Received: from ultb.isc.rit.edu by karazm.math.UH.EDU with SMTP id AA03829 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Sat, 19 Oct 1991 18:53:58 -0500 Received: by ultb.isc.rit.edu (5.57/5.3 (Postmaster DPMSYS)) id AA17898; Sat, 19 Oct 91 19:49:54 -0400 Received: from texas.CS (texas.ARPA) by junior.rit.edu (4.1/5.17) id AA16333; Sat, 19 Oct 91 19:38:43 EDT From: jdb9608@cs.rit.edu (John D Beutel) Message-Id: <9110192338.AA16333@junior.rit.edu> Subject: ST timing? To: glove-list@karazm.math.uh.edu Date: Sat, 19 Oct 91 19:53:32 EDT X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8] I'm working on a timer/interrupt driven hi-res interface for the ST, to free up the CPU. I've got the timer/interrupt part working (finally...), but the data packet from the glove is sometimes out of sync. Specifically, it sometimes shifts so that A0 and X are the last bytes of the packet, sometimes A0 is the last byte, and sometimes A0 is the first byte (like it should be). Manfredo's suggestion of quickly making a fist or pressing the center button both work to bring A0 back to the first byte, but it goes out of whack too frequently (about once per minute) to rely on that manual solution. I suspect it's a timing problem, as Greg Alt mentioned when he did the PC version, but I tried changing the /7 to a /5 and /6 in the delay() macro (as he did) and it didn't help. Has someone gotten the ST source to give them the packet in the proper order? I know it DOES work for Manfred Krauss, and it doesn't work for several other people on this list who've tried it on their ST's. Who else with an ST is getting the packets in the right order? Did you change the code? Did it just work? Is there some timing difference in the hardware between different types of ST's? I'll try changing the times of various parts of the protocol, (especially reducing the delay times, since Greg's machine is faster than mine), but I'd rather not guess. -- J. David Beutel 11011011 jdb9608@cs.rit.edu "I am, therefore I am."