[Scummvm-devel] New release, same FMOPL

J.Brown (Ender) ender at scummvm.org
Thu Jul 10 19:13:05 CEST 2003


There was no discussion. I had originally veto'ed instating the new
emulator for performance reasons, however somebody inserted it in CVS
anyway, insisting there were great noticable gains in sound quality.

I'm a bit tone-deaf myself, but if you yourself say there isn't, then I
see no reason to keep the 'new' FMOPL code.

The FMOPL emulator is from MAME, and there HAVE apparantly been fixes made
recently. However unless any of them fix the problems on the iPaq and
similar devices, please feel free to roll back to the previous emulator
perminently in CVS.

 - Ender

   http://www.scummvm.org/   | "Amen! Attempts to eradicate humour from
   http://www.quakesrc.org/  |  our distribution should be ignored with
   http://www.enderboi.com/  |  extreme prejudice" - cjwatson at debian.org

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Jamieson Christian wrote:

> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 17:33:26 -0500
> From: Jamieson Christian <jamiesonc at tds.net>
> To: scummvm-devel at lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Scummvm-devel] New release, same FMOPL
>
> I might have missed some critical discussion back when the new FMOPL
> emulator was integrated into ScummVM (I think I got back into the swing of
> things just after the 0.4.0 release). I would like to know exactly why the
> decision was made to go to the new FMOPL code. I haven't yet personally
> observed any demonstrable improvements in the Adlib sound quality -- in fact
> I have bug report #766984 in my TODO list citing distorted Adlib sound in
> FOA, and the problem seems to disappear if I reinstate the old FMOPL
> emulator.
>
> I have no problem with implementing "new and improved" code if it can be
> demonstrated that it actually improves things. If somebody has URLs to the
> development home of the FMOPL emulator, that might help. My hope is that
> there are at least semi-regular bug fixes happening. Perhaps the code we
> integrated just had some bugs to work out. If that's the case, we should see
> if applying any bug fixes that have come out since takes care of the
> problem.
>
> If that alternative is not available or does not solve the problem, we
> really need to reinstate the tried-and-true code until we can figure out
> what's wrong with the new code.
>
>     -- Jamieson (sf.net: Jamieson630)
>
> P.S. Is the new FMOPL code GPL'd anyway? We don't have a GPL notice in the
> file headers.
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft
> Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more.
> Download & eval WebKing and get a free book.
> www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1
> _______________________________________________
> Scummvm-devel mailing list
> Scummvm-devel at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scummvm-devel
>





More information about the Scummvm-devel mailing list