|
Caveman
#381715 - 03/25/19 12:44 PM
|
|
|
Hi all,
Ever since the update to 0.207, Caveman(Tomy) does not display correctly with most of the characters missing.
Can someone confirm if it localized to my setup or that it is an error?
Thanks.
|
|
|
| Dullaron |
|
Diablo III - Dunard #1884
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 07/22/05
|
|
Posts: 6125
|
|
Loc: Fort Worth, Tx
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
|
> Hi all,
> Ever since the update to 0.207, Caveman(Tomy) does not display correctly with most of
> the characters missing.
>
> Can someone confirm if it localized to my setup or that it is an error?
>
> Thanks.
Works fine here. Had you checked to see the files need to be replace? Sometimes a piece of file got updated. When did it happen? I finished first level. 1 death.
[ATTACHED IMAGE - CLICK FOR FULL SIZE]
|
W11 Home 64-bit + Nobara OS / AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT / AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 8-Core 3.59 GHz / RAM 64 GB
|
|
|
Re: Caveman
[Re: Dullaron]
#381721 - 03/25/19 11:45 PM
|
|
|
Thanks Dullaron.
Happens from the moment the game starts.
I’ll check to see if the rom changed from .206 to .207.
|
|
|
|
Re: Caveman
[Re: krustyone]
#381727 - 03/26/19 06:45 AM
|
|
|
The rom did not change.
I'll take it that you're using MAMEUI64 .207 since you didn't say. It does seem to have a display problem in the UI versions. All I get with it UI(trying most display options) is the very right side with a volcano & lil dinos.
But if I run it with the built in UI or from command line it displays properly.
PacMan(Tomy) exhibits the same behaviour.
So, run those 2 another way until (or if) the glitch gets fixed.
All I had time to look into.
|
Pessimist: Oh, this can't get any worse!
Optimist: Yes, it can!
|
|
|
Re: Caveman
[Re: Bad A Billy]
#381729 - 03/26/19 01:00 PM
|
|
|
> The rom did not change.
>
> I'll take it that you're using MAMEUI64 .207 since you didn't say. It does seem to
> have a display problem in the UI versions. All I get with it UI(trying most display
> options) is the very right side with a volcano & lil dinos.
> But if I run it with the built in UI or from command line it displays properly.
>
> PacMan(Tomy) exhibits the same behaviour.
>
> So, run those 2 another way until (or if) the glitch gets fixed.
>
> All I had time to look into.
The UI versions shouldn't be changing any code likely to affect this....
shouldn't be ...
|
|
|
| Dullaron |
|
Diablo III - Dunard #1884
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 07/22/05
|
|
Posts: 6125
|
|
Loc: Fort Worth, Tx
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Caveman
[Re: Bad A Billy]
#381730 - 03/26/19 02:44 PM
|
|
|
> The rom did not change.
>
> I'll take it that you're using MAMEUI64 .207 since you didn't say. It does seem to
> have a display problem in the UI versions. All I get with it UI(trying most display
> options) is the very right side with a volcano & lil dinos.
> But if I run it with the built in UI or from command line it displays properly.
>
> PacMan(Tomy) exhibits the same behaviour.
>
> So, run those 2 another way until (or if) the glitch gets fixed.
>
> All I had time to look into.
No wonder it didn't happen on the mame64 build. 
|
W11 Home 64-bit + Nobara OS / AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT / AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 8-Core 3.59 GHz / RAM 64 GB
|
|
|
Re: Caveman
[Re: Dullaron]
#381731 - 03/26/19 08:41 PM
|
|
|
I can confirm the unexpected behaviour in mameUI 207. Maybe the reason is the MameUI was compiled after the official release, and maybe some changes were made?
|
RETRODANUART.COM
|
|
|
Re: Caveman
[Re: Sthiryu]
#381733 - 03/26/19 08:53 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Caveman
[Re: Bad A Billy]
#381766 - 03/29/19 11:40 AM
|
|
|
Thanks Billy.
Correct, I am using MAMEUI64 .207.
The glitch happened from .206 to .207.
|
|
|
|
Re: Caveman
[Re: krustyone]
#381774 - 03/29/19 06:04 PM
|
|
|
I've found the solution. The problem is because MameUI is compiled with an older version of GCC. If you compile the x64 version with the latest GCC tools from mamedev, those handhelds will display with no issues.
Unfortunately, the latest GCC tools aren't compatible with XP, so if you want to use mameUI32, you'll have to compile with the older tools (msys64-32-2017-12-26.exe)
Edited by Sthiryu (03/29/19 06:04 PM)
|
RETRODANUART.COM
|
|
|
Re: Caveman
[Re: Sthiryu]
#381794 - 03/31/19 12:16 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Caveman
[Re: Robbbert]
#381795 - 03/31/19 12:38 AM
|
|
|
> > I've found the solution. The problem is because MameUI is compiled with an older
> > version of GCC. If you compile the x64 version with the latest GCC tools from
> > mamedev, those handhelds will display with no issues.
> >
> > Unfortunately, the latest GCC tools aren't compatible with XP, so if you want to
> use
> > mameUI32, you'll have to compile with the older tools (msys64-32-2017-12-26.exe)
>
> I've upgraded my 64-bit compile tools to 8.3 (=the latest version), so this problem
> will go away at the next release.
>
> However I will continue to use 5.3 for 32-bit builds, for XP compatibility.
Shipping known broken builds to keep what must be a tiny minority of users still holding on to an 18 year old OS happy?
I mean I'm kinda surprised it's broken, but that actually makes it more likely a lot more is broken too since unexpected breakage is rarely this isolated, and the problem is only going to get worse.
Might be just better to accept that XP support is dead.
|
|
|
|
Re: Caveman
[Re: Haze]
#381797 - 03/31/19 01:25 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Caveman
[Re: Robbbert]
#381798 - 03/31/19 01:31 AM
|
|
|
> > > However I will continue to use 5.3 for 32-bit builds, for XP compatibility.
> >
> > Shipping known broken builds to keep what must be a tiny minority of users still
> > holding on to an 18 year old OS happy?
> >
> > I mean I'm kinda surprised it's broken, but that actually makes it more likely a
> lot
> > more is broken too since unexpected breakage is rarely this isolated, and the
> problem
> > is only going to get worse.
> >
> > Might be just better to accept that XP support is dead.
>
> You are mistaken. 32-bit build was never broken.
Ah, that's alright then, any compiler that produces bad / broken code for no obvious reason should be ditched as soon as possible tho, so not using the broken 64-bit one is definitely a good move.
5.3 isn't going to compile MAME forever tho, so the XP problem is probably going to come up again sooner rather than later I feel.
|
|
|
|
Re: Caveman
[Re: Haze]
#381800 - 03/31/19 02:37 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Caveman
[Re: Robbbert]
#381803 - 03/31/19 12:18 PM
|
|
|
> EDIT: your comments on reddit have not gone unnoticed. Must be that time of the
> month.
My comments on reddit are accurate, as you keep proving.
Don't do stupid stuff and I won't use it as an example of stupid stuff.. I've had people harassing me about 'missing MESS 0.208 ROMs' that aren't even in 0.208, or shouldn't be, saying they got the builds from you. Either they're lying, or you didn't compile from the actual 0.208 sources again.
You shipped broken MAMEUI builds for many, many months due to inexplicably having an ancient 68k core in there. That shouldn't even have been possible.
It's not that time of month, it's just that you constantly do stupid stuff that ends up coming back to us, so yes, I'll use it as an example, because it was a good example of what happens if you start silently mixing and matching parts of MAME code (which is what the person posting seemed to think would be a good idea). You are notoriously unreliable because of things like that, it is not an inaccurate statement. RetroArch / LibRetro etc. is also notoriously unreliable and the source of many other issues.
The statement is made based on support requests, where the finger so often ends up pointed at RA or MAMEUI as the source of issues that simply don't exist in proper builds, and are often the direct result of the maintainers of those projects doing really stupid things or being careless. If you want to take it as an attack, that's up to you, but it's an important thing to convey to users who tend to just assume that things are going to be the same, and that in both cases it's just a frontend slapped on.
I mean MAMEUI is nowhere near as bad, or invasive as RA, which is truly ghastly, but there are issues associated with some of the changes / build process that nobody is going to expect / shouldn't be happening.
|
|
|
|
Re: Caveman
[Re: Haze]
#381804 - 03/31/19 01:56 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Caveman
[Re: Robbbert]
#381805 - 03/31/19 02:16 PM
|
|
|
> > My comments on reddit are accurate, as you keep proving.
>
> Again out of the blue you slander me in a place where I cannot respond or defend
> myself. This is so typical of you.
>
It isn't slander if it's true, and it's true. You even admit it in this post.
> >
> > Don't do stupid stuff and I won't use it as an example of stupid stuff.. I've had
> > people harassing me about 'missing MESS 0.208 ROMs' that aren't even in 0.208, or
> > shouldn't be, saying they got the builds from you. Either they're lying, or you
> > didn't compile from the actual 0.208 sources again.
>
> You shouldn't be talking about me at all. You are without morals.
>
You distribute MAMEUI, people use MAMEUI, MAMEUI influences the reputation of MAME. I can talk about you all I want, you are playing a public role and one that carries a heavy weight of responsibility. What on earth do morals have to do with this? This is a nonsense statement.
Let's flip that around, if you were doing an excellent job instead, and I said you were doing an excellent job, as I have done for MANY people, would you be screaming that I shouldn't be talking about you at all then? I've only been full of praise for the people involved in things like the LCD games for example, strangely enough they haven't said I'm not allowed to talk about them and started making nonsense statements about me having no morals.
> The person wasn't lying, but the mistake wasn't intentional either. In fact I didn't
> even know about it until this rom request started getting posted all over the place.
>
> >
> > You shipped broken MAMEUI builds for many, many months due to inexplicably having
> an
> > ancient 68k core in there. That shouldn't even have been possible.
> >
> You'll never let that go, will you. In 10 years time you'll still be going on about
> it.
It was a good example for what the person was asking about and directly relevant to MAME, so I used it.
Does it stop becoming a good example of why it's bad just because you did it?
I'm sorry you made it possible for me to use what you did as an on-topic example? I mean that's about the best apology I can give you.
Reputations change. Back in the day I would have praised Guru and recommended people send things to him, these days instead I have to absolutely make sure nobody does because the way in which he acts, and service he provides has changed. Again, since he is filling a public role that people rely on and are putting trust in, that is important information to convey.
|
|
|
|
Re: Caveman
[Re: Haze]
#381806 - 03/31/19 02:42 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Caveman
[Re: Haze]
#381831 - 04/03/19 10:37 AM
|
|
|
>
> The statement is made based on support requests, where the finger so often ends up
> pointed at RA or MAMEUI as the source of issues that simply don't exist in proper
> builds, and are often the direct result of the maintainers of those projects doing
> really stupid things or being careless. If you want to take it as an attack, that's
> up to you, but it's an important thing to convey to users who tend to just assume
> that things are going to be the same, and that in both cases it's just a frontend
> slapped on.
>
> I mean MAMEUI is nowhere near as bad, or invasive as RA, which is truly ghastly, but
> there are issues associated with some of the changes / build process that nobody is
> going to expect / shouldn't be happening.
I think it is not fair to blame Robbbert for this. It is clearly stated (not only once) that any issues with MAMEUI should not be reported to official MAME or the devs.
That is a user problem mainly and i see that often in other forums too. People rarely behave like intended.
I dont know, why such war-talk is needed. Why the need to make it public everytime? I mean you know each other well enough, to discuss these thing private and in a civil manner. It makes me sad to read such a thread, as it gives me this feeling, that in all the years, nothing has changed.
|
|
|
Previous 
Index 
Next 
Threaded 
Caveman
Reply
[Re: 
