Page 1 of 6

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results

Posted: Tue May 22, 2018 6:51 pm
by zx81
[mention]MonkZy[/mention]

Thanks by the test. JSpeccy shares the Z80 core with ZX Baremulator, simply translated from Java to C++.

Are you using a mini-LCD monitor or a Raspberry's LCD touch screen?. Your system is really cool... :D

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results

Posted: Tue May 22, 2018 6:55 pm
by MonkZy
The screen is a cheap Chinese clone from eBay, it is a copy of the Waveshare 5" display. It does have a touch screen but I don't use it as the driver support is not good. The case is designed and printed by me 8-) I will open a thread about it, one day. I am a huge ZXBaremulator fan.

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results

Posted: Sat May 26, 2018 5:58 pm
by Magnus
May I add the results for SoftSpectrum48 (it was a pain though :geek: ):
Image

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results

Posted: Sat May 26, 2018 8:36 pm
by druellan
Magnus wrote: Sat May 26, 2018 5:58 pm May I add the results for SoftSpectrum48 (it was a pain though :geek: ):
Image
Nice work. I'm testing your emulator and I can say it looks promising. It plays the Gyroscope music quite well, something not all emulators are able to do.

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results

Posted: Sat May 26, 2018 9:11 pm
by Pegaz
Spectramine v1.0.1b, passed all tests.

Image

I'm not surprised, Woody has already praised this emulator, as very precise...

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results

Posted: Sat May 26, 2018 9:23 pm
by Magnus
druellan wrote: Sat May 26, 2018 8:36 pm
Magnus wrote: Sat May 26, 2018 5:58 pm May I add the results for SoftSpectrum48 (it was a pain though :geek: ):
Image
Nice work. I'm testing your emulator and I can say it looks promising. It plays the Gyroscope music quite well, something not all emulators are able to do.
Thanks :). Gyroscope is tough - Fuse plays it better (as does Spectramine and probably many others).

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results

Posted: Sun May 27, 2018 11:34 am
by zx81
druellan wrote: Sat May 26, 2018 8:36 pm Nice work. I'm testing your emulator and I can say it looks promising. It plays the Gyroscope music quite well, something not all emulators are able to do.
I can't hear any specially hard to emulate on Gyroscope music. It's a simple tune, really. From my POV emulate Fairlight, Sidewize, Cobra, Mad Mix Game musics or the digitized voice in Cobra's Arc is hardest than Gyroscope tune.

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results

Posted: Sun May 27, 2018 1:24 pm
by Magnus
zx81 wrote: Sun May 27, 2018 11:34 am
druellan wrote: Sat May 26, 2018 8:36 pm Nice work. I'm testing your emulator and I can say it looks promising. It plays the Gyroscope music quite well, something not all emulators are able to do.
I can't hear any specially hard to emulate on Gyroscope music. It's a simple tune, really. From my POV emulate Fairlight, Sidewize, Cobra, Mad Mix Game musics or the digitized voice in Cobra's Arc is hardest than Gyroscope tune.
Well, maybe not, but my emulator stutters a bit when playing the Gyroscope music, though it seems to be doing fine with most other games. I gave Cobra's Arc a try and it sounded terrible, but I'm not quite sure how it should sound (I have no hardware to check against).

Edit: Sorry about taking this off topic. :oops:

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results

Posted: Sun May 27, 2018 1:51 pm
by druellan
zx81 wrote: Sun May 27, 2018 11:34 am I can't hear any specially hard to emulate on Gyroscope music. It's a simple tune, really. From my POV emulate Fairlight, Sidewize, Cobra, Mad Mix Game musics or the digitized voice in Cobra's Arc is hardest than Gyroscope tune.
Well, in my experience there is always something off on Melbourne's music system, and specially on Gyroscope, mainly because it's a tune a remember well. The melody pops on some emulators, and sometimes there is a distinctive hi-pitch sound on the background. Even FUSE used to have problems with this (now, much better), and I use SpecEmu as reference.

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results

Posted: Sun May 27, 2018 1:53 pm
by druellan
Oh, and I agree about Odin's music system: Robin of the Woods, for example, it's a nightmare, that pops even on real hardware.

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results

Posted: Sun May 27, 2018 2:00 pm
by druellan
Magnus wrote: Sun May 27, 2018 1:24 pm Well, maybe not, but my emulator stutters a bit when playing the Gyroscope music, though it seems to be doing fine with most other games. I gave Cobra's Arc a try and it sounded terrible, but I'm not quite sure how it should sound (I have no hardware to check against).
SpecEmu is a good reference.
Magnus wrote: Sun May 27, 2018 1:24 pm Edit: Sorry about taking this off topic. :oops:
I don't think it is offtopic at all, and even better if this helps to improve the emulation quality of any project!

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results

Posted: Sun May 27, 2018 2:53 pm
by Ast A. Moore
Cobra’s Arc and Gryroscope seem to be using the Wham! engine for their music.

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results

Posted: Wed May 30, 2018 3:58 pm
by Hernan
Not technically an emulator, but I've run the tests on my ZX-Uno (v4.1 crowdfund, latest EXP26 core) and my Next board (Issue 2A, latest v.1.10.31 core).

ZX-Uno:

Image

23/152 failed

ZX Spectrum Next:

Image

24/152 failed

To be fair, I epected much better results... :?

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results

Posted: Wed May 30, 2018 4:05 pm
by Ast A. Moore
Hernan wrote: Wed May 30, 2018 3:58 pm Not technically an emulator
Yes, both the ZX-Uno and the Spectrum Next are technically emulators. Hardware emulators (well, hardware+firmware). Neither perfectly emulates the Z80 CPU nor the Spectrum itself.

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results

Posted: Wed May 30, 2018 4:05 pm
by djnzx48
Wow, I'm definitely surprised that the Next failed so many tests! Are there any major revisions expected in the future?

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results

Posted: Wed May 30, 2018 4:27 pm
by zx81
djnzx48 wrote: Wed May 30, 2018 4:05 pm Wow, I'm definitely surprised that the Next failed so many tests! Are there any major revisions expected in the future?
If I remember correctly, the Next uses the ZX-Uno Spectrum core, modified and not published the sources. So, the last ZX-Uno sources aren't published, until the Next team publish his modifications. A really dirty behaviour.

Modify a VHDL synthetisation is harder than modify a C, C++ or Java sources. So, the ZX-Uno Spectrum differs from the original at some points. Nothing serious, but isn't perfect. At this moment, I guess that software emulators are more precise than FPGAs synthetisations. That can change in the future, of course.

P.D.: I have a ZX-Uno v4.2 too...

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results

Posted: Wed May 30, 2018 4:58 pm
by Hernan
BTW, to have a "control subject" I've run the tests on my real Issue 6A 48K Speccy, and fails 1 test (001 SCF)

Image

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results

Posted: Wed May 30, 2018 5:33 pm
by zx81
Hernan wrote: Wed May 30, 2018 4:58 pm BTW, to have a "control subject" I've run the tests on my real Issue 6A 48K Speccy, and fails 1 test (001 SCF)
What Z80 CPU model have your Issue 6A?

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results

Posted: Wed May 30, 2018 5:40 pm
by Seven.FFF
Is this a NMOS vs CMOS difference?

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results

Posted: Wed May 30, 2018 6:21 pm
by cthutu
I ran the tests on my emulator, Nx.

Image

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results

Posted: Wed May 30, 2018 6:32 pm
by cthutu
zx81 wrote: Wed May 30, 2018 4:27 pm
djnzx48 wrote: Wed May 30, 2018 4:05 pm Wow, I'm definitely surprised that the Next failed so many tests! Are there any major revisions expected in the future?
If I remember correctly, the Next uses the ZX-Uno Spectrum core, modified and not published the sources. So, the last ZX-Uno sources aren't published, until the Next team publish his modifications. A really dirty behaviour.

Modify a VHDL synthetisation is harder than modify a C, C++ or Java sources. So, the ZX-Uno Spectrum differs from the original at some points. Nothing serious, but isn't perfect. At this moment, I guess that software emulators are more precise than FPGAs synthetisations. That can change in the future, of course.

P.D.: I have a ZX-Uno v4.2 too...
The ZX Spectrum Next doesn't use any part of ZX-Uno at all. This is very inaccurate statement that is, unfortunately, being spread around by misinformed people. There are aspects of the Next FPGA code that is based on open cores (like the T80), but none from ZX-Uno.

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results

Posted: Wed May 30, 2018 6:44 pm
by zx81
cthutu wrote: Wed May 30, 2018 6:32 pm
zx81 wrote: Wed May 30, 2018 4:27 pm If I remember correctly, the Next uses the ZX-Uno Spectrum core, modified and not published the sources. So, the last ZX-Uno sources aren't published, until the Next team publish his modifications. A really dirty behaviour.

Modify a VHDL synthetisation is harder than modify a C, C++ or Java sources. So, the ZX-Uno Spectrum differs from the original at some points. Nothing serious, but isn't perfect. At this moment, I guess that software emulators are more precise than FPGAs synthetisations. That can change in the future, of course.

P.D.: I have a ZX-Uno v4.2 too...
The ZX Spectrum Next doesn't use any part of ZX-Uno at all. This is very inaccurate statement that is, unfortunately, being spread around by misinformed people. There are aspects of the Next FPGA code that is based on open cores (like the T80), but none from ZX-Uno.
I can't say anything by myself. These "misinformed people" are some ZX-Uno members. Probably, they have some reason to claim such thing.

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results

Posted: Wed May 30, 2018 6:51 pm
by cthutu
zx81 wrote: Wed May 30, 2018 6:44 pm
cthutu wrote: Wed May 30, 2018 6:32 pm The ZX Spectrum Next doesn't use any part of ZX-Uno at all. This is very inaccurate statement that is, unfortunately, being spread around by misinformed people. There are aspects of the Next FPGA code that is based on open cores (like the T80), but none from ZX-Uno.
I can't say anything by myself. These "misinformed people" are some ZX-Uno members. Probably, they have some reason to claim such thing.
Unfortunately, they have no reason. Some of them have asserted, incorrectly, that some of the code has been copied from ZX-Uno. I think this started when ULANext was added, which is similar to ULAplus. But no code was copied. None of the members have seen the code used on the Next, and I talk daily with people that do see the code.

I will also add that the sources have not been published since the final machine has not been released. All sources will be published when that happens. This is to stop lots of Next forks occurring before the KS backers get their hands on one.

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results

Posted: Wed May 30, 2018 7:56 pm
by Hernan
zx81 wrote: Wed May 30, 2018 5:33 pm What Z80 CPU model have your Issue 6A?
It's a SGS made one:

Image

Re: Testing emulators using z80test-1.0. Quck results

Posted: Wed May 30, 2018 8:11 pm
by cthutu
Thanks for this thread! After testing, I decided to fix my Z80. I added the flag 3/5 behaviour for SCF and CCF, and fixed the flags bug in my RLA instruction. I now have this result:

Image