briantw

The Arduino Micro will definitely do the trick! 20 digital I/Os and HID still leaves you with 5 I/O pins for other stuff

Here's a completely different way of doing it, which won't require opening the TI at all. It requires a little piece of hardware to plug into the side of the console, with a bit of code running at >4000 to hijack the console as soon as you turn it on. Once the code residing in the external hardware takes over, it will just run a keyscan routine and output the keystrokes via USB. It's more complicated, but doesn't require opening the console, and it was a method used by the Triton TurboXT bridge box to get the TI to act as a PC keyboard, back in the day.

Agreed, but only 480 are actually active and addressable. In order to avoid confusion, I must reiterate that, in my diagrams above, I am ONLY discussing the lines and pixels in the signal that are actually active and visible. Front porch, back porch, blanking and sync are not taken into consideration; only the active image area. It's pretty clear from the datasheet, but, for NTSC this means 243 active image lines on a screen that shows the entire field, and 294 in PAL. The 262.5 and 312.5 lines for NTSC and PAL, respectively include inactive lines that are not shown on the screen in anyway, are not part of the display, and have thus been removed from consideration. I did learn one thing from this discussion, however: Apparently VGA 640x480 includes a border of 8 pixels at the top and 8 pixels at the bottom, as well as 8 pixels on the left and right, making the full displayable area 656x496. I did not know that. It's great when I can learn something from a discussion. http://www.epanorama.net/documents/pc/vga_timing.html 2 lines front porch 2 lines vertical sync 25 lines back porch 8 lines top border 480 lines video 8 lines bottom border Read more at: http://www.epanorama.net/documents/pc/vga_timing.html

Here's the link: http://youtu.be/-M50p14KFx4 My bad memory - the Philips monitor isn't running an original TI in PAL; it's also a PC running an emulator. The only real TI there is the one on the TV. Aspect ratio difference still visible though.

Hey Matt I've never been able to adjust horizontal or vertical size on old CRT televisions (not without opening them up or sticking a screwdriver through the back of the TV console), nor would I have been advised to when I was sharing the family TV with everyone else who would like to watch their sitcoms in the correct aspect ratio. So, the PAL I was subjected to as a kid was always very squashed. It is possible, to a degree, with CRT monitors, but because the squeeze was so extreme in 50Hz, it's not always possible to get to square pixel territory. I managed it with a Philips CM8833-II, but not with my Sony KX-14 CP1. The latter monitor, which I still use, has no H-size option, and the V-size allows for slight variation. That's very close to the 1.52 rounded off in the figure above! I think I may be mistaken in my recollection of the V9t9 emulator (not discussed above). I believe it was running at 320x200, not 320x240, so the image was even taller than the F18A, i.e., on the opposite extreme of the 50Hz chip. I need to fire V9t9 up again after almost 20 years, but I don't have the hardware to support it. However here's a video I shot in the late 90's. You can hear the difference between the emulator at 60Hz (left) and the TI at 50Hz (right). You can also tell the difference in corrected aspect ratio (monitor on the right vs. big TV that has no adjustment possibilities externally). I'll post the link below as I'm going to have to download the vid from FB and up to YouTube. V9t9 does look a little extreme in the vid.

Nice! I'm actually already tempted to get one, but I wasn't able to determine the shipping method from the website. I don't trust no stinkin' post office

I didn't want to be that optimistic, but hell yeah!

Are those new or repurposed cartridge shells?

My father had a book in military aircraft or something. One of the image attributions was to Texas Instruments. The image was of a mounted missile with a TI logo on it. As a 12-year-old with a TI, I thought that was pretty darned cool.

Because those chips are no longer manufactured, is there any thought around creating whole new chips that are compatible with the old? Kind of like was done with the F18A. That way, you might find that you can replicate a whole bunch of ICs on a modern, programmable chip, saving a ton of space on your new, improved motherboard. Once you're using just a quarter, or less, of the motherboard real estate, you have a lot more space for upgrades, such as a NanoPEB equivalent, etc. Not that I could expect a small kickstarter to produce the level of large-scale integration that you might get from a Chinese chip plant, but just as an example of the miniaturisation possible, I have one of those Commodore 64-in-a-joystick thingies.

As a kid, I was fascinated by the phasing you'd get from CALL SOUND(4250, 110, 0, 111, 0, 112, 0) for example. I thought, what if you could do that with more channels? So I had my cousin bring his TI over, and plug it into a separate TV. Naturally, I hit 113, 114 and 115 Hz on his, while playing the original on mine, but the results were unspectacular. For that brief moment, however, we did have some stereo going on there

Ah, THANK GOODNESS for something positive to come back to the thread for. When I posted my "concerns" as you requested in the poll, I had no idea that the creator of the product frequented this forum, sorry. I had just had a discussion about the same product on a Facebook group, and I waded in here unwary of any potential dragons. I have no reason to attack anyone or any product, other than if I were attacked first. But really, come on, we have a passion for the TI. It's about hardware and software. How do these threads manage to get so personal so quickly. Isn't that discouraging to people who are keen on the 1s and 0s, after all? I remember reading about such juvenile playground politics in TI newsletters in the 80s, but, the difference then is that none of them were aimed at me. I was not prepared for character judgements by people who know nothing about me. If I may defend the comments that rubbed you the wrong way, and, hopefully contribute something in this message that will be about the product itself, and not The Days of Our Lives. $78 seemed expensive to me as a final product. I buy a lot of bare-board electronics, and this was just a wee bit of a stretch for me. $50 would have been a suitable price point for me. But, I have to reiterate this for the 100th time: That's me. It's not meant to ruffle any feathers. Frankly, if I'd know the creator of the product was around here, I might have softened the comments somewhat. I apologise if it came across a bit harsh. My opinions remain unchanged, but the to-the-point phrasing could have been more subtle. It's not a contradiction when I say that I am not that sensitive to cost when I am obsessing over building something myself. I tend to put blinders on and climb right in there. I don't even bother to take stock. That's passion for you. But throwing costly components at a hobby project is different from buying a final product that takes 8 minutes to install, after which all you can do is sit back and enjoy it. The "to look like an emulator" comment is directly related to the price. It's nice for it to be as clear as an emulator, but, for $78? Just, I could do that with an emulator in the first place. That's just my personal pocket speaking. "if he does not want his TI to look like an emulator, why all the fuss about HDMI?" Well, I have a lot more ideas about a potential HDMI product, which I didn't bring up because I was trying to keep this thread on topic. But, since you asked, forgive me for elaborating: With HDMI, you can potentially go into a much higher resolution mode, and introduce some MAME-like goodies, such as scan lines and a simulated aperture grill. If you're on a large, wide screen, you may even simulate a physical TI monitor, by placing it as a frame around the original TI image. The possibilities, for me, are exciting, but I don't want to hijack this thread. Finally, thanks for coming back with something that wasn't just yet another character attack or judgement thereof. I've said many encouraging things here, but I fear they've been missed over a few negatives that I mentioned. I still think the F18A is an awesome product, and, the more I've discussed it and reasearched the numbers, aspect ratios, etc., the more I am actually thinking of purchasing one. An active discussion around it has made me more interested in it. To Matt, I fully understand you taking a personal interest in the product, but I didn't expect some technical opinions to be met with opinions on my personal motivations and integrity. Sorry for ruffling your feathers, but I didn't know you'd be here. If I wanted to talk to you specifically about the product, I'd have sought you out on your website. Thank goodness, because these negative politics are so damned tiring, "stirring the pot" allegations notwithstanding. I have a passion for the TI.

I'm assuming that, as you typed that, the irony of what you were typing was lost on you. Thank you so much for your positive contribution to the technical obsession I have, as a 30-year-plus veteran of the TI community.

This discussion is not even about the product anymore. It's now becoming about the attitude. My needs and yours are not at odds with each other. We can have different needs to each other, and that's what makes the community so diverse. I don't disagree with anything you've said about this product, and, just because I mentioned some areas where one particular product doesn't meet my particular needs, doesn't mean that any of what you said is invalid to me. Both can be true: 1.) The F18A is the greatest thing since sliced bread for you (and others) and 2.) There is a potential for a product for me (and others) that outputs HDMI for the latest monitors and for future compatibility. Those statements are not at odds. No one's forcing you to choose, or throw your beloved F18A and VGA monitor away, so I'm not getting what the big defensive is about. To pit ideas about future improvements against what already exists is a false dichotomy. I've read your reasoning, such as not wanting to outlay on replace your VGA monitor, but that was never suggested as a requirement. Why is it that noting what doesn't work for me means that you have to throw away what you love? It doesn't. Keep what you love, but let me have my reasoning, please. I can dream of HDMI, 50Hz, possibly aspect ratio correction. (Potentially a lot more, but let's not go into further options, since those first three are already causing upheaval.) Is it illegal to state what I would like to have in a (separate) product and why this one is not perfect for me? "I seriously, doubt anyone here could make a plug-in HDMI replacement any cheaper than what Matthew is selling his F18A for, and if they did, start to design it, and manufacture it, I wonder how long it would take to make it to market?" Again, It's not a competition. Still, what you've laid out in that sentence is quite within the bounds of possibility, but you're extrapolating based on your own vantage point. For me, a different product that meets different needs doesn't have to meet all of those criteria. It's not about how long it takes (my envisioned problem-solver would still be relevant in 6 years) or what it costs (HDMI is worth a lot more $ than VGA, for me, but I still don't think it can't cost less), or the market (I want it for me - "can we have a little obsessive fun here?", not to start a manufacturing company around). Saying it can't be done shuts down the conversation and blocks progress. You're almost saying it shouldn't be done. I also didn't say the picture would necessarily be any clearer at the same resolution. (Don't discount the possibility of having higher resolution modes, however. It's not impossible to do 1920x1080 from the TI if you have a new video controller, but I'm trying to avoid digressing too far -- let's keep future product options in a separate thread). That wasn't the point of having HDMI out, either. It was more about compatibility with the very latest products and their advanced standard video modes. For me (and not anyone else), three years ago, I had composite RCA everywhere with VGA as an option, so the existing product would have been more relevant to me then. Now, everything is digital. I have HDMI switched throughout my system, and there's no VGA anywhere to be seen. My HD satellite set-top-box has HDMI out, so I don't use the yellow composite cable. It also does digital audio via that same cable, so my 25 years of collected RCA cables are obsolete. My 3D Blu-ray player has only an HDMI and an Ethernet connection! My amplifier switches between several HDMI inputs. My Dell laptop has no VGA output - it's DisplayPort and HDMI only. Again, that's me, not you, but it suggests to me what direction consumer display electronics is going, and it suggests, to me, further upgrades for the TI. So please, guys, let's stop pitting my criteria against yours, and don't take such offense when I mention some demonstrably correct assertions about why a product doesn't meet several OF MY needs. Just because someone has an extensive analogue 12" LaserDisc collection, doesn't mean someone else can't come along and say "hmmm... I'd like to see a digital version of that. On a 5" disc."

P.s. If you don't mind making holes in the console then ignore the bit about desoldering anything. Your audio jack just needs a suitably sized hole and to be wired to the audio. Actually, now that I tthink of it, the neatest thing you could possibly do is to make up a single audio cable with a 5 pin DIN on the end of it: no further modification to theconsole, no uunnecessary video cable.

Have you considered desoldering the 5-pin DIN? You'd still need to get the audio out somehow, though. How much thicker is your video cable than a single mono audio cable?

Regarding a recent discussion on the various aspect ratios available to the stock console (or emulations thereof), there seems to be some clarification needed on what the actual aspect ratios are of the original TI output (both 60Hz and 50Hz). I say "needed" because, firstly, this info is very hard to find, and, secondly, there is a belief among some that the TMS9918, at least, has a 4:3 aspect ratio addressable pixel area with square pixels. This is not true, and, consulting the datasheet to solidify the numbers in my own mind, it is clear that neither the TMS9918A nor the TMS9929A employ use of square pixels. Most of the emulators I've seen use square pixels. Hopefully these numbers will be of use to someone else at some point. On page 5 of a document entitled TMS 9918A 9928A 9929A VDP Preliminary Specification 1981, there's this section: The hasty handwritten figures aren't mine; that's how I found this document on the web, and boy, it is not an easy document to find. Here it is for posterity, and, from this datasheet, plus the F18A documentation here, I've put together a side-by-side comparison of the different aspect ratios offered by each VDP. Remember that all of these are designed to send their output to a 4:3 screen. With the TI's addressable pixel area being 256x192, or also 4:3, you may think that this is a great match: 4:3 addressable area to a 4:3 screen = 4:3 aspect ratio. But no, the timings of the various analogue video systems have to be respected, so extra pixel rows and columns are required to border the addressable area. The 60 Hz VDP outputs an area of 284x243, although only 256x192 pixels are addressable, while the rest of the 'pixels' are set to a solid background colour. The 50 Hz VDP outputs an area of 284x294, although, again, only 256x192 pixels are addressable. Of course, there are no actual 'pixels' in the border area, but the pixel clock is running, nonetheless, and a pixel width is used as a reference in the above datasheet for the amount of vertical or horizontal space occupied by this area. The F18A outputs square pixels, as asserted by the chip's designer. However, square pixels (1.333:1) are a slightly different 'squeeze' to what you'd get from an NTSC console (1.52:1), and very different to what you'd get from a 50 Hz console (1.82:1). Given the numbers provided by the creators of all three products, the side-by-side comparison of aspect ratios looks like the following diagram: Personally, I most prefer the NTSC shape. It's a nice fit for the available screen area. The 50 Hz (PAL) that I have access to I.R.L. is too squashed in the vertical direction (or "short"), while the F18A is too "tall" for my liking. That being said, my previous sentence is merely my opinion, and not a slight on anyone nor any reason to take offense. I'm just stating a preference, and y'all are welcome to your own! Also, please note that results may vary, depending on the knobs and settings on your old CRT. On some of them, you can adjust H-WIDTH, and even V-HEIGHT is often a possibility. Both of those will alter the aspect ratio by squeezing or stretching the image. LCDs do a better job of remaining faithful to the input signal and not chopping anything off, but, if you fiddle with the menus, you can usually override that as well, depending on the monitor. If I've made any errors, please let me know!

Sorry, missed the prior discussion - I was browsing on a phone with a cracked screen. Forti, eh? Time for some googling

Does anyone remember the Forte card? It had 4 sound chips on a card, giving you 12 tone channels and 4 noise channels!

Twitter has a comprehensive API. At this point, I'd say just google "Twitter API", but we can go into detail later

I was taking a look at Ghost Town, again, the first Scott Adams Adventure I had, which I bought in 1984. I noticed that all of the game's responses are way less than 160 characters in size. So, here's an idea, if you ran an interpreter for such a game on a web server, you could fold it into Twitter, and have an interactive text adventure running between a Twitter account and a player. At first, I thought it would simply respond to any command sent directly to it, but then it occurred to me that you could have multiple games going on at once, with the Twitter account responding to individual players, e.g. "@briantw I'm in a barbershop. Visible items are..." Then, you could play your text adventure whenever you felt like it, and games could be played by an unlimited number of players, over weeks or months, without ever having to SAVE GAME I've noticed that Scott tends to be generous in allowing his games to be offered up online, as well, so I'm hopeful that he'd give permission for such an endeavour. Does anyone know of some good source code for a simple text-based interpreter for these games? I'd like to take a loot at that.

Agreed, but we can see VGA is going away in future. It's an 80s technology, and, just for fun if nothing else, I'd like to see a digital video output. I have done that, so, I apologise for my insanity. Okay, actually it was 55" 2K, so hopefully I can pass for at least marginally sane. Well... I respect your calculation, but I didn't think $78 do make my TI put out an image identical to an emulator I was using almost 20 years ago was that good a value. It may be one of those things that, once you have it in your hands, takes on a whole new value, though. Sometimes things are much cooler when they're yours! Yes please! Also a great idea. I'm wondering, though, what that would mean in terms of number of wires you'd need to bring out when compared with digital-only. SVGA will require at least three lines (excluding ground) to achieve, but I'm not sure about the DVI-D part.

Indeed, but as long as we're talking upgrades, why not go digital in a digital age? Obviously, so we have no disagreement here. You're comparing VGA to lower-quality signals, while I'm saying why not go even higher quality in 2015. I'm thinking it's time we, in the TI community, had HDMI out, certainly not suggesting going back to RF! The aspect ratio is considerably different on the PAL console, but even then, with people stretching their TI output to fill their 16:9 displays (horrors!), I acknowledge that most people couldn't give a hoot about aspect ratios. I'd imagine the aspect ratio difference between the F18A and your NTSC console is negligible, but still there. I've ordered some TMS9918A chips from China, and, if they ever get here, I'll be able to make proper comparisons between the TMS9918 and TMS9929s' aspect ratios! I don't think making an irreversible mod is ever a pro, not that you must go out and get a PEB or use up an extra slot in it. There are other ways of achieving the same outcomes. It's just, for me, any time you have to drill a hole in your Model-T Ford, it's a decision not to be taken lightly. But again, that's just me and my opinion! I don't think shipping was the largest concern for me, last time I checked. Yes, shipping a PEB will cost you enough to make you fall off your stool, but it's not too bad as far as smaller hardware and components goes. It was just the cost of the hardware itself, for what it does. $78 to make my TI look like an emulator. That doesn't mean I'll *never* have one, it is a cool and interesting product, it's just that, you know, $$$.

Hi Matthew I can understand you taking this so personally, having designed the product. However, just because you designed it, and I applaud the contribution, don't close your mind to rational and objective constructive criticism. Your hardware is great, and I praised it. Of course it has flaws; there is no perfect solution, nor can there ever be. That doesn't mean that you have to get all wound-licky about it and take this discussion into a downward spiral. My comments were NOT personal in nature or critical of your personally, so perhaps you might stick to the hardware / software discussion and not attack others' integrity. I'm really sorry you chose that route. To rebut: Everything I said in my post, I stand by. My opinions remain my opinions, and I have a right to them. Then there are the facts, which are not my facts or your facts, but the facts. A fact can either be correct or incorrect, but nothing in your response indicates that I got any of the facts wrong. No, they aren't. Firstly, I never said that HDMI is a requirement, not least from your product. I said "it's time for HDMI." Meaning that, in my opinion, knowing that VGA is now deprecated, HDMI is where home video on TVs is going (yes, I know, often different with computer monitors, but cheap HDMI adapters exist for those that don't have, and it's a neat way of killing two birds with one stone). As for cost, while I am not excessively concerned with what a one-off that I make for myself might cost, or how many tens of hours it might take me, but when I'm buying a complete product without any of the fun of designing it and putting it together, I am more sensitive to pricing. In any event, I'm pretty sure that, purely as a "for fun" project, one could achieve an HDMI-out at a lower cost. I'm talking hardware cost alone, mind you, not overheads or time or any of that boring stuff. It's a labour of love; I don't care how long it takes me. Secondly, not EVERY means of achieving HDMI means starting from scratch with the licencing process. I won't go into detail, as this thread is not the place for it, but suffice it to say that microcontroller hardware with pre-licenced HDMI exists. It may not fit as neatly into the console as you've managed to achieve (may have to be an external box) but I'm just saying that options exist. No, I am not. You are reading into that for yourself. I never stated that it was cheap or easy, but you are assuming that I think that way. Please put the assumptions aside, as not everyone besides you is incapable of a rational thought. I am aware of the licencing costs if you are building up from scratch. I am also aware of all of the references, so please, don't peg me as an ignoramus. For *you* to licence HDMI? I never said anything about you, so I don't know why you're drawing yourself into the discussion on that point. I discussed an idea, not a specific person. You are not the only personal capable of designing hardware. I already read the reasons why you chose not to go that route, on your website. However, there is a sizeable community out there, including yours truly, who dabble in hardware projects, so I didn't direct anything at you or ask anything of you. I didn't even know you took a close interest in this forum. What I said is not misinformation, so please don't put out that misinformation. Yes, the F18A DOES output square pixels on a 4:3 display (we usually put the horizontal figure first, so forgive me if I'm not saying "3x4"), and I am aware of this, even without owning one, as there're these things called reading and comprehension that lots of people are able to do. I did research your product, and the cons were the reasons I don't have one (yet--not that you care, but I still wouldn't mind one to play with). Again, your ego aside, I did not make a point of any of these cons in any kind of mean-spirited way--them's just the facts, and a couple of opinions. Unfortunately, regarding aspect ratios, what you fail to note here is that the TI came in at least two different variants: 60Hz NTSC, and 50Hz component (if there ever was a 60Hz component version based on the TMS9928, I'm not aware of it). The TMS9918 addressed 192 horizontal lines, as we both know and can agree on. However, neither NTSC nor PAL can work with 192 lines. What Texas Instruments did to solve this was to add a border area to the top and bottom of the image, which meant a number of extra lines were squeezed in above and below the actual addressable image, changing the aspect ratio. However, they also added a few pixels of border to the left and right of the image to correct for this, which you are also aware of. The exact number of horizontal pixels and vertical lines added is in the datasheet, which I don't have in front of me right now, but I would suspect that you would have to have consulted the datasheet in designing the F18A. The effect of this 'making it fit' wasn't as noticeable in 60Hz, since they only had to get the 192 addressable pixel rows to fit into a full 262.5-line NTSC field. It may have been slightly off, but not by much, depending on your TV or monitor. However, don't forget the 50Hz world, which is where I live. In Europe, Australia, South Africa, etc., they had to take those 192 pixel rows and get them to map onto a 312.5-line field, and this meant a SIGNIFICANT number of extra lines, and the pixels are very definitely NOT square here. Draw a circle and it comes out as an ellipse. The F18A, like all emulators I've seen, does indeed output square pixels, but, since the TI didn't, I noted my concern about this only because I'm a fan of being as faithful to the original as possible, and I want the same aspect ratio as the original to be a possibility. Once again, this is NOT a personal attack on you, so it wasn't necessary to come at my throat for stating a fact: My TI doesn't have square pixels, while the F18A does. I can predict you coming at me with a "well, if you want to be faithful to the original, why upgrade?" Well, I like my upgrades to improve the things they're there to improve, while leaving the rest alone. A lot of that "lazy programming" took place before the 50Hz console even existed. I never said it was a side effect of the F18A, mate. I said that certain original hardware did X, and the F18A is not able to replicate X, changing the experience somewhat. You, yourself, have made it clear in a caveat that a 50Hz mode is not available on the F18A. This means that you are well aware that a 50Hz model exists, and that you are unable to reproduce it, and that some people may want it, and that they should be warned that the product doesn't do it. Yes, I am aware of all of that. I do not hold you personally responsible for the fact that VGA may not have a 50Hz mode. (However, it would not be impossible for some chip to still put out a 50Hz interrupt to the TI, while putting a 60Hz signal out to the VGA, but I'm not asking you for that.) You designed a great product and you don't have to get upset just because it can't meet everyone's desires. As a classic computer enthusiast, I like a lot of what goes with upgrading to be as faithful to the original as possible. For example, scanlines in emulators, faithful aspect ratios, and yes, a 50Hz mode if I feel I want it. Ah, thank goodness I don't have to disagree with anything in that paragraph. I would have loved it if it could have just used the 6-pin (or 5-pin) DIN on the back. Yes, if I owned an F18A, I would use it without the strain relief, but I'd have to watch it carefully when moving the console. I'm curious as to why it was not possible to go out via the DIN connector. I know of a couple of good reasons, having played with the video section of the TI quite a bit, even replicating the entire VDP circuitry on external stripboard and driving it from a different microcontroller: Was it because of the possibly bandwidth-reducing circuitry between the composite out on the chip and the pinout on the connector, or perhaps because there were no pins to handle sync (although you could always have used composite sync-on-green, I suppose, even if that's not compatible with all monitors, so you'd have to have a sync splitter externally)? I know, I know. I was a kid once, too. I have a motherboard that's been in the microwave and a console where the brushed aluminium was polished like a mirror. I made lots of mods when I was younger. Reset switch, extra 9-pin D Sub for an external box with buttons on it, a pause ("HOLD") switch, load interrupt, etc. etc. However, I regret having made those, in retrospect. Mind you, I don't think it's such a big deal that it needs to be punishable by law, but I'm just stating a preference here. For me, classic computing is sometimes also about standing back and just looking at your computer, after having polished it up and hidden all the wires, and just admiring once in a while. The hardware matters. If it didn't, we could just stick to emulators. Granted, that extra VGA connector is at the back, but you get my point, I hope. I noticed. Well, it's my problem too, in as much as I don't appreciate my integrity or intelligence attacked, just because you have misinterpreted both the letter and the spirit of my comments. Look man, I was addressing the hardware, and the hardware alone. Not the packaging, not the shipping, no the ease-of-use. Not the creator or his or her motives, either. For me personally, it doesn't have to be easy to use or a "full-blown *product*". I'm not making wishes on behalf of the planet. I'm saying where there is room for improvement, in my opinion. I would like to see digital video output on my TI, and HDMI seems to be the most widely supported option. Might even be able to get a Mini HDMI connector to fit where the the current 6-pin (or 5-pin) DIN sits. That way, it's a reversible mod, for anyone who cares (count me as one, even if the only one). Going on the defensive and telling someone who notes some possible evolution for a product to go and do it themselves, then, is not constructive: Maybe they will, maybe they won't, maybe they can, maybe they can't, but it misses the point entirely, whether you are a hardware designer, a landscaper or a retail outlet. I've covered this above, but no, that's not my perception. Your condescension merely assumes that I've never designed or put out a product in my life. It's merely your perception of what my perception is, perhaps based on previous run-ins with other people regarding your product. Hahaha. I agree with you on the first part. What I make for myself, I don't really care what it costs. And I'd be unlikely to go into mass production. But if someone asked, I'd still be willing to put one together for them. However, I still thought the F18A was expensive, just from a component point of view. It seems you may have assumed that that was a comment on your character, but no, it is not. I didn't say you were ripping anyone off, or that I don't appreciate that the product exists and is appreciated by many who use it. I just said it was costly, to me, for what it does. The F18A could arguably be thought of as having an aspect ratio problem in that it can't match the aspect ratio of my TI, but I never phrased it that way, after all, did I? I said it puts out a different aspect ratio to my TI (which, also arguably, does have the problem), and therein lies the problem. An emulator can also put out a perfect 4:3 square-pixel image, but, I mean, so can my PC, with 16 million colours at 1920x1080, and that's not the point of me tinkering with my TI. It's a simple tweak for an emulator to put out 32 sprites on a line, in fact, I seem to recall that V9t9, back in the 90s, already had an option whether to replicate the 5-sprite "bug" or ignore it, as well as 50Hz and 60Hz options. It was a low-res 320x240-mode emulator, though, so it couldn't do aspect ratio fixes, antialising, scan lines, or any of that fancy "retro" stuff that MAME and MESS can do nowadays. Bottom line is I don't really want my TI's output to look like an emulator, so that's why I mentioned the aspect ratio differences and the lack of 50Hz. This is not a deal-breaker, just a 'nice-to-have'. I'd argue that it's a 4:3 aspect ratio... Well, no. That's not what aspect ratio means. Both 320x240 and 256x192 are 4x3, so stretching the latter into the former will not change the aspect ratio at all - both will continue to have square pixels. I'm not suggesting that you should do that, as it will destroy the original border areas, but 4:3 stretched to a larger 4:3 remains 4:3 - no "strange aspect". I also know that the F18A *does not* do that, and I never suggested that it should, or that it does. You do need to maintain some of the original background border color if you don't want your pixels pushing right up against the edge of the screen, or even beyond. I didn't know explicitly which community the product was aimed at, that's why I said "even if", instead of "even though." "If" meaning the possibility exists that... I didn't know that, but great - mine too. I've had TIs since 1984. Obviously it's very cool, and, considering how I praised it for existing in the first place, I don't know why you would have taken a discussion about what I consider its shortcomings so personally. I didn't even come to your website to address it to you personally, I was answering a poll here on this thread, for the benefit of those asking and those interested. The world will not end because the F18A cannot match my TI's aspect ratio, that it can't do 50Hz or that it outputs VGA when I'd like HDMI, or that I thought it was a little costly for what it does. I was asked for my perspective by the OP, and I gave it.

I don't have an F18A, but how could I object to anyone writing software for it? It's your hobby and your passion, so create away! You're not going to make money off of it, so I appreciate any new contribution to the community, whether I can use it or not. The cons of the F18A are, for me, as follows: VGA. This is a deprecated analogue format. It's time for HDMI. Has a different aspect ratio, both from the 60Hz and from the 50Hz console. F18A is 60Hz-only. Means, if you currently have a European console, your TI invaders will run 20% faster (just like an American one), and you have no way of doing anything about that. This is not a biggie, but it's worth noting. This is a biggie: F18A seems to require holes to be cut in your beloved classic console. Eeek! It's damned expensive. I might still like one to play with, but, then again, I was playing with Ed Swartz's V9t9 emulator back in '96, using 320x240 VGA output, so I know what a clear VGA signal looks like on a CRT, along with its slightly-off aspect ratio. The F18A is still a great bit of genius, and I'm thankful for all contributions to the community, even if the F18A wasn't developed only with us TIers in mind--the MSX community is a big benefactor