Crap 0.1 first assembly project

Show us what you're working on, (preferably with screenshots).
Nomad
Manic Miner
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:38 pm

Re: Crap 0.1 first assembly project

Post by Nomad »

Day 67, 300 days left!

What have I been up to? Re-learning grafx2. :lol: Why? Because I am a potato and its much easier for me to use something that is the spiritual successor to deluxe paint than try and get my head round these other pixel editors. I just always found it much easier to use.

Besides that - been in a fruitless search for a flexable source editor i can use on the actual +3 (or emulator), paired with a assembler so I could develop my technical demos without having to stop using the emulator. Kind of the same thing that I do with the Atari. (Everything is contained, I use MEDIT for writing the source and AMAC to assemble the source listing, i then debug it all with AMOEBA. All this runs on the Atari 800 so I can write, assemble and test & debug without leaving the emulator.)

I wanted this for the spectrum but I have been hitting a dead end with crappy applications. I get the feeling most of the serious development must have been done on other microcomputers or PCs. Nobody would have seriously used these assemblers.. :lol: But it was worth a shot I figure. Ya never know till you try.

Devpac - sucks. :lol: Compaired to the professional Atari assemblers.

Still - I have one other avenue to explore...

Pentagon baby! If there was going to be a powerful development program that would be designed from the jumpstart to be run on the actual system it was going to target. Would logically be this. Plus because a lot of the software would have be refined in the early 90s you should have the more modern application design ideas present.

Well I got Prometheus 128 to have a look at, will play with that and see whats up. Hopefully its easier to use than devpac was.

Found a new disk magazine on spectrum computing thread that was very interesting. This was pretty much last nights project time. Aside from that I have been playing around with my double sided Maxwell disk :lol:

This is just a random thing - but my memory is not the best and trying to remember the spectrum keyboard template is a pain in the butt. It makes using the emulators so much more difficult. Why can't you just type using the pc keyboard?

I read the +3 manual again. That and the little tutorials retro coder put on youtube are nice.

Plan for today's project time is stringing together a template for a self loading +3 disk. With a loading screen, menu and a game screen.
User avatar
RMartins
Manic Miner
Posts: 776
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:26 pm

Re: Crap 0.1 first assembly project

Post by RMartins »

When I started developing SteelBall, I started using Zeus, and I can assure you that it has a very nice workflow.
You edit some assembler, then assemble it, and execute it.

Just be sure that you know what you are doing, since a BAD error, might destroy/corrupt your source code that is also in memory.
You can always exit out of Zeus, and SAVE as usual in BASIC.

I stopped using it, when I reached the limit of memory, where I had about 20K assembly source code,plus the assembled output, plus the Zeus app running.
It would be possible to continue working using Zeus, like in the old days, but I would have to split the code base in chunks so that it would be possible to compile in blocks, so that everything would fit in memory at compile time. This approach would also require concatenating the result blocks into a single file for loading.
Time constraints prevented me to continue like that, so I switched to using Pasmo on a PC, and cross compiles for ZX.

Resuming, it surely is possible to build stuff with the tools from that time.
Last edited by RMartins on Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nomad
Manic Miner
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:38 pm

Re: Crap 0.1 first assembly project

Post by Nomad »

The thing that frustrates me the most about the spectrum emulators is the token keyboard layout. This makes sense when you can actually see the tokens. Not so much on a PC keyboard. But then that is another inexplicable choice for most emulators.

I looked at Zeus but it uses line numbers, plus there is the memory restriction as you say..

Will just stick with PC zeus/pasmo till someone figures out how to design a spectrum emulator interface that relates to the PC keyboard layout. :lol:

Were i enamored with the use of arcane/obscure keybindings I would just use emacs :lol:

That is one of the infuriating things about fuse is it forces you to remember key combinations, then when you try and look up the keyboard help its the size of a postage stamp on the screen. It's like the program is trolling you. First it forces you to use a keyboard layout for a keyboard you don't have - then when you go to look up the tokens its impossible to check. :lol:
User avatar
RMartins
Manic Miner
Posts: 776
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:26 pm

Re: Crap 0.1 first assembly project

Post by RMartins »

Nomad wrote: Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:31 am The thing that frustrates me the most about the spectrum emulators is the token keyboard layout. This makes sense when you can actually see the tokens. Not so much on a PC keyboard. But then that is another inexplicable choice for most emulators.
...
That is not a problem of the emulators, since they are actually emulating the behaviour of the machine.

If that is a problem, which I understand it is when programming, then the best solution, is to use a different ZX ROM, that provides that feature, like a 128K ROM or for 48K you can use The Gosh Wonderfull ROM
Nomad
Manic Miner
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:38 pm

Re: Crap 0.1 first assembly project

Post by Nomad »

I tried the Gosh Wonderful rom, ok It took out the tokenizer but you still have the problem that the " $#@ type characters are still in the wrong place.

But granted its 1/2 the problem fixed.

RMartins, thanks for all of the info - I didn't know about this useful rom until now. Appreciate the assist.
User avatar
RMartins
Manic Miner
Posts: 776
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:26 pm

Re: Crap 0.1 first assembly project

Post by RMartins »

Nomad wrote: Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:58 am ...
RMartins, thanks for all of the info - I didn't know about this useful rom until now. Appreciate the assist.
You are welcome ;)

You can also program on the real machine, using a DivMMC or similar, to help out on the LOAD/SAVE part of things :D
I did that for a few days :mrgreen:

Or eventually use a Spectrum Next (board), if you have one.
Nomad
Manic Miner
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:38 pm

Re: Crap 0.1 first assembly project

Post by Nomad »

Yea that would be really neat :lol:

I doubt much is going to get done project wise today as I discovered schism tracker last night.

Ever since milkytracker decided it didn't want to work on my computer anymore I been at a loose end for a modern tracker for a few months now. I tested a few but none were very easy for me to work with. This one was pretty intuitive.
Nomad
Manic Miner
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:38 pm

Re: Crap 0.1 first assembly project

Post by Nomad »

My entry to the April 23 comp..

I decided to do a utility program that would give various calculations that are useful in simulation.

Here we can see one of the programs - it calculates the equivalent megatonnage of a weapon system on a soft target.

The calculation is simple

EMT = N * Y2/3

where EMT = equivalent megatonnage of a weapon system on a soft target
N = Number of re-entry vehicles or bombs carried.
Y = Yield of each bomb or re-entry vehicle in megatons.

Image

Image

Image

You can see there is a little bit of work to be done with the interface :lol: . I was kind of torn on doing it in assembly language.. I figured get it working in basic then think about if its worth it in assembly...

You get some weird rounding errors if you try and input a megatonne value that is too high. (for example a tsar bomba type ( 1 bomb, 50.00) ).. Stick to kiloton yields / low megatonne (so 0.01 - 5.0 seems to work ok).

Try the SS-18 Satan Mod 2 stats..

8 re-entry vehicles
0.5 megatonne yield.
Nomad
Manic Miner
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:38 pm

Re: Crap 0.1 first assembly project

Post by Nomad »

For a little fun I was playing around with 1 liners (well almost one liner.. its really 3.)

Image

Image

Image

Image

When I saw the listing in 'spectrum programmer' I knew it could be a one liner :lol: I couldn't help myself.

I figure there is a way to make all three screens into 1 line but that is beyond a simple potato such as myself.
Nomad
Manic Miner
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:38 pm

Re: Crap 0.1 first assembly project

Post by Nomad »

Update:

Eyes are square after reading so many damn papers on wargaming and reviewing the following flawed classic.

I figured for the upcomming compition I would see if I could put my new 'skilz' to work in doing a sam becket 'putting right what once went wrong'.

To explain - when I was young for one birthday my parents had bought Battle of Britain' my young self loved the tension of being RAF commander defending the homeland from a sometimes insumentable foe. (you had a variable number of luffwaffe - going from even balance to 5 x your resources). You could define the fail state (how many bombers got to complete their mission 0-100.

I remember this game being awesome, its one of the reasons I got into wargaming later. But I thought to myself 'I wonder if I could make it run better?' I remember the game was slow.

Then I recalled that the magazines had panned this title. I loaded it up and sure enough its got some issues with input (its pretty non-responsive & slow).

But when I looked at the code a number of things became obvious.

1. This was a combination of machine code + basic. Not as claimed in the magazine reviews as 'just a program written in BASIC'. Had they looked at the source they would have seen that on the first few lines you have a machine code portion (to load the map.)

Code: Select all

40 LOAD "MAP" SCREEN$
50 LET A=58580
60 POKE 23658,0
70 LET A=A+1
75 IF A<58603 THEN GO TO 60
80 DATA 33,0,64,17,238,228,1,0,27,237,176,201,33,238,228,17,0,64,1,0,27,237,176,201
90 RANDOMIZE USR 58580
Just a BASIC game eh... facepalm...

2. The speed and control issues, its because there are huge test conditions all in basic and these stack. This all is happening in the input /core game loop. Thus the speed issue and probably the response problem...

The screen update is slow because its calculating all of the elements in basic.

All of these things can be given a whole lot of love by doing them in Assembly.

The nice thing is the guy that coded this tried to make it in a modular way. There is extensive use of go sub structures. I get the feeling this was on the verge of being converted to a full assembly project.

Anyway - its a interesting game and got some nostalgia for me. I was surprised how 'simple' the game is when you break it down. The desire to get this running as the creator obviously wished it to became overwhelming.

I am not planning any crazy graphics, I just want to prove to myself that this game could remove all of the issues that got it panned in review.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Here is the start of the code, figured nobody wants to see 40 screens of basic :lol: You can see what I am talking about in the way the code is set up, and the room there is for improvement for conversion.

Image

Here is the graphics - basic and its probably what caused the majority of the poor reviews but it does the job...

Image

Image

The nostalgia feels when I saw this were epic.

Image

Image

I knew after this I could do it. It's essentially a input evaluation problem that hamstrings this more than anything. If I were to just get this in assembly it would 'fix' the issues that most of the reviews had.
User avatar
Ast A. Moore
Rick Dangerous
Posts: 2640
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:16 pm

Re: Crap 0.1 first assembly project

Post by Ast A. Moore »

Nomad wrote: Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:10 pm This was a combination of machine code + basic. Not as claimed in the magazine reviews as 'just a program written in BASIC'. Had they looked at the source they would have seen that on the first few lines you have a machine code portion (to load the map.)

Code: Select all

60 POKE 23658,0
70 LET A=A+1
75 IF A<58603 THEN GO TO 60
80 DATA 33,0,64,17,238,228,1,0,27,237,176,201,33,238,228,17,0,64,1,0,27,237,176,201
90 RANDOMIZE USR 58580
Just a BASIC game eh... facepalm...
To be fair, these are just two harmless snippets of machine code. One copies the screen to another memory location, the other copies it from that location back.
Every man should plant a tree, build a house, and write a ZX Spectrum game.

Author of A Yankee in Iraq, a 50 fps shoot-’em-up—the first game to utilize the floating bus on the +2A/+3,
and zasm Z80 Assembler syntax highlighter.
Nomad
Manic Miner
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:38 pm

Re: Crap 0.1 first assembly project

Post by Nomad »

True but it shows that the program was not just written in basic. :lol: Ok I am being pedantic but still.

It clocks in at 401 lines of basic, with a sprinkling of machine code and pokes.

It's begging for a make over. But then that kind of makes sense it was a very early program judging by the style. Having reviewed the code. I wonder why the author didn't do the input routine & screen update in machine code. It would have made a huge difference... Hmmm... mysterious.
User avatar
Seven.FFF
Manic Miner
Posts: 735
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:50 pm
Location: USA

Re: Crap 0.1 first assembly project

Post by Seven.FFF »

I bet he got those screen copy routines from somebody else, and used them without knowing assembly.
Robin Verhagen-Guest
SevenFFF / Threetwosevensixseven / colonel32
NXtel NXTP ESP Update ESP Reset CSpect Plugins
User avatar
Ast A. Moore
Rick Dangerous
Posts: 2640
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:16 pm

Re: Crap 0.1 first assembly project

Post by Ast A. Moore »

Seven.FFF wrote: Thu Mar 15, 2018 1:41 pm I bet he got those screen copy routines from somebody else, and used them without knowing assembly.
Heh. Possibly. Then again, those are just LDIRs, preceded by setting up the HL, DE, and BC register pairs. It’s also possible he set out to write the whole thing in BASIC, realized some aspects were painfully slow, and sped them up with morsels of machine code.
Every man should plant a tree, build a house, and write a ZX Spectrum game.

Author of A Yankee in Iraq, a 50 fps shoot-’em-up—the first game to utilize the floating bus on the +2A/+3,
and zasm Z80 Assembler syntax highlighter.
Nomad
Manic Miner
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:38 pm

Re: Crap 0.1 first assembly project

Post by Nomad »

I get the feeling if he knew machine code he would have done all the INK, PAPER, BORDER stuff with pokes, even if it was a BASIC program.

But if he was getting help you would have thought they would have done the input routine - but I can kind of see why they didn't if they were pushed for time and especially if it was not the author who was doing the assembly.

There again, this was 1982 so.. hmmm.
Last edited by Nomad on Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
R-Tape
Site Admin
Posts: 6353
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:46 am

Re: Crap 0.1 first assembly project

Post by R-Tape »

Ast A. Moore wrote: Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:18 pm morsels of machine code.
Now there's a cracking name for a coding book.
Nomad
Manic Miner
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:38 pm

Re: Crap 0.1 first assembly project

Post by Nomad »

R-Tape wrote: Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:36 pm
Ast A. Moore wrote: Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:18 pm morsels of machine code.
Now there's a cracking name for a coding book.
Byte in to Spectrum machine code...

Ok I'll get my coat :lol:
User avatar
Ast A. Moore
Rick Dangerous
Posts: 2640
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:16 pm

Re: Crap 0.1 first assembly project

Post by Ast A. Moore »

R-Tape wrote: Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:36 pm
Ast A. Moore wrote: Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:18 pm morsels of machine code.
Now there's a cracking name for a coding book.
Morsels of Machine Code

Chapter 1. BCD: How to Nibble Away at Your Bytes
Every man should plant a tree, build a house, and write a ZX Spectrum game.

Author of A Yankee in Iraq, a 50 fps shoot-’em-up—the first game to utilize the floating bus on the +2A/+3,
and zasm Z80 Assembler syntax highlighter.
Nomad
Manic Miner
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:38 pm

Re: Crap 0.1 first assembly project

Post by Nomad »

To give some insight to the curious..

What I decided to do was to understand the battle of britan code better was to transcribe it to a legal pad. This gave me time to think about each line and what it did within the program. And try and get a handle on how the guy that wrote the program was thinking. I think its harder when you are just looking at a listing screen.

At the end I finish with hand cramps and 30 pages of legal papers. :lol: What I can say so far is its almost all BASIC code. its structure is really just a stack of if statements comparing various arrays against a few magic numbers. There are random values that plug into a model to handle stuff like movement, damage. And each unit has fule consumption tracked.

The code seems to have been worked on in a number of stages. By the line numbering the guy started by using a skeleton then expanded/edited as he went. Pretty standard stuff. The only weird part is the way that the map code sticks out like a sore thumb. Can't be 100% but it would appear this came from a different source.

The enemy will attack one of three targets. I never really thought about how limiting this is to game play.

There only being one map is also another interesting design decision. It just seems sad that with what would have been a few more months of development this could have been a very nice game.

Anyway enough speculation on what could have been. :lol: The variables are what you would expect from this period - they are sparse but functional. The use of magic numbers is not 100% there was an effort to make the code readable as some program tasks are assigned variables for the line numbers to use in the code. I thought that was quite progressive for 82'.

Next up will be putting this onto +3 disk. Luckily there is no complicated protection scheme to worry about. It's just a matter of copying the screen data, the code onto the disk. (well the memory disk first then the real disk).

After that (assuming I didn't screw it up) I will go through and replace as much as the basic with pokes.) If it makes seance to go further down the rabbit hole and actually start implementing parts of it in machine code then will have a go.
Nomad
Manic Miner
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:38 pm

Re: Crap 0.1 first assembly project

Post by Nomad »

Update:

Well battle of Britain is progressing well...

But talk is cheap perhaps some screen shots. :lol: Still at the rough prototype stage but one of the things that really let this program down was the interface. As I wanted to learn more about vector type graphics I thought this would be a good chance to figure out the assembly draw/plot routines.

At the moment its still a hot mess of basic/assembly. but this was the fastest way to figure out the table values. Next will be get it all generated in assembly, the loop code. This should speed things up.

Really I want to make hexagon tiles but circles are ok at a push I guess... anyway you can see what I am getting at.

The red team (Germans) you always have the data to the right, same as blue team (Brits). With the targets bombed also this takes away the need to call up the data from the input, thus we shorten the input loop giving a much tighter input routine. Given this is one of the programs bottlenecks I think its worth loosing a little bit of screen real estate to this.

My idea is having two maps, the first is wide area, then a local map. One thing that is very realistic is you don't get to micromanage the patrols. This was probably first a limitation of the program but it added to the realism. However it got panned for this in reviews (quite unfairly).

I am hesitant to putting a third screen (battle screen) where it would switch you to pilot view where you could attack the escorts/bombers instead of it being a algo result. This would take away from the realism of being in bomber command. But on the other hand by offering the player the chance to 'switch roles' and take the place of the patrol for encounters it would fix what was according to the reviews a major failing of the game 'its boring you can't fight the enemy yourself..'

I guess its one of those do you sacrifice realism for gameplay kinda deals.

Another thing I often thought was lacking in the game was being able to play the other side. This would enhance the replay factor and you could try some new strategy (instead of targeting civilians - target the airfields.. making Sea lion possible). I often thought this would have made the game 10x better as it got a bit boring because you knew that the red team was always going to attack the civilian targets.

I would need to have a think how to do this but this would just require extension of the enemy targeting (the computer only has 3 possible targets as the red team.. to enable a switch to bombing RAF airfields you open up the targets.. making the game much more difficult as a defender but also much better inmo.)

Image
Nomad
Manic Miner
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:38 pm

Re: Crap 0.1 first assembly project

Post by Nomad »

Update:

Looking at the combat/mission model. It has a number of problems. The RAF numbers are wrong, You have a maximum of 90 fighters, this should be closer to 630.. Also the number of bases should be increased to 18..

This is not so hard to implement, actually its pretty easy. I don't understand why the wrong data was used in the first place..

The German bases are easy to model - you have N number of bases, once you know how many groups are being sent randomly select the base for each group. This can then be used to determine stuff like fuel level.

The detection chance totally changes the game - to make it more realistic detection should be variable. So you can either have all systems (observer + radar) working perfectly in good weather. So you have advanced warning of attack and can accurately respond. This is the default state in the original game.

If weather is bad, observers can't see the incoming attack until its ontop of them. Radar is still primitive and cannot detect aircraft bellow 1000ft (thus the need for observers), the system also can fail due to weather conditions. Therefore this worst case you have no advance warning.

and a spread in between.. the ultimate impact is enhanced gameplay, sometimes the bombers/escorts just come out of nowhere and you have to scramble. In future defenders would get a penalty (because not enough altitude to effectively engage..) but at the moment I don't want to mess with the combat model.

With this change you switch from a scramble based approach (where you just react to the incoming confirmed enemy positions.. to one of patrol based gameplay - because you can't rely on having advanced information.)

German data needs to be updated, I want to update the targets so RAF Radar can be targeted, the Air bases, Shipping in the Chanel, and civilian population centers. This is also not the most difficult job in the world. its just a matter of plugging in the coordinates of the different locations and randomly selecting a objective.

If just these three things are done (updating RED/BLUE team data, the objectives, and increase the air bases/radar stations) It will really improve the game.

Having you play the RED team and computer the BLUE is more complex.. I want to improve the model first before I do this.

There are a few factors that were never modeled by the game but (really should have been) weather, observer core response, radar.

At first I thought it was a problem with the game size - perhaps too much memory was used already but this is not the case, there is more than enough room to add in all the above...

The combat model is still pretty bad/simplistic. But I don't want to mess with that till I have the underlying data fixed. The program is slow enough as it is with the simple combat algo. If I plug in a better one its going to slow things down even more.
Nomad
Manic Miner
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:38 pm

Re: Crap 0.1 first assembly project

Post by Nomad »

Image

:lol:
Image

Little things please little minds...
Nomad
Manic Miner
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:38 pm

Re: Crap 0.1 first assembly project

Post by Nomad »

Update:

So as you can see by the string slicing examples, I have been giving the old coconut a rest from the assembly :lol: There is a point where the best way to move forward is to take a step back and let yourself have a think on whats stopping progress.

:lol: That's what I tell myself anyway - to be honest with all of the application issues it was getting to the point where I was asking myself 'why am I doing this?' :shock: I had hit the assembly burnout phase.

But being a suborn potato I was not about to walk away and admit defeat. No I would do something else that was tangentially useful and come back to it when I was 'ready' :lol: Kind of like an act 2 before the training montage.

Well y'all saw what I did - gathered a huge amount of papers/books on chess & chess computers. This is been a great help and totally changed how I thought about the project. It was one of the best unintentional moves I made.

Other than that - I wanted to quickly prototype ideas I was having not just for the project but just random stuff that would take my interest. I wish I was at a level in specy machine code to do this in assembly but am not. So I settled on its Poor cousins Forth & Basic. Oddly this enabled rapid prototyping and in many cases exposed errors in my judgement/thinking that would have taken much longer for me to figure out had I done it with assembly. Also there is the issue that assembly being so flexible and fast it can mask many logical errors that get exposed pretty quick in slower languages like Forth or Basic.

The thing with BASIC is, yea its slow, yes its somewhat cryptic but I found myself many times just playing with it and having a bunch of fun. Unintentionally productive. I had my own numbers station running all in BASIC using potato techniques that a 'real' programmer would never admit to. :lol:

I then thought to myself 'but I could make this respectable, use a proper for next loop with some sort of string array and its all going to look pretty nice.. The interesting thing about doing the numbers station in basic was - speed was not an issue. As I am just vomiting out numbers in Morse, Basic is good enough to get the job done. There would be no perceptible speed advantage in doing this in assembly.

This lead to another insight - just sometimes it makes sense to use BASIC. :lol:

The corollary being therefore sometimes it might be a good idea to use BASIC & Assembly in a kind of unholy alliance. The more I thought about this and looked back on the documentation this was really how the designers anticipated an 'accomplished' user to use the machine. Not to be doing stuff purely in assembly but to be using a hybrid solution. (well at least in the beginning).

I think that is a somewhat lost skill is figuring out the balance of BASIC/assembly within a program to get the optimal results. I questioned the cost/benifit of implementing projects wholy in assembly - especially when I didn't have a great grasp of z80. There is a big time cost..

I guess what I came to appreciate is that perhaps my various projects could be finished/developed in a better way if I just combined basic & assembly. That way when I hit a brick wall with the assembly solution I could just cheese things with a basic solution to the problem and move on and replace it later. This would seem to be a better approach to what I had been doing.

The other big advantage with being a BASIC bod is there is a ton of books that are actually competently written for the spectrum :lol: the better part of a decade of magazines, plus I had experience from back in the day writing it. So its a lot easier. :lol:

That said I was raring to get back to the esoteric Z80 assembly, the seemingly antagonistic tools and get stuck in. So I think the time away was useful. :lol:
Nomad
Manic Miner
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:38 pm

Re: Crap 0.1 first assembly project

Post by Nomad »

MMMMM BASIC..

Image

Image

Image

That last one I can't seem to crush into a 2 line program..

Busy reviewing CCS 2003 :lol:
Nomad
Manic Miner
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:38 pm

Re: Crap 0.1 first assembly project

Post by Nomad »

More BASIC silliness.

Image
Post Reply