IntelliXpander module

[mr_me]

...

 

I mentionned it several time, but if you make the Xpander compatible with old games AND compatible with the Intellivoice AND the ECS, you'll win on all sides :

- people that want Intellivoice and/or ECS compatible games will be pleased

- People that want to make games that are more improved than ECS will be pleased

- People interested in making the Intelli III a thing will be pleased.

...

Programming it to emulate the Intellivoice and ECS Computer Adapter might be possible if the Intellivision connector has full data/control lines and some circuitry to provide communication between the two computers (ie. shared ram). It hasn't been mentioned but if it supports using the host Intellivision controllers than that stuff should be there. It might even have a sound chip similar to the ECS. Emulating the Intellivoice is easy if you fake it like the Intellivision Lives emulators. The ECS and Intellivoice have ROMs; those roms would have to reside on some sort of flash memory; worst case scenario if there is no SD card type storage would be to add it with a cartridge.

The problem with a standalone system is that not so much people would be interested than with an expansion Unless it's backward compatible with INTV..

...

Or if the standalone system is backward compatible with some other system's cartridges.

 

Having a new Intellivision peripheral in 2017 is a neat idea. But having a new game platform depend on 35 year old hardware for RF video and its power might not be a practical idea. And that old 18 watt power supply would be on with the Intellivision getting hot while it's not even being used to play these new games.

So I'm kinda late to the conversation, but I'll weigh in. A new standalone console could be cool, but I thought the point was to somehow tie it to the Intellivision (if for no other reason that to provide a customer market and to give hungry Intellivision fans something new). I like the idea of upgrade module, but it has to retain some Intellivision character. Upgrade too much and it's something else and upgrade too little and why bother...which is why I like the idea of using the Intellivision III specs. Intellivision game sequels would fit perfectly, though I would love new games in the style of classic NES games like Castlevania, Metroid, Ninja Gaidan, Kung Fu, Dragon Warrior, Faxanadu, Mega Man, etc. One last consideration...a game console isn't defined by what it can do, but rather what's possible within it's limitations. It needs an upper limit and I like the idea of using the Intellivision III specs as that upper limit.

The upper limit is likely not Intellivision III. It would be up-to each programmer to program down to those specifications. Why would a programmer drop sprites if they don't have to? And there are technical differences that can't be programmed.

i think an add-on would be cooler than a new console. Releasing a super outdated new console has been done a bazillion times. ...

What other new game platforms with retro technology are there? There are lots of clones of old systems. The RetroVGS seemed to get some interest but it was vaporware.

 

 

edit:

 

It is a great system, and I have fond memories of it. And feeling a little burned out from all the recent Coleco drama, it is a breath of fresh air...

 

 

 

Thanks Jason. I totally agree with your comments. Each classic system has its ethos, something that defines it. I don't think it is all about primitive graphics necessarily, it is more about play style. All 3 main classic systems, the 2600, Intellivision and ColecoVision had their characteristic play style. Atari was simple fun, ColecoVision had arcade ports, and the Intellivision had this more cerebral thing going, with its overlays and depth of play.

So for example, a straight port of NES Castlevania may have little value, because you can play that on the NES, which can be easily found for cheap. An Intv version would need some extra sauce to make it more like an Intv game. More exploration, a slower pace (in a good sense), more thinking and less button smashing, and of course, overlays!

I notice with newer games people tend to "finish" them, move on and never play them again. Some are very complex so it has lots of gameplay; but if the gameplay is good why wouldn't you want to play it again? The old games seem to have more replayability; maybe due to more randomness in some cases. Advanced Dungeons and Dragons for example, you either win or lose; and every time you play, it has a different map and different cave layouts. It has high replay value. Edited July 11, 2017 by mr_me

[HawkMines]

If it's going to have a new cartridge PCB, better hardware, and not include a port for legacy software while taking up the one in the console, I don't see the point of it being hooked up to the Intellivision. At that point, the only thing the Xpander has in common with the Intellivision is the controllers and the lost Intellivision III, which is why it should be a standalone console.

 

On the flipside, a standalone console based on 1984/5 specifications wouldn't have a pre-built fanbase, like the Super Game Module did with the ColecoVision. You'd have to build a fanbase from the people who'd want an Intellivision III, and I think for the most part people would rather have an add-on for their beloved Intellivision with a legacy port instead of buying a new one.

 

In my opinion, I'd only buy the Xpander if it was an add-on and had a legacy port. Whichever outcome comes to fruition, I will be interested to see what comes of it.

[opcode]

Add on it will be then.

 

mr_me, I understand what you mean. But we need to be practical here. And we need to keep the price down.

 

Yes, we are going to use the Intellivision controllers and possibly sound too. Controllers are mandatory, sound is up to the programmer.

 

Indeed the upper limit isn't Intv III, simply because there is no Intv III chipset, GI never made one. We will be using the closest available chipset. But since we will have control over content, that is something that can be enforced.

[opcode]

If it's going to have a new cartridge PCB, better hardware, and not include a port for legacy software while taking up the one in the console, I don't see the point of it being hooked up to the Intellivision. At that point, the only thing the Xpander has in common with the Intellivision is the controllers and the lost Intellivision III, which is why it should be a standalone console.

 

On the flipside, a standalone console based on 1984/5 specifications wouldn't have a pre-built fanbase, like the Super Game Module did with the ColecoVision. You'd have to build a fanbase from the people who'd want an Intellivision III, and I think for the most part people would rather have an add-on for their beloved Intellivision with a legacy port instead of buying a new one.

 

In my opinion, I'd only buy the Xpander if it was an add-on and had a legacy port. Whichever outcome comes to fruition, I will be interested to see what comes of it.

The legacy port I understand, but please define an add-on and why the IntelliXpander in its current form isn't one. I am not trying to challenge you here, just trying to understand where the boundaries are, and you clearly has the tech skills to help me with that.

[opcode]

Let's get technical. RAM Expansion has been done in cartridge form already.

 

The CPU is the clear bootleneck of the Intv. Unfortunately faster CP1610 CPUs are very hard to find these days.

 

Sound can be expanded, but then the CP1610 can barely take care of the Intv PSG.

 

Video is more complicate. STIC compatible chips don't exist, so you can only replace, not add. And the fact that the Intv I and II have different video inputs only makes matters worse.

And again, the CP1610 can barely keep up with STIC.

 

See where we are going? So suppose we get an alien CPU and add that to the module. Now you need to interface it with the CP1600, at least to have access to the legacy chipset. That can be arranged.

 

Just showing that there isn't an easy, elegant and most importantly, affordable way to meaningful upgrade the intv using native hardware.

 

The Intv III specs, while high level, are a meaningful option simply because they represent something Mattel themselves set to make, so that make them more "official". Again, I am open to discuss and set the specs here and then we can go with it. I can make sure we work with developers (assuming there will be any interested) to 100% adhere to whatever we define here. But I am open to any other suggestions.

[mr_me]

Add on it will be then.

 

mr_me, I understand what you mean. But we need to be practical here. And we need to keep the price down.

 

Yes, we are going to use the Intellivision controllers and possibly sound too. Controllers are mandatory, sound is up to the programmer.

 

Indeed the upper limit isn't Intv III, simply because there is no Intv III chipset, GI never made one. We will be using the closest available chipset. But since we will have control over content, that is something that can be enforced.

How are you going to control content?

 

Making an accurate Intellivision III is not a problem and can be done in two ways. The standard Intellivision chipset has already been reproduced with FPGA it would just be a matter of updating it to Mattel's "Intellivision III Target Specification" document. Second, it has also been accurately emulated in software; and can be similarly updated. This can easily be done; but once it's done who is going to program Intellivision III games?

[opcode]

How are you going to control content?

Making an accurate Intellivision III is not a problem and can be done in two ways. The standard Intellivision chipset has already been reproduced with FPGA it would just be a matter of updating it to Mattel's "Intellivision III Target Specification" document. Second, it has also been accurately emulated in software; and can be similarly updated. This can easily be done; but once it's done who is going to program Intellivision III games?

I am not a fan of FPGAs, and even if we use one, your proposed solution is still a system that is mostly inside the module and is using the console for power and controllers mostly. So still fundamentally the same thing.

 

Who is going to program Intv III games? And how I am going to control content? I can surely control my content.

As for others, I am not going to tell them what games they can create, but we surely can agree on a number of things that can make the whole experience more pleasant.

[mr_me]

It's far from the same thing.

 

Your idea of using a foreign cpu with the stic inside the intellivision is interesting, I look forward to seeing it. Should make it easier to port games.

[opcode]

It's far from the same thing.

Your idea of using a foreign cpu with the stic inside the intellivision is interesting, I look forward to seeing it. Should make it easier to port games.

That was the original idea before the Intv III thing was thrown in

[opcode]

We must decide new video or not. That totally changes the project. I have given the go ahead with the new video, but if it isn't a desirable feature, there is still time to remove it.

[+SoulBuster]

The only input I have:

 

Whether it is a new console or an add-on, it needs to have a legacy cart port, otherwise it is something other than Intellivision.

 

Something to throw out there:

 

Is it possible to make a "Save State" of a game in progress? You could later finish the game by loading the save state? I am not sure what all of that involves, but is it possible for a legacy cart?

Edited July 11, 2017 by SoulBuster

[HawkMines]

The legacy port I understand, but please define an add-on and why the IntelliXpander in its current form isn't one. I am not trying to challenge you here, just trying to understand where the boundaries are, and you clearly has the tech skills to help me with that.

 

The way I see it, there are four types of add-ons, ones that add a specific feature to games, ones that turn the console into a computer, ones that add compatibility to another pre-existing system, and ones that increase the technical abilities of the console.

 

Adding a specific feature to games with an add-on for the most part keeps the previous port, and plays existing games as well as enhanced games. The Odyssey Voice is my best example.

Add-ons that turn the console into a computer generally add a keyboard, cassette interface, and BASIC. The Coleco ADAM is a good example of this.

The ability to play games from another system is a feature that involves building the system into a form that can attach to a different console, generally through the previous cartridge slot, similar to the System Changer.

Lastly, the increase of technical abilities of a console is adding more RAM, extra sound chips, and potentially a new form of media to replace the old one. The best add-on to fit this description is the Super Game Module.

 

The only add-on that would be worth making nowadays is the last one, beefing up the system for better homebrews. The specifications for the IntelliXpander however, have some additional hardware, with the CPU and the potential for the inclusion of a new video out port and exclusion of a legacy port. The only other 'add-on' that comes to mind that did some of those things was the Sega 32x, which also used a new CPU and video out, as well as a new graphics chip, and the dreaded extra power supply. The 32x at that point really should have been a standalone console, using the same Genesis controllers that the Genesis did. The IntelliXpander is approaching a similar threshold, with potentially the only shared things being the controllers and power.

 

On another note, I think using the Intellivision III specifications has its benefits. Using those proposed specifications would keep the expansion close to what Mattel would've released back in the day. The problem is that Mattel wanted a full fledged console instead of an add-on. If you're going to attempt to make an Intellivision III, I'd go as close to the original specifications as possible, as well as being a seperate console for the most authentic experience. For an add-on that's unrelated to the Intellivision III, I'd add a new CPU, another STIC, keeping the legacy port, and potentially more sound channels.

 

At least this is what I think about the situation. The IntelliXpander is shaping up to be a great peice of technology, with the same potential as the Super Game Module. I look forward to the finalized specifications, along with the release of the console in the future.

[opcode]

Ok, so you saying that if we add the legacy port that should mitigate most concerns? Is that good enough?

 

There is no technical obstacles with that, only price will raise a bit.

[HawkMines]

The need for a legacy port was my main point. In a perfect world I would use Intellivision cartridges for the IntelliXpander, but the advantages of using a pre-existing case design outweigh the advantages of making new ones.

[CatPix]

Ok, so you saying that if we add the legacy port that should mitigate most concerns? Is that good enough?

 

There is no technical obstacles with that, only price will raise a bit.

As I mentionned, if you use the same cart connector, you will only need to make the shell accomodate for both carts. Unless the cart shape you use is vastly different, it shouldn't be too much of an issue?

[opcode]

In a perfect world I would also use Intv cartridges. But in this case we are saving on both case design and a cartridge shell tooling (I don't have a Intv cartridge tool and I don't want someone controlling whatever I can or cannot release). A new shell tooling would be another $6000 investment on top of the module tooling at least. You see what I mean, we add everything we want with no compromises and this thing will cost like $200+. But I agree with the legacy cartridge port for the convenience.

 

Someone asked about save states, but our cartridges alreday offer saving capabilities.

[+SoulBuster]

What I was asking about saved states, was could it apply to legacy carts? I imagine it would involve saving the entire memory of the console to a saved file, then reloaded back into memory later. Maybe to an SD card?

 

BTW. I believe you will find that there are at least a few that are willing to spend $200+ to have no compromises. I am one of them, in fact I would get two. But I also know that there are a lot of people that cannot afford it. So here is a question, can a single PCB and a single tooling of a case be manufactured in such away that there can be Standard and a Deluxe model?

[imstarryeyed]

Would people be happy with the kind of thing that Coleco did with the Atari Expansion module? Connect a system to the expansion port and use the RF / Video and / or Power from the system?

 

 

Honestly I would be fine with a new system and let Opcode create the best retro intellivision system he can make. While I love playing old games, I am way more excited about new games that can be made with better sound, graphics and other interfaces.

 

The Super Expander for the Coleco has really shown me that I would want better enhanced retro games rather than just some basic expansion.

 

I come from the school of thought that if something new can be made for something old without too much fuss, go for it.. but if you have to re-invent the wheel, then build it way better than the original but keep its soul intact if possible.

 

Gamemaker tools, BASIC, compiled C that was grown from the community are what really fuel me to a new design.

 

Just my opinion of course..

Edited July 11, 2017 by imstarryeyed

[+KylJoy]

Probably been covered to death. But for me the perfect answers are either:

 

Add-on peripheral with new cpu, audio and video functionality that includes port for original games, Intellivoice and ECS functionality and remote controllers (that's right - 4 wireless controllers)

 

OR

 

Just make the Intellivision 3 (or 4) that looks like the concept drawings (they are on AA, see my gallery) with everything we want but that is technically era correct and that is also capable of playing the original games (again, with the remote controllers).

 

If we get into 32x territory (and I think we are there) an add-on might be a similar abomination.

 

That being said, I can go with either one and will likely purchase multiple units.

[+KylJoy]

By the way, if we get a REAL Intellivision 3 or 4 with wireless remote controllers that you can use all of the buttons on at once (no more using two controllers to move and shoot in TRON DD) and all of the goodies I would pay $200+ for it.

 

Edit: ...and I want FOUR wireless controllers.

 

Edit again: ...and a built in PlayCable or modern Wi-Fi to play over the Internet.

 

Hey, let's go crazy on this thing. If I could get everything I want out of this project I'd actually make this my go-to Intellivision system for playing in my man-cave from now on. It would totally rock!!!!

[1980gamer]

4 controllers?

 

Is that for spare parts or for 4 player games? I can hardly get a second player!

 

So, can we add network play to this ever changing system changer? LOL.

 

I think a modem for point of view games was planned. That may have been for the intellivision IV?

 

Opcode, I am kidding. but if you added connectivity as a secret feature.... I don't think anyone would complain.

[wolfy62]

There are a couple of hundred Intellivision collectors,out there.

 

If it is cost effective to make this, and affordable for everyone to buy, I think you will do very well with this!

[+KylJoy]

4 controllers?

 

Is that for spare parts or for 4 player games?

I believe it was in the specs to have 4 wireless controllers. Not completely sure about the number, but they were definitely going to be wireless.

[opcode]

Made some promising progress with Goonies today.

[m-crew]

Made some promising progress with Goonies today.

Cool

How about ,

A sneak peak