a program for the TI-86 a while ago, but decided that it just wasn't worth the trouble. Although the 86 has grayscale, meaning you can at least RECOGNIZE the characters in the movies (unlike the 83), I calculated that the theoretically possible framerate would be too low for it to be worthwile.

There are some problems with the program for some users, because you NEED to visual basic 6.0 DLL's to run the converter itself (the shell is Delphi). Besides, you need to have a recent version of the Windows Media Player (for a direct OLE link...)

Thanks for all support from you!,
Frank

i have one url for you:
www.dllsearch.com

-me, myself, and sometime I

Please please please port this to the 83+ soon! If you made the movie be stored in the flash ram you could stream it pretty easily to the ram (I'm not sure cause im just learning assembly, but wouldn't something like arc_unarc or flashtoram work?) This sounds like such a cool program and I just spent the last half hour trying to get it to work before I found out that it's for the 83... I feel stupid =-)

Oh and one more thing... in the next version, could you guys make an option for the resolution for each frame? You know, instead of being 96x64 you could choose the resolution. That way the video could be *much* smaller (if you can deal with the crappier pictures)
i.e. If the average compression is 85%, then each frame that is 96x64 is around 115 bytes whereas if you had a resolution of 48x32 each frame could be about 29 bytes (i think, correct me if im wrong)

Guys, guys come on: The TI83+ version is almost done (the RAM part at least) and Win2K functionality is already done. Please wait a few more days to debug it and release it. I will then look at TI86, TI83 flash and so on...

Greetz,
Frank

Hey, your program sounds really 1337. When and If you do finish porting it to the 83+ please contact me. I think it would be sweet if I could bring Counter Strike Demos to school on a calculator. Thanks

Please Hurry

Don't forget us 89 users! With ~720K of archive available, in theory you could run a decently long movie.
BTW, see if a shell-less version is possible for the 89. I have no shells, I don't like shells, and I will gladly take the space for programs over some (to me) useless shell.

Roses are red, violets are blue, I'm a schizophrenic, and so am I.

Knight/Rocket

Hmm. I don't like that last sentence. One of my cousins is schizo* and his life is getting worse everyday.

So you want a TI89 version? Send me details on the calc (most details like the ones above for the TI86).

Thanks in advance,
Frank

Never Fear Reality

Hey, this is a great program... and im glad to see the major improvements coming along in the TI world. I have an 83+ and im anxiously awaiting the release of the next version, but i have one request. Instead of spitting out the video as a TI-83+ program... could you have it as an option spit out the source code for us developers? that way we could integrate it into our games and stuff to make quick video intros and stuff? Its just a possibility, but i think its vital for using this program to its fullest power. And it just makes it easier on us designers. Thanks for your time and consideration.

********Keep the source free*********

I think that's a terrible idea. Then every game will have a short intro screen taking up useless space on the calculator. We need to have smaller programs, not larger!

Good point... This should apply to the ordinary splash screen to. Sure they are cool, the first time you see them, but later on they just take up valuble space. One idea could be to but the splash screen in a separate file (custom var or string var), and code the program to just skip showing the intro pic if the file is missing (i.e. is deleted by the user). Another way would be to distribute two versions of the program, one with intro screen and one without.

Just my thoughts...

Ugh, your missing my point... its not about making every game have a video intro. i just think with this great feat in calc technology, the program should be as versatile as possible. Im absolutely positive that there would be good uses for this improvement, but without the source... theres not much we can do besides watch movies. I do understand that memory is an important issue, but to use this to its full potential i think it makes sense to have this added option. Doesnt anyone agree with me?

I definitely agree!

I also agree. This program could be used to make great cut-sceens for games. If they were resizeable, they could take up less memory and have subtitles at the bottom. That would be really cool for a console style RPG.

go to this site - has a bunch of info on the ti 89 : http://ti89.acz.org/
hope it helps