Talk:APU Triangle: Difference between revisions
From NESdev Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
Rainwarrior (talk | contribs) (response in thread) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
As per my comment in this thread: [http://forums.nesdev.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=19191], I believe the $4008 "Side effects" to be wrong - As best I can figure, if you actually code $4008 to set the reload flag, it causes the triangle to behave incorrectly (see thread). But since it seems to have been very explicitly added recently, I figured I'd ask about it here instead of just changing it. It seems to be incorrect? [[User:Drilian|Drilian]] ([[User talk:Drilian|talk]]) 00:09, 12 August 2019 (PDT) | As per my comment in this thread: [http://forums.nesdev.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=19191], I believe the $4008 "Side effects" to be wrong - As best I can figure, if you actually code $4008 to set the reload flag, it causes the triangle to behave incorrectly (see thread). But since it seems to have been very explicitly added recently, I figured I'd ask about it here instead of just changing it. It seems to be incorrect? [[User:Drilian|Drilian]] ([[User talk:Drilian|talk]]) 00:09, 12 August 2019 (PDT) | ||
:Responded [https://forums.nesdev.org/viewtopic.php?p=241700#p241700 in that thread]. - [[User:Rainwarrior|Rainwarrior]] ([[User talk:Rainwarrior|talk]]) 03:30, 12 August 2019 (MDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 09:30, 12 August 2019
I'm fairly sure triangle can be silenced by writing $00 to $4008, too. Any value with the low 7 bits at 0 will silence the channel, regardless of the value of bit 7.Bregalad (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2019 (MDT)
- Yes you can write $00. The consequence though is that the length counter goes active and will eventually expire, requiring an additional reload of $400B to un-silence the channel later. - Rainwarrior (talk) 07:24, 20 March 2019 (MDT)
As per my comment in this thread: [1], I believe the $4008 "Side effects" to be wrong - As best I can figure, if you actually code $4008 to set the reload flag, it causes the triangle to behave incorrectly (see thread). But since it seems to have been very explicitly added recently, I figured I'd ask about it here instead of just changing it. It seems to be incorrect? Drilian (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2019 (PDT)
- Responded in that thread. - Rainwarrior (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2019 (MDT)
