I dunno if is to be called a bug, I'd rather call it lack of functionality. In which case there's nothing to bug hunt for, it's just another thing to implement.
Note however that I haven't been using BlueMSX for ages, ever since its interface runs like a snail and it messes up my 98 system when I'm low on resources (it messes up my mIRC buttons, panels etc. for instance). So I don't know exactly whether this legato functionality applies to BlueMSX as well. When was that lite edition of BlueMSX to be scheduled again? (the one without the resource hogs)

Anway, to check on this functionality: grab Moonblaster orso, make a sound with a long attack and long release, and play some notes with it in a single pattern channel. You'll surely notice the legato effect.

Quote:

Anway, to check on this functionality: grab Moonblaster orso, make a sound with a long attack and long release, and play some notes with it in a single pattern channel. You'll surely notice the legato effect.

I have tried with SME3, on a PC with openMSX (with turboR configuration), on a real MSX turbo R and on the OCM.

When I use one of the standard sounds, all machines sound more or less the same (it can never be exactly the same due to differences in analoge circuitry; even the various real FM-PAC models sound slightly different from each other and from the MSX turbo R because of this).

However, when I make an extreme sound, with a very slow attack rate, decay rate and release rate, there are larger differences between the three machines. Hard to describe exactly but I'll give it a try; on openMSX and on the MSX turbo R, you can better hear the discrete steps of the volume adjustments during the various phases. On the OCM this seems to go more smoothly, as if more but smaller steps are taken.

However, I have not been able to notice the legato effect on any of the machines. As far as I can judge, the attack of the first note is the same as the attack of the second, third and fourth note. But maybe my musical hearing is not good enough to hear the legato difference.

Note that I played following pattern (in MML notation):
l2crcrcrcr

So each time a note of length 2, followed by a rest of length 2. This makes sure that the OPLL will go through all phases: attack, decay and release (during the rest).
The release rate is more then long enough to have the note still 'on' at the moment that the next one is started.

Ps: All notes where played on the same channel

A substantial release time is required. If you use rests then the release can just fade away, and a next note won't be influenced much.

so, instead of such a curve: /^\ rest /^\

what you should get is something like /^-^\ for notes directly after eachother.

Actually try Impaccable, that Impact demo. There's this part on it called Copy is Crime.. there are more, dunno which, it was the part with those pix of flats/buildings etc. that crappy story stuff .. That part's sound is completely ruined on emulators as the lead/chord instrument is pumping like / / / / /, while the real output should be much more fluid, like /^-^-^-^-^\.

The effect is also present on the Yamaha TX81z btw, so it's quite common for FM.