206 replies to this topic

[VonGuard]

joesmooth, on Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:23 PM, said:

Tempest, on Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:17 PM, said:

But cpkadv-rev2-1-2600-a527.bin looks like it falls between 6-14 and 6-29. 5-24 is just a slide show with no gameplay, but cpkadv-rev2-1-2600-a527.bin has the girl with brown hair (not yellow) which was only in revisions 6-14 and 6-29. Also, how does 6-29 come before 7-3?

Tempest

While we were dumping them, we were wondering about those...

cbpark2-atari-7-3-AD79-rev3.bin
cbpark3-atari-6-29-AD79.bin

Seeing that the checksum is the same, the game is likely 100% exact (hence the same checksum). I think the naming convention changed, since the revisions started with cbpark0 being rev 1, which was confusing. I don't remember what the labels looked like (Von Guard?) but they might just be the same ROM burned by two different people.

Joe

Yeah, I seem to recall that we figured out that someone else's handwriting was on these. One guy abbreviated it CB Park, the other CPK Adv. The image below shows the two styles.

[CPUWIZ]

Tempest, on Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:31 PM, said:

Why are the last two dated the same? Two different revisions on one day? Also, I don't suppose rev 2.1 had a date on it did it?

Tempest

Diff: $000006FF: $A9 <-> $EA
Diff: $00000700: $01 <-> $EA
Diff: $00000701: $85 <-> $EA
Diff: $00000702: $F7 <-> $EA
Diff: $00000FB1: $09 <-> $08

There are 5 bytes different, the left is version 8 and the right is version 9.

Looks like a LDA #$01 / STA $F7 was removed and a variable decremented.

[joesmooth]

Tempest, on Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:31 PM, said:

So we have....


cbpark0-atari-5-24-65EC-rev1.bin
cbpark1-atari-6-14-A64D-rev2.bin
cpkadv-rev2-1-2600-a527.bin
cbpark2-atari-7-3-AD79-rev3.bin / cbpark3-atari-6-29-AD79.bin
cpkadv-rev4-atari-7-27-84-8AED.bin
cbpark5-atari-8-21.bin
cbpark6-atari-9-4.bin
cbpark7-atari-9-7.bin
cbpark8-atari-9-13.bin
cbpark9-atari-9-13.bin

Why are the last two dated the same? Two different revisions on one day? Also, I don't suppose rev 2.1 had a date on it did it?

Tempest

Looks correct.

The last two are dated the same, but I believe are different binaries (I haven't confirmed that). Could be that they burned one earlier in the day, made changes, and burned another. Or, maybe there was a rumor that the project was getting killed and someone wanted to burn a final revision before getting escorted out of the building?

Rev. 2.1 didn't have a date on it. The filenames contain the exact contents of what was written on the EPROM labels.

Joe

[Tempest]

CPUWIZ, on Sat Apr 26, 2008 9:34 PM, said:

Tempest, on Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:31 PM, said:

Why are the last two dated the same? Two different revisions on one day? Also, I don't suppose rev 2.1 had a date on it did it?

Tempest

Diff: $000006FF: $A9 <-> $EA
Diff: $00000700: $01 <-> $EA
Diff: $00000701: $85 <-> $EA
Diff: $00000702: $F7 <-> $EA
Diff: $00000FB1: $09 <-> $08

There are 5 bytes different, the left is version 8 and the right is version 9.

Isn't $EA a NOP? Did they comment something out in the end?

Tempest

[Tempest]

Are there pictures of all the CPK chips?

Tempest

[CPUWIZ]

Tempest, on Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:37 PM, said:

CPUWIZ, on Sat Apr 26, 2008 9:34 PM, said:

Tempest, on Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:31 PM, said:

Why are the last two dated the same? Two different revisions on one day? Also, I don't suppose rev 2.1 had a date on it did it?

Tempest

Diff: $000006FF: $A9 <-> $EA
Diff: $00000700: $01 <-> $EA
Diff: $00000701: $85 <-> $EA
Diff: $00000702: $F7 <-> $EA
Diff: $00000FB1: $09 <-> $08

There are 5 bytes different, the left is version 8 and the right is version 9.

Isn't $EA a NOP? Did they comment something out in the end?

Tempest

Yes, $EA is nop, a LDA #$01 / STA $F7 was removed.

[Omegamatrix]

Quite simply, one of the most amazing discoveries ever. Talk about proto heaven! Kudos to you VonGuard!!

[Tempest]

CPUWIZ, on Sat Apr 26, 2008 9:39 PM, said:

Tempest, on Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:37 PM, said:

CPUWIZ, on Sat Apr 26, 2008 9:34 PM, said:

Tempest, on Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:31 PM, said:

Why are the last two dated the same? Two different revisions on one day? Also, I don't suppose rev 2.1 had a date on it did it?

Tempest

Diff: $000006FF: $A9 <-> $EA
Diff: $00000700: $01 <-> $EA
Diff: $00000701: $85 <-> $EA
Diff: $00000702: $F7 <-> $EA
Diff: $00000FB1: $09 <-> $08

There are 5 bytes different, the left is version 8 and the right is version 9.

Isn't $EA a NOP? Did they comment something out in the end?

Tempest

Yes, $EA is nop, a LDA #$01 / STA $F7 was removed.

And what did those do I wonder? From my limited knowledge of assembly, it was loading the accumulator and storing the value. I wonder why they removed this...

Tempest

[Tempest]

Ok one other thing that doesn't make sense. If the dates are to be believed, the project was started May of 84 and finished September of 84. Wasn't 2600 Coleco development shut down well before this point? I could believe May 83 to Sept 83, but Sept 84 seems way too late. Then again, some of the EPROMs are labeled 84, so I guess that it must be 84...

Tempest

[CPUWIZ]

Tempest, on Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:45 PM, said:

And what did those do I wonder? From my limited knowledge of assembly, it was loading the accumulator and storing the value. I wonder why they removed this...

Tempest

Hard to tell without looking at the full disassembly.

[Omegamatrix]

What's a good emulator for the Colecovision? Anyone?

[CPUWIZ]

Omegamatrix, on Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:29 PM, said:

What's a good emulator for the Colecovision? Anyone?

VColeco

[Inky]

Omegamatrix, on Sat Apr 26, 2008 9:29 PM, said:

What's a good emulator for the Colecovision? Anyone?

I like ADAMEm, but it doesnt run well on VIsta

[Omegamatrix]

I just remembered that not only do I have a working Colecovision, but an Atarimax 128-in-1 Flash cart. Completely forgot about it. You know you have too much stuff when.


Anyhow I couldn't do anything with Sword and the Sorcerer. Damn did that demo ever look cool though! Cabbage Patch Kids Adventure in the Park for the Coleco looks very good too. I see that this one was released though? The Atari version is excellent.

[supercat]

Tempest, on Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:45 PM, said:

And what did those do I wonder? From my limited knowledge of assembly, it was loading the accumulator and storing the value. I wonder why they removed this...

The game could have been rigged with an 'unlimited lives' cheat or some such thing which would have to be removed for production. Replacing code with NOPs is often safer than simply removing it, though my preference would have been to simply replace the STA with a BIT so as to avoid disturbing cycle timings.

[joesmooth]

supercat, on Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:45 PM, said:

Tempest, on Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:45 PM, said:

And what did those do I wonder? From my limited knowledge of assembly, it was loading the accumulator and storing the value. I wonder why they removed this...

The game could have been rigged with an 'unlimited lives' cheat or some such thing which would have to be removed for production. Replacing code with NOPs is often safer than simply removing it, though my preference would have been to simply replace the STA with a BIT so as to avoid disturbing cycle timings.

I just loaded both games back and forth in Stella and it looks like the only difference is the "1" at the top of the title screen. Maybe designating 1 player? Anyway, I think it's removed in the second version.

Joe

Edited by joesmooth, Sat Apr 26, 2008 9:52 PM.

[VonGuard]

Tempest, on Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:39 PM, said:

Are there pictures of all the CPK chips?

Tempest

Yes, mixed in and out of order, at

[Tempest]

joesmooth, on Sat Apr 26, 2008 11:52 PM, said:

supercat, on Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:45 PM, said:

Tempest, on Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:45 PM, said:

And what did those do I wonder? From my limited knowledge of assembly, it was loading the accumulator and storing the value. I wonder why they removed this...

The game could have been rigged with an 'unlimited lives' cheat or some such thing which would have to be removed for production. Replacing code with NOPs is often safer than simply removing it, though my preference would have been to simply replace the STA with a BIT so as to avoid disturbing cycle timings.

I just loaded both games back and forth in Stella and it looks like the only difference is the "1" at the top of the title screen. Maybe designating 1 player? Anyway, I think it's removed in the second version.

Joe

Good catch. It was probably left over from a planned level/variation select that was never implemented.

Tempest

[Omegamatrix]

How far has everyone played? I'm just playing the last revision and made it to scene 21. This is easily one of the best titles for the 2600, and it is hard to believe it never got released back in the day. It would have sold like hotcakes. You can see the inspiration from Pitfall! and a little bit of Jungle Hunt. The spitting plant reminded me of one of the Super Mario games, but platforms being raised up by fountains? come on! An 2600 game is not supposed to be that good. Add in the catchy soundtrack and a fairly linear learning curve and I'm just amazed this was sitting in someones box of junk until it shows up at the flea market. I'm wondering how many scenes there are?

Tempest the Coleco name only appears in the first copy and then disappears replaced with OAA Inc or DAA Inc. What happened there you think? Konami is always there, but on the first rom Coleco has a 1984 copyright as well in anticipation for the 1984 release? Funny how the Coleco logo is changed and so is the year to 1983. I'm just wondering if Coleco let the rights go to someone else.

[CPUWIZ]

[Omegamatrix]

Scene 25. I must say that this game showcases the nice vivid colors you can get on the 2600 compared to the Coleco. This guy went to town programming, and it is up there with some of the best homebrews! I love the jumping fish animation. I've had it for now though. I'm sure someone will blow through this whole game quick if they are a good gamer.

[Rom Hunter]

Well, you certainly wrote some video game history, VonGuard.

Amazing find and very generous of you to release those ROMs.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Maybe this CloneSpy analysis helps:

								   0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9
 0 cpkadv-rev2-1-2600-a527·······   · 98 38 38 38 39 44 44 49 31
 1 cbpark1-atari-6-14-A64D-rev2··  95  · 38 38 38 38 44 44 48 31
 2 cbpark9-atari-9-13············  60 61  · 99 92 91 73 59 51 38
 3 cbpark8-atari-9-13············  60 61 99  · 92 91 73 59 51 38
 4 cbpark7-atari-9-7·············  60 61 92 92  · 92 74 59 52 38
 5 cbpark6-atari-9-4·············  61 61 90 90 92  · 74 60 52 38
 6 cbpark5-atari-8-21············  67 67 70 70 71 72  · 72 61 70
 7 cpkadv-rev4-atari-7-27-84-8AED  70 71 59 58 59 60 74  · 66 71
 8 cbpark2-atari-7-3-AD79-rev3···  75 76 50 50 50 51 61 65  · 72
 9 cbpark0-atari-5-24-65EC-rev1··  53 55 25 25 25 25 28 28 29  ·

Which gives this order:
cbpark9, cbpark8, cbpark7, cbpark6, cbpark5, cpkadv rev4, cbpark2, cbpark0

cbpark1 and cpkadv rev2 (newer) seem to be a different development branch closest to cbpark2 which was abandoned. Maybe the contain some later dropped features.

[Rom Hunter]

Thomas,

So cbpark9-atari-9-13 is the most complete version?

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Rom Hunter, on Sun Apr 27, 2008 10:20 AM, said:

So cbpark9-atari-9-13 is the most complete version?

8 or 9, yes.