That’s been there for ages now. Having the controls displayed on-screen all the time would waste a lot of space and quickly annoy people who do know what the controls are.
Originally Posted by exidyboy
Originally Posted by Golden Child
Another thing I noticed was that you can't actually exit from mame using the menus. Sure, mame's geared to power users and you can use ESC or Alt+F4 or click on the close X, but for UI completeness shouldn't there be an Exit Mame option?
I agree. For a while I was using CTRL-ALT-DEL to exit MAME until I found out about -window mode which gives you an X to click on :-)
Why would you need to do that? There are quite a few other ways to get your OS UI back:
On Windows, Alt+Tab and the Windows key will both get out out of full-screen MAME, even when UI controls are disabled. Then you can right-click the task bar icon and close MAME that way.
On macOS, I believe Command-Tab will always let you get focus off MAME if it hasn’t completely frozen.
If you’ve worked out how to disable UI controls or you’re running a system without a keyboard, Alt+Enter (or Option+Return) gets you out of full screen mode. This should be one of your first guesses, as it was the toggle full screen mode key combination for DOS prompts since Windows 3, and many games have copied it so it’s almost a standard.
Once you get focus off MAME, you can go and read the documentation :P
If nobody else volunteers I will probably try the povided rom dumps from that guy and try to adapt the existing portfolio device to that prototype, sadly there is not a lot of software for it as it never came to market.
I briefly looked at this a few weeks ago, the ROMs do run in the pofo driver but the video output is completely different so nothing is displayed.
The main task would be to emulate the 82C425 device, replacing the HD61830 used in pofo. The 82C425 looks functionally similar to the 6845, with extensions, so using the current mc6845.cpp as a template would be a good starting point.
If no-one indicates they're working on this in the next couple of weeks then I may look at it myself.
One thing that's been perplexing me is why the number of clocks changes from line to line, and what I've found is that if you have a 7493 connected to another 7493, the second 7493 won't actually respond to a change in the first 7493's high bit output until the next clock cycle.
It led me to experiment with trying different cpu clocks, multiples of 14.318e6 being most visually appealing:
/ PORT ADJUSTER 16 BIT MASK since default mask is 0xff, not big enough for a MINMAX of (1,10000)
#define PORT_ADJUSTER_FFFF(_default, _name) \
configurer.field_alloc(IPT_ADJUSTER, (_default), 0xffff, (_name)); \
PORT_ADJUSTER_FFFF( 100, "CPU Scale Adjustment" ) PORT_MINMAX(1, 10000) PORT_CHANGED_MEMBER(DEVICE_SELF, outlaw_state, set_clock, 0)
m_maincpu->set_unscaled_clock_int(ioport("CPUSCALE")->read() / 100.0 * 14.318e6);
machine().popmessage("Clock Scale = %f clock= %f",ioport("CPUSCALE")->read() / 100.0, m_maincpu->clock());
Sometimes it seems like the higher the clock, the more visual artifacts.
Looks very pixelated at a .25 scale:
going slightly over the even multiple seems to cause "ghosting":
I could also use the -cheat parameter which enables the overclock slider and allows me to set an over/underclock up to 400% but I wanted to go higher than that, do PORT_MINMAX(1, 10000) for up to a 100x multiple.