Bill Budge posts Pinball Construction Set source code on GitHub(github.com)
github.com
Bill Budge posts Pinball Construction Set source code on GitHub
https://github.com/billbudge/PCS_Atari800
13 comments
According to his latest Tweet, he's planning on going through the code and adding comments.
https://twitter.com/billb/status/301403958415618049
There's some nifty tricks that Budge did in the code. Just looking at this, for example:
LDA (PARAM),Y ;JUMP TO SELECTION
STA DOMNU6+1
INY
LDA (PARAM),Y
STA DOMNU6+2
DOMNU6 JMP $FFFF
This is probably the most common way to handle jump tables on the 6502. If you're writing ROMable code you'll have to use indirect jmp (vector) instead of selfmod. It's more efficient to split the jump table into two halves though, with the LSB in one table and the MSB in another, and access it like so:
lda param_lo,y
sta vector
lda param_hi,y
sta vector+1
vector = * + 1
jmp $5e1f ; dummy address, written with selfmodThis is cool. Not so sure about the practice of committing object files to source control, but I guess it makes sense in a "the more, the better" kind of way, at least.
As a side note, I must say that as a former (contracting) developer at an EA studio, it's a very interesting feeling to see the programmer (the programmer, as in "the one") of a recent release sit next to EA's boss and talk about the title.
Things have certainly moved on a bit, since then. :)
As a side note, I must say that as a former (contracting) developer at an EA studio, it's a very interesting feeling to see the programmer (the programmer, as in "the one") of a recent release sit next to EA's boss and talk about the title.
Things have certainly moved on a bit, since then. :)
Wow, I spent a lot of time with this game when I was eight or so. Brings back the memories. I'm pretty sure my Atari 800 is still in my parents basement. Just need to find a TV I can hook it up to...
Same, but on the Apple II version. I remember making Rube Goldberg like pinball layouts where the ball would be guided through all sorts of paths and down to where you'd only have to hit it with the flipper every once in awhile.
Pinball Construction Set, Spy's Adventure in North America, Robot Odyssey. So many classics on the Apple II that were fun and educational.
I basically learned college level circuit design by playing Robot Odyssey as a child. For those curious, here's a part of a Let's Play trying to solve one of the earliest puzzles in the game:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNa4wivnjgs
Pinball Construction Set, Spy's Adventure in North America, Robot Odyssey. So many classics on the Apple II that were fun and educational.
I basically learned college level circuit design by playing Robot Odyssey as a child. For those curious, here's a part of a Let's Play trying to solve one of the earliest puzzles in the game:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNa4wivnjgs
What language is this project in? Github doesn't seem to know what the ".S" files are...
That definitely looks like assembly :)
Some googling tells me it's assembly, but it's nothing I recognize...
Thanks! you beat me to my edit.. ;-)
Thanks! you beat me to my edit.. ;-)
Looks like a MOS Tech 6502? Seems pretty similar to a Zilog Z80. 8 bit processor with a 16-bit PC, though seemingly without the 16-bit paired 8-bit registers.
Machines from when assembly was still fun.
Machines from when assembly was still fun.
MOS Technology 6502B
@ 1.79 MHz (NTSC version)
@ 1.77 MHz (PAL version)
It's the code for the Atari 800 version, I believe, so that's the processor.
Some info on the assembly language for the 6502b http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/6502_Assembly
It's the code for the Atari 800 version, I believe, so that's the processor.
Some info on the assembly language for the 6502b http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/6502_Assembly
It is 6502.
(I'm not sure the 6502 counts as particularly much like a Z80?!)
(I'm not sure the 6502 counts as particularly much like a Z80?!)
Agreed, I had a Z80 card in my Apple II and they are very different. I found assembly on the 6502 a little easier but the Z80 allowed me to run CP/M and that opened the door to a tone of SW.
Perhaps not, I'm mostly just familiar with the Z80 though so I might just be seeing what is familiar to me. ;)
It is about as Z80 as an ARM Cortex is a Pentium M.
back then we really only had Assembly as an option for games. It was a speed issue more than anything else.
Also code space. The cartridges I wrote typically over-filled the code space by a factor of 25 percent, whereupon you crunched.
Usually you wound up with a handful of bytes free. One cartridge I did had 6 bytes left, and another one had less than 20 and I was trying to think of something cool I could do with 20 bytes.
Usually you wound up with a handful of bytes free. One cartridge I did had 6 bytes left, and another one had less than 20 and I was trying to think of something cool I could do with 20 bytes.
The awesome blog The Digital Antiquarian had a piece on Bill Budge and PCS two weeks ago:
http://www.filfre.net/2013/02/01/
http://www.filfre.net/2013/02/01/
This is spectacular. I really wish more great old game developers would do stuff like this. Not having the source code to the greatest games of our time is like having only half of the bible, or War and Peace. Or only half of Snowcrash or Neuromancer. Imagine!
Bill's also not the only developer who has this stuff in the garage. I think the IP rights are just tricky to deal with, so few developers are comfortable dumping this stuff into github yet.
Bill's also not the only developer who has this stuff in the garage. I think the IP rights are just tricky to deal with, so few developers are comfortable dumping this stuff into github yet.
I agree! I was pretty pleased when Jordan Mechner found and posted the source to Prince of Persia
https://github.com/jmechner/Prince-of-Persia-Apple-II
https://github.com/jmechner/Prince-of-Persia-Apple-II
Maz Spork released the Z80 ASM source[0] of Buggy Boy[1] for 128K Spectrum, though it since disappeard from his site.
More of this type of thing!
[0] http://web.archive.org/web/20030629124143/http://maz.spork.d...
[1] http://www.worldofspectrum.org/infoseekid.cgi?id=0000746
More of this type of thing!
[0] http://web.archive.org/web/20030629124143/http://maz.spork.d...
[1] http://www.worldofspectrum.org/infoseekid.cgi?id=0000746
I totally agree! I'd love to see the source code for the original Rollercoaster Tycoon, for example. From what I understand, it's 99% assembly with a few parts in C to handle media. It would be awesome to try to grok that!
Well, uh, you can view that alleged 99% with a disassembler ;) (missing labels, comments, etc. though.)
Well, without the comments, it's almost not worth it. They're like directors commentary.
For assembly, comments are more like the audio track for a drama, rather than directors' commentary. Sure, without them, you can see when entities are happy/sad/angry, but you have no idea why those things happen.
I don't think I agree with that.
Reading foreign assembly isn't that bad unless it is being intentionally obscured. It definitely takes time to decipher things but at the same time you really learn what's going on :)
Reading foreign assembly isn't that bad unless it is being intentionally obscured. It definitely takes time to decipher things but at the same time you really learn what's going on :)
Although it's the source code for the Atari 800 version of PCS, it seems to have been built on an Apple II. From MAKE1 [1] for example:
[1] https://github.com/billbudge/PCS_Atari800/blob/master/Disk1/...
[2] http://apple2.info/wiki/index.php?title=System_Monitor#Gener...
EDIT: added additional details
CALL -151
3F2:69 FF 5A
BLOAD GPAK.OBJ,A$1300
BLOAD CDRAW.O,A$2480
BLOAD PCSA800.PIC,A$2B00
BLOAD DLIST.O,A$4910
BLOAD SWAP.O,D2,A$4A00
BLOAD TST.O,D1,A$4B00
BLOAD GOATARI.O,D2,A$4B45
BLOAD BOOT.O,D2,A$8E00
BLOAD BOOT2.O,A$8E80
BLOAD ZAP1.O,A$8F00
BLOAD DOWNLOAD.O,D1,A$300
[1] https://github.com/billbudge/PCS_Atari800/blob/master/Disk1/...
[2] http://apple2.info/wiki/index.php?title=System_Monitor#Gener...
EDIT: added additional details
It looks like he used an Apple II as the development environment, which is straight forward since both machines use the same CPU. The .S files are assembled to 6502 object files. The "makefile" loads each object file to a specific area in RAM, then Download.o transfers the contents of RAM to a waiting Atari 800 via serial connection.
At Broderbund we used Apple II's to develop for both the Atari 800 and the C64. I worked on a cable and software for both ends so we wouldn't have to change systems. It is MUCH faster to develop on one machine, and test on another.
And a development session would have looked somewhat like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDPlfqpgW8c
(I may miss the Merlin assembler, but I don't miss disk ][ drives at all.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDPlfqpgW8c
(I may miss the Merlin assembler, but I don't miss disk ][ drives at all.)
Here's Bill demoing this game in 1984:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&...
It is cool that people are doing this (Karateka, etc.)
I wish that someone would find Stuart Smith and get him to do the same with Adventure Construction Set.
I'm thankful the author did this, but there's no copyright notice or license.
Obviously I can assume it's copyrighted, but it would be nice to have the explicit declarations.
Obviously I can assume it's copyrighted, but it would be nice to have the explicit declarations.
The author has since added a MIT license to the repository. Yea!
Just for whatever it's worth (I assume you know this, but for the class): with no explicit statement, the default in US and EU is "all rights reserved".
True. And yet: the author has overtly placed it in a public place normally understood to be for sharing.
At the very least, people can reasonably assume an implicit permission to do the usual things that are done with Github public repositories: fork at Github, create local copies, create derivatives with the intent of sharing back to the original, etc.
And, if he's using Github's free plan, that's only available for projects that are "open source", a term with a fairly well-understood meaning in our profession. So he's likely also implicitly represented to Github that whatever the formal license, it qualifies as 'open source'.
The author could be confused. It could be a trap. He could probably withdraw any of these implicit permissions by taking the right explicit future steps.
But in the meantime, people don't have to fear normal copying and sharing based on a default 'all rights reserved' assumption. It's probably OK, and even if the author changes his assertions later, penalties for copying during this 'implied consent' period are unlikely.
At the very least, people can reasonably assume an implicit permission to do the usual things that are done with Github public repositories: fork at Github, create local copies, create derivatives with the intent of sharing back to the original, etc.
And, if he's using Github's free plan, that's only available for projects that are "open source", a term with a fairly well-understood meaning in our profession. So he's likely also implicitly represented to Github that whatever the formal license, it qualifies as 'open source'.
The author could be confused. It could be a trap. He could probably withdraw any of these implicit permissions by taking the right explicit future steps.
But in the meantime, people don't have to fear normal copying and sharing based on a default 'all rights reserved' assumption. It's probably OK, and even if the author changes his assertions later, penalties for copying during this 'implied consent' period are unlikely.
Is there something in the Github TOS that suggests that? Because otherwise I think your beliefs about people's reasonable assumptions are the opposite of true.
Although I agree with you that his intentions are probably not at this point to take advantage of his copyright on the code. :)
Although I agree with you that his intentions are probably not at this point to take advantage of his copyright on the code. :)
If the author is using the free plan, Github's 'plans and pricing' indicates that's for 'open source' projects.
As far as I can tell, there's no way to turn off a 'public' Github project's download, fork, and pull request functionality. Indeed, those functions are emblematic of the service, and they're meaningless without grants to make copies and republish derivatives far beyond the legacy all-rights-reserved defaults of legislative copyright law.
IANAL, but placing code on Github, where those features are mandatory and expected, looks like an overt act authorizing related copying and modification — an 'implied license' — even without the explicit grants provided by a formally-expressed open source license.
As far as I can tell, there's no way to turn off a 'public' Github project's download, fork, and pull request functionality. Indeed, those functions are emblematic of the service, and they're meaningless without grants to make copies and republish derivatives far beyond the legacy all-rights-reserved defaults of legislative copyright law.
IANAL, but placing code on Github, where those features are mandatory and expected, looks like an overt act authorizing related copying and modification — an 'implied license' — even without the explicit grants provided by a formally-expressed open source license.
That is definitely not how the law works.
Surely we agree though that it doesn't much matter here. I don't think Bill Budge is going to sue you for porting Pinball Construction Set.
Surely we agree though that it doesn't much matter here. I don't think Bill Budge is going to sue you for porting Pinball Construction Set.
You are definitely wrong in your 'definitely' assurance.
Someone absolutely can get implied permission, from either a physical property-holder or IP rightsholder, when the owner's actions (or even non-actions) are reasonably interpreted to have indicated mutual assent. or created a 'constructive agreement'. or simply waived some rights (modifying the 'all rights reserved'). Some examples of relevant legal principles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_license
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usufruct
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_in_fact_contract
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel#American_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_%28equity%29
It gets murkier in copyright law, because legislation has often been crafted to supercede common law and court precedents.
But these are still potent issues; for example, Google's lawyers sought a summary judgement against Oracle on many of these 'equitable' grounds, based on Oracle's public statements and actions.
Also, the idea of an 'implied license' was a central defense used by those sued by copyright troll Righthaven. (The Righthaven entity has now lost cases right and left, and is facing sanctions for its legal misconduct: http://righthavenlawsuits.com/.)
So it's not just that Bill Budge won't sue. It's that if he did, and asserted that his intent was always 'all rights reserved', he'd almost certainly lose. Defendants would have a strong, perhaps ironclad argument that upload to Github was implied permission for lots of copying/reuse/modification. (That is, you can't put something into a world-readable folder that by custom means "download, share and improve me" – and then assert that's not what you wanted people to do.) And that goes doubly if Budge is on the free plan, that's reserved for 'open source' projects.
When informing people about the letter of copyright law, and the maximal interpretation often asserted by rightsholders and literalists/authoritarians, it's important to also communicate how copyright law is really practiced and interpreted by the courts, and reasonable people. Many of our era's emblematic companies and services -- including Github, Google, YouTube, and blogging -- absolutely depend on the more liberal, fuzzy, implied-permissions and reasonable-balances practice of copyright law.
Someone absolutely can get implied permission, from either a physical property-holder or IP rightsholder, when the owner's actions (or even non-actions) are reasonably interpreted to have indicated mutual assent. or created a 'constructive agreement'. or simply waived some rights (modifying the 'all rights reserved'). Some examples of relevant legal principles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_license
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usufruct
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_in_fact_contract
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel#American_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_%28equity%29
It gets murkier in copyright law, because legislation has often been crafted to supercede common law and court precedents.
But these are still potent issues; for example, Google's lawyers sought a summary judgement against Oracle on many of these 'equitable' grounds, based on Oracle's public statements and actions.
Also, the idea of an 'implied license' was a central defense used by those sued by copyright troll Righthaven. (The Righthaven entity has now lost cases right and left, and is facing sanctions for its legal misconduct: http://righthavenlawsuits.com/.)
So it's not just that Bill Budge won't sue. It's that if he did, and asserted that his intent was always 'all rights reserved', he'd almost certainly lose. Defendants would have a strong, perhaps ironclad argument that upload to Github was implied permission for lots of copying/reuse/modification. (That is, you can't put something into a world-readable folder that by custom means "download, share and improve me" – and then assert that's not what you wanted people to do.) And that goes doubly if Budge is on the free plan, that's reserved for 'open source' projects.
When informing people about the letter of copyright law, and the maximal interpretation often asserted by rightsholders and literalists/authoritarians, it's important to also communicate how copyright law is really practiced and interpreted by the courts, and reasonable people. Many of our era's emblematic companies and services -- including Github, Google, YouTube, and blogging -- absolutely depend on the more liberal, fuzzy, implied-permissions and reasonable-balances practice of copyright law.
This is great! I really wish there were a developer commentary track that you could listen to as you read the source code. Would be really cool to hear what they thought about with specific routines, or neat hacks they used to make things work in small memory footprints like that.
This is a masterpiece of early programming. I am very grateful he is posting the source.