That I believe. I currently have a test going where I received the results with some differences to what I had. So, I had to go back double check everything a second time.

When I test or play, I tend to leave the move incomplete (flashing) while I record it in Arena or on the sheets. Only after recording do I enter its move to completion and/or take it back for correction. So, I don't have to worry too much about using up computer time.

But not everything is that simple. I have plenty of duplicate computers of many models, some of which are from same productions runs. But there are a few out there even if you do a simple using left hand and right hand hitting enter at the same time that their response when they move does not come at the same time.

So, I do believe there are other things also involved that can create discrepancies.

Ron Nelson for example (or someone else if not Ron Nelson) said, often, they used whatever was available on the shelf or from the manufacturer to complete a production order. That tells me a lot. As whoever told me this, would not be unique in this practice.

Best regards
Nick

That's very true; just reminding the Novag Quattro ROM that was inserted in some (probably late) Constellation 3.6 batches.
MfG,
Eric

So anyway, after hearing the reactions, moving forward, I will be using Mess first rather than my computers for the Tests I do.

Meaning, if Mess has the computer, I will play it. This way I can be assured that any tests results if checked by others, will have the highest guarantee of 100% matches. If Mess doesn't have it then of course the board computer. Currently also being completed are Novag Emerald and Atlanta, which are of course not with Mess currently.

Best regards
Nick

Keep in mind though that not all emulation has accurate timing. There are issues with so-called waitstates in several of the drivers, such as Mephisto Glasgow, the emulator will be faster (play a bit stronger) than the real thing. It's fine when you're just playing, but annoying if you want to do ELO tests.

Or emulation can run too slow due to missing emulation of CPU cache and whatnot, like Fidelity EAG V11 or Saitek Sparc.

Yes, I know about Sparc and V11. Is there a list of candidates to be aware of, you just mentioned 3. Maybe for simplicity I add M in front of all Mess. MFidelity Excellence x Mhz

PS. Actually, no maybe using X is better for any future filters, sorting or searches. XFidelity.. XMephisto

The only ones I know for certain have missing waitstates emulation are Mephisto Glasgow until Roma, Fidelity Excel 68000 and Fidelity EAG 68000 series.

Neuer ROM dump von Berger: Saitek Maestro B modul. It's an older version.

Danke an euch beide - ist jetzt in CB-Emu eingebaut (Saitek Maestro B (set 3))!

Hoffentlich kommen nicht noch weitere Versionen dieser Saitek-Module, denn diese in CB-Emu einzubauen ist eine immense Arbeit -
mußte dafür mehr als 100 Dateien ändern.

Grüße,
Franz

__________________
Meine Webseite: https://fhub.jimdofree.com/

Thank you both!

I wish I had your skills and knowledge!
But, I'm curios since I have some very old Saitek Maestro EPROMs from the time before the Leonardo and Maestro was finalized.

Older than what?
What is the calendar time order of these versions, and how do you establish the age of them?

Sincerely,
Lars

By comparing the files, I can sometimes make a good guess which one is the older/newer revision.
Then there's also the module serial numbers which luckily Berger has kept track of. This one was a lower number. (make sure first that the module wasn't upgraded)

*edit* oh, and I'd expect prototype Maestro modules before Leonardo was sold to be version A.
The EPROMS of this B version are from week 22/23, 1987.