Ok, i'm not even sure I'm posting it in the proper subforum, but I saw some CALCnet threads around here so here it goes:
Why can't USB cables be used to make 2-calc networks, or to connect to gCn using a PC. And maybe n-calculators networks with a mixture of USB and link cables (USB calc A to B, link B to C, USB C to D, link D to E, ..., link Z to A). Probably there is a good and possibly simple explanation to this, but I can't see it, as a noob I am...
If I recall correctly, the USB port of the calculator is restricted to certain things, such as loading and unloading programs on the calculator from TI's software. Whereas the I/O port on the calculators can be used for other things (as they are already used for send variables to other calculators). So, that port as the TI-OS routines needed to talk to the Arduino bridge required for CALCnet.
As a disclaimer, I'm only speculating.
CALCnet only uses the I/O port because it needs to directly manipulate the lines on the link port. Over USB, this can't be done.
ah, I see. But it can't really be done or it can't be done as of yet? Can't you hack it to send and receive arbitrary data?
andrepd wrote:
ah, I see. But it can't really be done or it can't be done as of yet? Can't you hack it to send and receive arbitrary data?
What no one above mentioned is that once gCn 1.0 is released tonight or tomorrow, I will be trying to fit drivers into Doors CS to let gCn work over the direct USB cable to a single TI-84+/SE calculator.
Note: I moved the topic to the CALCnet forum.
Hopefully it won't be too too difficult to implement that. I think making it work on the computer end should be pretty straight forward given what I've already implemented both USB-wise and gCn-wise. The only thing causing trepidation is Linux, though I'm pretty sure libusbnet works under Mono. We'll have to do some testing.
KermMartian wrote:
andrepd wrote:
ah, I see. But it can't really be done or it can't be done as of yet? Can't you hack it to send and receive arbitrary data?
What no one above mentioned is that once gCn 1.0 is released tonight or tomorrow, I will be trying to fit drivers into Doors CS to let gCn work over the direct USB cable to a single TI-84+/SE calculator.
I think the point of his question was why didn't you set up CALCnet to use both I/O and USB for non-gCn stuff (like your example using netpong, but without the breadboard).
merthsoft wrote:
Note: I moved the topic to the CALCnet forum.
Hopefully it won't be too too difficult to implement that. I think making it work on the computer end should be pretty straight forward given what I've already implemented both USB-wise and gCn-wise. The only thing causing trepidation is Linux, though I'm pretty sure libusbnet works under Mono. We'll have to do some testing.
For straight USB I can do some testing on Mac as well.
Most of the problem is that it would only work for linking two calculators; for more than two "chained" as Andrepd describes, each calculator would have to actively propagate changes down the line, which would be hysterically bad for whatever else was running on each calculator. For two calculators, I suppose I could stare at
Port 0x4D, but I don't have any plans to implement that in the near or far future.
Ok, I see. Thanks for the explanation.
andrepd wrote:
Ok, I see. Thanks for the explanation.
My pleasure. What does this mean in terms of you (and your friends?) trying out CALCnet and gCn?
That, and USB was implemented to be host to peripheral.
graphmastur wrote:
That, and USB was implemented to be host to peripheral.
Well yeah, but using a unit-to-unit USB cable sort of breaks that.
KermMartian wrote:
graphmastur wrote:
That, and USB was implemented to be host to peripheral.
Well yeah, but using a unit-to-unit USB cable sort of breaks that.
With only two calculators, it doesn't. Using OTG, they can negotiate who gets to be host. or who has the A cable. Either way, you could just plug your USB port in your computer, or a hub. Since they're all connected to the same server, and many calcs can connect on the same computer, it should be fine.
Graphmastur, an excellent point! I was thinking I would need to write a program to let a TI-84+/SE act as a dedicated USB<>I/O bridge eventually, but that's much better.
Having a 84+(SE), or a 89T if and when someone ports CALCnet + client programs, acting as a bridge, would definitely be an interesting extension IMO
Lionel Debroux wrote:
Having a 84+(SE), or a 89T if and when someone ports CALCnet + client programs, acting as a bridge, would definitely be an interesting extension IMO
An 89T might have an easier time handling bridge duties. I bet BrandonW could implement CN2.2 on the 89T relatively quickly, and get a NetPong or Obliterate clone running too.
I already looked at the timings of the CALCnet protocol. A near-110 Hz timer can easily be made on the TI-68k platform with the programmable timer (AUTO_INT_5) in higher incrementation rate mode (OSC2/2^5, default being OSC2/2^9); other timings can easily be mirrored as well on the TI-68k platform.
BrandonW has many many projects, and so have I...
'Tis unfortunate that many of us have so many projects on our plates.
A 68k implementation would be most excellent, but as Lionel points out, the trick is finding someone who is both sufficiently knowledgeable and has sufficient free time.
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.
»
Go to Registration page
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum