TriloTracker beta thread.

Page 3/48
1 | 2 | | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

By mars2000you

Enlighted (5515)

mars2000you's picture

25-12-2012, 17:27

It's still on my HD Smile

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (109)

anonymous's picture

29-12-2012, 08:31

mars2000you wrote:

It's still on my HD Smile

Keep it to yourself please! Tongue Then you'll be one of the first to get the complete version! Smile
If I find out you spread it, then you can go fucquer yourself! (pardon my French, I mean toi-même) Wink
I'm kidding, mars, all in good fun.

On a different note - please believe me, I tried to restrain myself in order not to spam, but I lost the battle against myself. Wink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQdnK10k13w
I hope you enjoy.

By mars2000you

Enlighted (5515)

mars2000you's picture

29-12-2012, 09:07

JohnHassink wrote:
mars2000you wrote:

It's still on my HD Smile

Keep it to yourself please! Tongue Then you'll be one of the first to get the complete version! Smile

Nice ! I hope it will be with the DSK (or ROM) file, that can be runned on a MSX machine or emulator.

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (109)

anonymous's picture

29-12-2012, 09:35

How ever you like, mars2000you.

By Retrofan

Paragon (1214)

Retrofan's picture

29-01-2013, 18:43

Huey wrote:

* Both SCC and SCC+/SCC-I are supported (but only in normal SCC mode).

I see, but why not benefit from the SCC-I which has 5 real channels instead of sharing channel 4 with 5 with SCC? RA-004 (Snatcher Sound Cartridge), RA-011 (SD Snatcher Sound Cartridge), PlaySoniq, MegaFlashROM SCC+ and 1chipMSX do support 5 real channels. Nice music editor by the way! Hope to hear a lot of new themes made with it. Smile

By Huey

Prophet (2644)

Huey's picture

29-01-2013, 20:30

Retrofan wrote:
Huey wrote:

* Both SCC and SCC+/SCC-I are supported (but only in normal SCC mode).

I see, but why not benefit from the SCC-I which has 5 real channels instead of sharing channel 4 with 5 with SCC?

What would the benefit be? Look at most compositions in trackers. They almost all have 2 or more channels that use the same intrument to create a richer sound. The real gain is in the features of the instrument macro's and effect commands of a tracker.

Does snatcher and SD snatcher sound THAT much better due to the extra waveform? If they are better it probably is due to the great composition itself. Not the hardware.

P.S.: None of the beta testers that actually use the tracker have asked for this feature.

By Retrofan

Paragon (1214)

Retrofan's picture

30-01-2013, 09:39

@Huey: I think Snatcher and SD Snatcher do sound better, otherwise Konami didn't have to create an improved version of the SCC? Or was it just because the Japanese computers only have 64kB RAM? It doesn't mean SCC-I is far better, but just a little bit. Other benefit of the SCC-I would be the samples which can be loaded into its RAM without taking user RAM. Wink Just look at SCMD version 1 (MSX2) or version 2 (Turbo-R) for SCCPCM. But maybe this also can be done with normal RAM, but ofcourse then you need more user RAM.

Maybe it's nice to add "SCC-I" and "SCC" output mode, so composers can do some tests.... Then your tracker will have something uniques besides the great features it already has!

By ARTRAG

Enlighted (6277)

ARTRAG's picture

30-01-2013, 09:44

RAM is RAM, wherever you find it it has nothing to do with the sound chip itself.
IMHO the main reason for Konami to develop SCC-I was that the original SCC has some nasty bugs that prevent writing in its registers without producing noise and cracks. Those problems are absent in modern implementations with FPGA.
Also now, if you use the Trilo Tracker on a real SCC, it is not guaranteed that the wave transitions are always clean (despite all the tricks used to prevent the problem).
Some fine listeners could spot the difference between real SCC and SCC-I.

By Huey

Prophet (2644)

Huey's picture

30-01-2013, 10:17

@Retrofan: I agree with Arturo as the main advantage of the SCC-I is that they solved the bugs that plagued the SCC.
Yesterday evening I also had a discussion on IRC about this question. The conclusion (on my side) is that the shared waveform on channel 4 and 5 is a non issue. Only in very exotic hypothesis it would be nice to have the extra waveform.

And yes it would only take about 15 minutes to change the code and administrate the change. But in contrast to the other tracker features and the loss of backwards compatibility the gain is almost of no importance. The real gain in using SCC-I over normal SCC is that we can write the registers without slowdowns and specific order. But that is of no importance for composers.

Also none of the active beta testers have requested this feature. They all eighter have no problem working with this limitation or feel nostalgic and even desire this behaviour.

By Retrofan

Paragon (1214)

Retrofan's picture

30-01-2013, 10:42

@Huey and Artag: thanks for the information. I just was curious. I think you guys are right.
Anyhow, Huey, can you mail me your beta please so I also can play around with it? Smile (click my name) Thanks.
PS. Does this tracker support samples as it is a wavetable edition?

Page 3/48
1 | 2 | | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8