Talk:NES 2.0 Mapper 360: Difference between revisions

From NESdev Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:
:The programmer's interface involves translating DIP switch settings to outer bank and mirroring selection. Doing so is neither self-explanatory, nor part of a generalized DIP Switch handling scheme, but PCB-specific. [[User:NewRisingSun|NewRisingSun]] ([[User talk:NewRisingSun|talk]]) 22:47, 3 January 2019 (MST)
:The programmer's interface involves translating DIP switch settings to outer bank and mirroring selection. Doing so is neither self-explanatory, nor part of a generalized DIP Switch handling scheme, but PCB-specific. [[User:NewRisingSun|NewRisingSun]] ([[User talk:NewRisingSun|talk]]) 22:47, 3 January 2019 (MST)
::How is this better than 31 separate NROM dumps? How does this solve any problems of encapsulation? How does this not just make the user experience awful, but making them manually select a number in a special dialog with a virtual piece of paper to let them know what's where, instead of using the filesystem chooser for the game they want? —[[User:Lidnariq|Lidnariq]] ([[User talk:Lidnariq|talk]]) 22:52, 3 January 2019 (MST)
::How is this better than 31 separate NROM dumps? How does this solve any problems of encapsulation? How does this not just make the user experience awful, but making them manually select a number in a special dialog with a virtual piece of paper to let them know what's where, instead of using the filesystem chooser for the game they want? —[[User:Lidnariq|Lidnariq]] ([[User talk:Lidnariq|talk]]) 22:52, 3 January 2019 (MST)
:::It's better than 31 separate NROM dumps in that it represents the fact that the PCB does not have 31 separate PRG/CHR-ROM chips, but just one of each type. The awful user experience in emulators accurately replicates the awful player real-hardware experience of having to flip DIP switches to select a game. It's all about accurately preserving cartriges, their hardware and ROM chip content, not necessarily about making a wonderful user experience (although I am willing to make exceptions in the case of input devices...). And if you object to this cartridge being preserved as it is, you must also object to [[NES 2.0 Mapper 357]], for it is similar in the aspects you are faulting. [[User:NewRisingSun|NewRisingSun]] ([[User talk:NewRisingSun|talk]]) 22:58, 3 January 2019 (MST)

Revision as of 05:58, 4 January 2019

Why does this warrant a mapper number? It literally involves no programmer's interface at all.—Lidnariq (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2019 (MST)

The programmer's interface involves translating DIP switch settings to outer bank and mirroring selection. Doing so is neither self-explanatory, nor part of a generalized DIP Switch handling scheme, but PCB-specific. NewRisingSun (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2019 (MST)
How is this better than 31 separate NROM dumps? How does this solve any problems of encapsulation? How does this not just make the user experience awful, but making them manually select a number in a special dialog with a virtual piece of paper to let them know what's where, instead of using the filesystem chooser for the game they want? —Lidnariq (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2019 (MST)
It's better than 31 separate NROM dumps in that it represents the fact that the PCB does not have 31 separate PRG/CHR-ROM chips, but just one of each type. The awful user experience in emulators accurately replicates the awful player real-hardware experience of having to flip DIP switches to select a game. It's all about accurately preserving cartriges, their hardware and ROM chip content, not necessarily about making a wonderful user experience (although I am willing to make exceptions in the case of input devices...). And if you object to this cartridge being preserved as it is, you must also object to NES 2.0 Mapper 357, for it is similar in the aspects you are faulting. NewRisingSun (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2019 (MST)