+slx Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 Both approaches are not mutually exclusive. A jury could judge the viability/functionality of the hardware entries and leave it to members to assign points/votes/whatever to the entries. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathy Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 Hello guys The jury makes a suggestion before the meeting. Usually at the Fujiama meeting a couple of month before. This suggestion is then published in the ABBUC magazine. At the annual meeting of the members of the ABBUC, the members usually first vote (for each entry individually) if they agree with the suggestion of the jury. If not, we vote about the category we think it should be placed in. This year must have been at least my 20th annual meeting of the ABBUC..... Sincerely Mathy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Level42 Posted October 26, 2018 Share Posted October 26, 2018 This is not entirely how it goes. The only vote happening is if the present members AGREE with the suggested ranking of the jury. Only if there would be a majority of against voters another category might be achieved, but from what I've seen the majority of people simply vote whatever the jury suggests. There is no discussion started about the rankings, which would be already an improvement. Oh and because things are the same 20 years, they shouldn't change/improve ? By the way.....I seem to remember you voted against the ranking of AntiX. I take it you had the opinion that it was ranked too low and thus voted against ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathy Posted October 26, 2018 Share Posted October 26, 2018 (edited) Hello Andre As far as I know I'm saying the same thing you are when we talk about how the voting goes. What I meant to say with the "20 years" sentence (but at the moment wasn't able to) was that I've seen a lot of voting over the years, so I have quite some experience in how it's done at these meetings. Yes, I voted against the ranking because I thought Antix was ranked too low. Although I think it's not as perfect as I'd want it to be (sorry, in those things I'm a perfectionist. Even if I can not do it better or even equally good, as it has been done), I really like the idea behind it. To the true game player, Antix might be in the top 5 of best upgrades developed in the last X years. So yes, I would have given it close to or the same ranking as the PokeyMax. Sincerely Mathy Edited October 26, 2018 by Mathy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivop Posted October 26, 2018 Share Posted October 26, 2018 (edited) If I'm not mistaken, €800,= was awarded this year. IMHO voting by the "plebs (including myself)" and award prize money according to this: 1. €300,= ... 2. €200,= ... 3. €100,= ... 4. €50,= ... 5. €50,= ... would have been much fairer. Would have cost only €700,= (650,= actually because there were only 4 projects, but could have awarded €100 to both 3rd and 4th place)). Filling in the dots is left as an exercise for the reader Edited October 26, 2018 by ivop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Level42 Posted October 26, 2018 Share Posted October 26, 2018 With the amount the club has on its bank account, I wouldn’t worry too much about these little numbers ..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven/TQA Posted October 27, 2018 Share Posted October 27, 2018 My last JHV was around when hard releases joyride... so somewhere between 1994-1997. I followed the hardware projects here at AA and magazine and had expected that pokeymax and anticx would win, interesting. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 27, 2018 Share Posted October 27, 2018 Hey, my colourful neighbour, I am not sure that is funny! Spelling mistakes are no laughing matter. althogh yo'd have to say; it'd be qite difficlt to prononce things with all of the Us removed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Level42 Posted October 27, 2018 Share Posted October 27, 2018 (edited) My last JHV was around when hard releases joyride... so somewhere between 1994-1997. I followed the hardware projects here at AA and magazine and had expected that pokeymax and anticx would win, interesting. Thanks for the support ! Let me state here that I totally agree with the ranking of Pokeymax, it is both extremely useful and technically a LOT more complicated than AntiX so I have absolutely no problems with not also being ranked on the Nr.1 position....I never expected a Nr. 1 ranking.......but ranking 2...yeah....I think that would have fitted more for AntiX than ranking Nr.4. Edited October 27, 2018 by Level42 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freetz Posted October 27, 2018 Share Posted October 27, 2018 Again, no-one (except the author) complained at the annual meeting, the Abbuc members were quiet and indifferent as always (or had left the room since they do not like these boring and endless discussions). But to me it seems obvious, that the jury is not neutral ! I just would like to state that in my case, the members were not indifferent but rejected the jury's recommendation (if I'm not mistaken, the first and only time since the jury system was installed) and upvoted from 3rd to 1st place, and I'm grateful to the members for that. But when it comes to hardware development, I may have a good idea or two, but compared to mega-hz, tf_hh or Irgendwer, I'm just small fry when it comes to complex hardware developments, so I don't expect the club or the jury to agree with the suggestions I've made last year and this year. However, if these heavyweights have declared not to develop for the contest or even for the Atari anymore, then the alarm bells should be more than ringing... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Level42 Posted October 27, 2018 Share Posted October 27, 2018 Totally agree.....AntiX is simple and I could never develop stuff like Mega Speedy or anything on that level. We need these guys back into the game.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathy Posted October 27, 2018 Share Posted October 27, 2018 Hello Andreas On the other hand, a different hardware item was rated very low, they wrote in the magazine that some details (e.g. schematics/plans) were missing, while they got these details (and the author could show that at the Abbuc JHV). Again, no-one (except the author) complained at the annual meeting, the Abbuc members were quiet and indifferent as always (or had left the room since they do not like these boring and endless discussions). How do you know all this? I haven't seen you at this years JHV. Sincerely Mathy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+CharlieChaplin Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 (edited) Hello Andreas How do you know all this? I haven't seen you at this years JHV. Sincerely Mathy I do have several friends that were there (since I had to go to the burial of my uncle) and I was so evil and wrote them some E-Mails about the event (I was asking questions, they were writing answers)... and there also exist some photos and videos I have seen... Besides, we are living in the 21st century, there are various ways to inform yourself (or get informed) about an event, even when you were not there at the event (e-mail, sms, what's app, chat-rooms, internet forums, facebook, twitter, photos, videos, live video footage, skype, twitch, youtube, etc. etc.)... Edited October 28, 2018 by CharlieChaplin 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathy Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 Hello Andreas That proves that nothing beats being there yourself. I was there, spoke to some of the people in the jury, the docs were incomplete and some if it looked like a photo copy of a photo copy of a photo copy of .... And the (build quality of the) hardware presented at the JHV was not the same as the (build quality of the) hardware that was entered into the contest before the deadline. Sincerely Mathy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freetz Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 Would you be so kind (and honest) to mention what kind of submission you are referring to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathy Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 Hello Freetz Would you be so kind (and honest) to mention what kind of submission you are referring to? Ofcourse. I'm referring to your submission. Mathy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freetz Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 Then your "observation" rather shows that attending the assembly proves nothing. Regarding the incomplete docs that you mention, the supposedly missing PCB layout was in the official document folders that Wolfgang as the club president brought to the assembly, and even Wolfgang apologized during the debate that they must have somehow overlooked it. As for the supposed bad quality of the schematics, these were sent in electonically (and attached for reference here), so everybody can make their own evaluation whether they look like a "photo copy of a photo copy of a ..." But what is actaullay bordering defamation is your claim that the hardware presented at the JHV was not the same build quality as what was submitted before the deadline - may I ask how you come to that conclusion and what are the supposed differences in "build quality"? The thing is that currently only one (fullly working) set of the AtariDuino exists so far (because of the SIO/Arduino voltage issue that I'm currently working on with FloppyDoc who is kind enough to help in best ABBUC spirit to find a solution to this problem). This one set was sent in for the deadline and I only received it back in the morning of the assembly from Wolfgang and was happy to see that it still worked so I could demonstrate it to interested members. The other PCBs I brought were either unpopulated or did not have all the connectors soldered on, so if at all, the submitted sample was better than the ones I brought to the assembly. As I said, I don't know where you got your "information" on AtariDuino. Unfortunately, you didn't seem to bother asking me directly (I don't bite, even people who don't like me). So if it is just second-hand hearsay then just keep it to yourself. I just don't hope it comes from members of the jury after we had the discussion, because this would certainly discredit the impartiality of the jury institution. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathy Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 Hello Freetz I've seen what you submitted. Mathy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freetz Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 And what was that? How does it differ from what I wrote above? You see, everyone makes mistakes. You should realize you've made one and apologize and things are fine. If you can't do that, then substantiate your allegations. Otherwise you're just a troll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepy Posted October 30, 2018 Author Share Posted October 30, 2018 (edited) As for the supposed bad quality of the schematics, these were sent in electonically (and attached for reference here), so everybody can make their own evaluation whether they look like a "photo copy of a photo copy of a ..." O.K., normally I don´t join discussions like this, because my english skills aren´t good enough to argue and understand everything correctly. I think it´s the third discussion of this kind since 2017, when ATARIduino was submitted first time as "in development". But I like to mention some facts for the discussion about quality of supported documents. This are the original files (not scanned printouts) we get with the ATARIduino, schematic and layout: If you zoom in to a size that it´s not so small to see, you´ll see that you can´t really read it. Sure, we also found some other files of better quality, but they obiously don´t belong to ATARIduino: This project was submitted as "final product". In my opinion, it would be very unfair to PokeyMax and AntiX (and to all other "final products" in the past) to accept this. Since circuit and shematic are parts of registration, it was for no one a problem to give this essential documents. Both PokeyMax and AntiX comes along with detailed, comprehensive documentation, and ATARIduinos docs are simply not on the same level and not conformal with rules. So it was classified as "in development" to give the chance to improve the mentioned parts and do a second try as "final product". Sleepy Edited October 30, 2018 by Sleepy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freetz Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 I didn't start this discussion, I was merely weighing in on points made by others. And I responded to what are in my eyes baseless accusations by Mathy. I'm glad you prove Mathy's statement wrong that supposedly no PCB layout was submitted. I don't disagree (and mentioned that at the assembly) that the quality of the images could have been better - in fact they are better here on my computer (also in Gerber and Eagle format), and as I said as well, the lower quality that was eventually sent out by my e-mail program is probably due to e-mail compression on my Mac (Apple asks if you want to send files in "original size" or not, and probably I hit the wrong button). Sure, my fault, as I said. But as I submitted the files a week before the deadline, it would have been easy (and in my eyes no kind of preferential treatment) to just say: Hey, the files don't look right, please resend them in better quality or format XYZ. I've acted this way for the software contest with three submissions this year which had submitted unreadable or too large disk images or documents in the wrong format. If I had been as strict, there would have been no software contest due to the resulting disqualifications. I don't know why the PCBs of SIO2Arduino have any relevance here. They were not submitted by me, nor is it a comparable product. What I submitted was a patched version of the SIO2Arduino software to show that this project could also be run on AtariDuino, so that AtariDuino could also be used as a cheap SIO2SD clone. Honestly - other than submitting exactly the same images again in better quality which I already sent this year (plus working on the technical suggestions made by FloppyDoc), I don't know what else would be required so that the submission would be "conformal" with the rules. The rules just state that additional documentation is necessary for "fully understanding" the product. What this means in concrete terms seems to have changed in recent years (with the beginning of the jury system?), because In 2014 and 2016, I submitted MidiJoy and JoyRec in final and development categories respectively with way less supporting material, and this was not a problem at all. Maybe it would be helpful to have a checkbox list in the submission documents so that even slightly autistic people like me know what to do . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markk Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 Hello Is there an eagle file from atariduino PCB?Greetings Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freetz Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 Yes, there is (the images above are screenshots from Eagle), but in order to be able to finally participate in the "final" category next year, I'm not allowed to publish the project before the next JHV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepy Posted October 30, 2018 Author Share Posted October 30, 2018 I don't know why the PCBs of SIO2Arduino have any relevance here. They were not submitted by me, nor is it a comparable product. What I submitted was a patched version of the SIO2Arduino software to show that this project could also be run on AtariDuino, so that AtariDuino could also be used as a cheap SIO2SD clone. All pics, including the SIO2Arduino-pics shown above, were taken from the data you sent in. Looking for a shematic in better quality, we found them in a subdirectory. Sleepy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freetz Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 Ok... I attached the SIO2Arduino software as a separate zip file in my submission and mentioned that in my text. As it is good practice when distributing open source projects, you keep the project files intact when distributing other people's software. Turns out that SIO2Arduino's PCBs are part of a subdirectory somewhere in this zip file which I realized just now. My bad, and my apologies for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.