Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Because at the moment there is no way for me to feasibly reduce the On^3 computation time of the circuit solver… I will have a time slice mode which in the back ground will record a certain time period and then “play back” the values in all of the components
So, in a nutshell… sacrifice true real-time, so compute a time period at a required frequency… to then output as a real-time playback
I think this would work?
And maybe to keep the data size down, only output targeted components if necessary too?
I was pretty sure all this would do was make low frequency noise when I set it up. I tested it with 256 bytes of data and a single counter, unbuffered and straight into the piezo sounder. It worked better (faster) if you can really tell what you are hearing in 1/10th of a second.
I have to tell you that I became a Merchant Mariner and got my captains license in the mid 90s. Living and working on boats meant I couldn't have a test bench. This program answers my electronics fiddling urges that I haven't been able to do in 25 years.
I have no clue how you can optimize the program. I'll leave that puzzle to you.
P.S. I'm retired now but I live full time on a 37ft sail boat, so ... no test bench still.
So I did have a look into this, and unfortunately parallelism is a bit of a unicorn and I haven’t managed it yet…
The way the the circuit matrix solves with linear algebra is data dependent on the current row that it is solving and the row that was previously calculated
It is possible apparently, but I think I’m going to have to approach a real high end programmer/mathematician
This was an area of a lot of experimenting and magazine articles in the 80s. It was pretty much the only way to get the digital data off of lazer disks and eventually early CDs and turn it into an analog audio signal. Although computers were around, they weren't nearly powerful or fast enough for the task, so the signal processing and smoothing depended on hardware resistor networks like this. Resistor tolerances was/is definitely a critical issue.
There were all kinds of schemes to deal with the issue from extremely expensive and hard to come by 1% "binary value" resistor packages normally only available for military and medical equipment, to resistor ladders made with trim-pots that could be tweaked as they degraded over time. The average home "experimenter" was left with buying packages of 100 count resistors and go through them one at a time with an ohm meter to find the best resistor for the circuit or to combine 20% resistors to make the necessary values.
There are companies today that offer high precision resistor networks on DIP packages. They are custom made and pretty expensive. It's interesting that CRUMB wont allow a value of 120k and changes it automatically to 130k, which I don't think either one of those values is standard.
The truth is this was a study of loading data into the EEPROM by creating the hex file outside of CRUMB more than it was to build the circuit that used the data. xD