Jump to content
IGNORED

FB3...


Recommended Posts

On a side note, I saw the AtGames Flashback 3 at Wal-Mart yesterday in the videogame section. They wanted $40 for it.

 

Y, I got one at Wal Mart over this past weekend for $39. I was playing Super Baseball with my grandson, got to the second inning and the console reset to the splash screen. I may take it back yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Picked this up last week while on vacation in the US to complete the Flashback lineup (well, almost). I already had the Flashback and Flashback 2 (not the Flashback 2+, which I honestly think is pointless), so I wanted to get the latest Flashback and see how it is.

 

I was already reluctant to get a Flashback 3 because of the fact it was manufactured by AtGames. I absolutely HATE this company's products (their Geniclones SUCK!!!), but the Flashback 3 is probably one of their better offerings. Still, I did notice some imperfections and oddities with this thing:

 

-Sound pitch is too high.

-Video seems blurrier and more saturated than a real 2600 or Flashback 2.

-The audio stutters (WTF, really?).

-The emulator on the Flashback 3 appears to be frameskipping! The games seem to run at half the framerate as there's no flicker where there should be flicker and the motion in some games doesn't seem as quick and smooth as on a real 2600 or Flashback 2.

-Some games appear to leave trailing images behind for a bit such as Missile Command, where the cursor appears to leave a trailing image when it moves (I can assure you this is not my TV as I haven't seen this on a real 2600 or Flashback 2).

-The controllers are crap. Their sticks are WAY too loose and are quite unresponsive due to the much longer throw compared to real Atari controllers. I have to push on the stick REALLY hard in order to make diagonal movements, which gets real irritating real fast.

-The A/V cable is ridiculously short. Seems to be a common trend with AtGames' products; if anything they supply has a cable, it's always ridiculously short, which is a problem for me due to the placement of my consoles in relation to my switchboxes.

 

I will still say AtGames did a much better job than Atari did with the first Flashback (guess that was to be expected as using completely different hardware than what was originally on a certain console would result in differences far greater than what you can get via software emulation). It's got its fair share of weird things (audio stuttering... I never thought I'd see that coming from a 2600 emulator), but the games are recognizable at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Picked this up last week while on vacation in the US to complete the Flashback lineup (well, almost). I already had the Flashback and Flashback 2 (not the Flashback 2+, which I honestly think is pointless), so I wanted to get the latest Flashback and see how it is.

 

The Flashback 3 has nothing to do with the previous Flashbacks we did. Likewise, the 2+ is based off the final revision of the 2, so I wouldn't call it pointless.

 

I was already reluctant to get a Flashback 3 because of the fact it was manufactured by AtGames. I absolutely HATE this company's products (their Geniclones SUCK!!!), but the Flashback 3 is probably one of their better offerings. Still, I did notice some imperfections and oddities with this thing:

 

-Sound pitch is too high.

-Video seems blurrier and more saturated than a real 2600 or Flashback 2.

-The audio stutters (WTF, really?).

-The emulator on the Flashback 3 appears to be frameskipping! The games seem to run at half the framerate as there's no flicker where there should be flicker and the motion in some games doesn't seem as quick and smooth as on a real 2600 or Flashback 2.

-Some games appear to leave trailing images behind for a bit such as Missile Command, where the cursor appears to leave a trailing image when it moves (I can assure you this is not my TV as I haven't seen this on a real 2600 or Flashback 2).

-The controllers are crap. Their sticks are WAY too loose and are quite unresponsive due to the much longer throw compared to real Atari controllers. I have to push on the stick REALLY hard in order to make diagonal movements, which gets real irritating real fast.

-The A/V cable is ridiculously short. Seems to be a common trend with AtGames' products; if anything they supply has a cable, it's always ridiculously short, which is a problem for me due to the placement of my consoles in relation to my switchboxes.

 

The Flashback 3 is based off of AtGames' custom emulator. Hence the issues you saw. The Flashback 2 and 2+ uses a custom 2600-on-a-chip. It's an actual single chip reproduction of the 2600's hardware.

 

I will still say AtGames did a much better job than Atari did with the first Flashback (guess that was to be expected as using completely different hardware than what was originally on a certain console would result in differences far greater than what you can get via software emulation).

 

Atari didn't do the Flashback 1, we did. We wanted to use the 2600-on-a-chip but Atari wanted a product on the shelves within 2-3 months, or there would be no followup. Hence we had to go with a NOAC (NES-on-a-chip) and port the 2600 and 7800 games over to it.

 

Only the 2 and 2+ use actual 2600 hardware vs. the emulation that the 3 uses. Provided you didn't get one of the pirate 2s that were being sold in stores the past few years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Flashback 3 has nothing to do with the previous Flashbacks we did.

 

I'm aware of this, but why AtGames? Their Titan ARM-based Genesis emulators they have on their lineup of licensed Geniclones are a disastrous mess! Now, granted, their 2600 emulator is a lot better than that, but I wouldn't put my trust in a company who puts out a ton of rehashed garbage time and time again like AtGames has done.

 

Likewise, the 2+ is based off the final revision of the 2, so I wouldn't call it pointless.

 

I personally consider the Flashback 2+ pointless due to its game selection compared to the Flashback 2. I would much rather have a Flashback 2 than a Flashback 2+.

 

The Flashback 3 is based off of AtGames' custom emulator. Hence the issues you saw. The Flashback 2 and 2+ uses a custom 2600-on-a-chip. It's an actual single chip reproduction of the 2600's hardware.

 

Duh, I know that. Though they should really switch to system-on-a-chip designs rather than this software-emulated crap.

 

Atari didn't do the Flashback 1, we did. We wanted to use the 2600-on-a-chip but Atari wanted a product on the shelves within 2-3 months, or there would be no followup. Hence we had to go with a NOAC (NES-on-a-chip) and port the 2600 and 7800 games over to it.

 

Wouldn't a 7800-on-a-chip design be a better idea for the Flashback considering it's made to resemble a miniature 7800?

 

Still, the porting resulted in pretty lousy accuracy, much worse than what AtGames has done on the Flashback 3.

 

Only the 2 and 2+ use actual 2600 hardware vs. the emulation that the 3 uses. Provided you didn't get one of the pirate 2s that were being sold in stores the past few years.

 

I got my Flashback 2 when they were still in production off a friend who was no longer using his (it's got a revision B motherboard, if I remember correctly). It's legit, all right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Flashback 3 has nothing to do with the previous Flashbacks we did.

 

I'm aware of this, but why AtGames? Their Titan ARM-based Genesis emulators they have on their lineup of licensed Geniclones are a disastrous mess! Now, granted, their 2600 emulator is a lot better than that, but I wouldn't put my trust in a company who puts out a ton of rehashed garbage time and time again like AtGames has done.

 

Very simple. AtGames came to them wanting to do a console, Atari licensed their name and the Flashback name to them. Atari themselves doesn't do hardware and other products such as branded paraphernalia. Companies approach them and license it. Just as we approached them about doing the Flashback (which was our concept).

 

The Flashback 3 is based off of AtGames' custom emulator. Hence the issues you saw. The Flashback 2 and 2+ uses a custom 2600-on-a-chip. It's an actual single chip reproduction of the 2600's hardware.

 

Duh, I know that. Though they should really switch to system-on-a-chip designs rather than this software-emulated crap.

 

Duh, your statement didn't come off like you did. Regardless, their strength isn't custom chips, it's taking ARMs they can get cheap in bulk and running emulators on them.

 

 

Atari didn't do the Flashback 1, we did. We wanted to use the 2600-on-a-chip but Atari wanted a product on the shelves within 2-3 months, or there would be no followup. Hence we had to go with a NOAC (NES-on-a-chip) and port the 2600 and 7800 games over to it.

 

Wouldn't a 7800-on-a-chip design be a better idea for the Flashback considering it's made to resemble a miniature 7800?

 

You're thinking backwards or didn't actually read what I stated unlike what you claimed. We approached them about doing a 2600 system using our (at the time) still in design 2600-on-a-chip. They wanted a product on the shelf within just a few months, which is an unheard of turnaround time. Hence having to go with a NOAC system, after which we'd be allowed to do a second system based on the original concept. Because it was a NOAC it could handle ports of 7800 games, and the concept was moved to a 7800 style system. So the concept of a 7800 came *after* the project was begun. Likewise the answer to your question is obvious given all this. If we didn't have time to finish a 2600-on-a-chip, how on earth would we have had time to do a 7800-on-a-chip?

 

Still, the porting resulted in pretty lousy accuracy, much worse than what AtGames has done on the Flashback 3.

 

Not our call. As stated, if we hadn't been put out that NOAC system to meet the short amount of time given, then there would have been no Flashback series period.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very simple. AtGames came to them wanting to do a console, Atari licensed their name and the Flashback name to them. Atari themselves doesn't do hardware and other products such as branded paraphernalia. Companies approach them and license it. Just as we approached them about doing the Flashback (which was our concept).

 

I'll be perfectly honest, if AtGames would have approached me to do something, I would have denied their request on the spot. The only decent thing I've seen them put out is the Flashback 3; all their licensed Geniclones are rehashed piles of garbage that barely work correctly.

 

You're thinking backwards or didn't actually read what I stated unlike what you claimed. We approached them about doing a 2600 system using our (at the time) still in design 2600-on-a-chip. They wanted a product on the shelf within just a few months, which is an unheard of turnaround time. Hence having to go with a NOAC system, after which we'd be allowed to do a second system based on the original concept. Because it was a NOAC it could handle ports of 7800 games, and the concept was moved to a 7800 style system. So the concept of a 7800 came *after* the project was begun. Likewise the answer to your question is obvious given all this. If we didn't have time to finish a 2600-on-a-chip, how on earth would we have had time to do a 7800-on-a-chip?

 

Huh... I always thought the idea behind the Flashback was a 7800-based system. When I read you wanted to use a 2600-on-a-chip, I couldn't help but ask myself, "Wasn't the Flashback supposed to be a 7800-based system right from the start?" Guess not.

 

Not our call. As stated, if we hadn't been put out that NOAC system to meet the short amount of time given, then there would have been no Flashback series period.

 

Well at least, I'm grateful for that. I will say, when I got my Flashback (which was actually AFTER the Flashback 2, some old stock a local EB Games had left over), I knew it was an NOAC and didn't expect perfect accuracy, but hey, it's still fun, and if I want to experience the games on the Flashback the way they were originally, I've got some 2600s and a 7800 laying around. With the Flashback, you just have to play the games and completely disregard accuracy (that's what I do when I use my Flashback, but I still expect better from software emulation like what's on the Flashback 3).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does porting mean entirely new code or did you set up the NOAC as a rendering engine and modified the original assembly as needed?

 

I'm no authority on the two hardware systems, so I'm not entirely sure, but I think the architectures are quite different to the point where the latter part of your question is completely impossible. I figure it would be like trying to copy the synapses from one animal into the brain of an animal of an entirely different species. Things just wouldn't fit.

 

I'll be perfectly honest, if AtGames would have approached me to do something, I would have denied their request on the spot. The only decent thing I've seen them put out is the Flashback 3; all their licensed Geniclones are rehashed piles of garbage that barely work correctly.

 

I get the feeling that today's Atari (Infogrames) rarely says no when offered money, given their financial state. :)

 

Incidentally, is "Geniclone" the accepted spelling? I'm curious about the fourth letter being an 'i' when "Genesis" has an 'e' in that position.

 

I knew it was an NOAC

 

What is the proper way to pronounce "NOAC," anyway? I've always read it as "no ack," but I will admit that I've never actually heard anyone speak the word before. Have I been doing it wrong?

 

Incidentally, about your signature, Ace_1, Radica's plug-n-play line was not called "TV Games"; that was/is Jakks Pacific's. Initially, Radica called their plug-n-play products the "Arcade Legends" line, but during the second wave of the line, it was renamed to "Play TV Legends."

 

onmode-ky

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does porting mean entirely new code or did you set up the NOAC as a rendering engine and modified the original assembly as needed?

 

I'm no authority on the two hardware systems, so I'm not entirely sure, but I think the architectures are quite different to the point where the latter part of your question is completely impossible. I figure it would be like trying to copy the synapses from one animal into the brain of an animal of an entirely different species. Things just wouldn't fit.

 

Actually, that's exactly what was done. The brain isn't that different, both the NES, 2600, and 7800 run off 6502 assembly. What differs is the sound and graphics hardware, which is what was changed accordingly for the ports.

 

What is the proper way to pronounce "NOAC," anyway? I've always read it as "no ack," but I will admit that I've never actually heard anyone speak the word before. Have I been doing it wrong?

 

Everyone I've worked with has always pronounced it no-ack, which would be phonetically correct for what it abbreviates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the feeling that today's Atari (Infogrames) rarely says no when offered money, given their financial state. :)

 

In that case, it's a bit understandable, but personally, I would always deny a request to AtGames to manufacture hardware unless they stop making half-a**ed systems or move from software emulation to reverse-engineered hardware like unlicensed Famiclones and Geniclones. Seriously, their Geniclones are about the worst clones I've ever seen, even worse than Famiclones using garbage NOACs with the typical reversed duty cycles and missing signals causing the same issues time and time again. AtGames has improved the compatibility with their Genesis emulator, but the sound is still horrible (some games even manage to play music at the wrong speed!), the video looks rather lousy and a lot of games have graphical errors.

 

Incidentally, is "Geniclone" the accepted spelling? I'm curious about the fourth letter being an 'i' when "Genesis" has an 'e' in that position.

 

It seems that way. It's how I see everyone spell out "Geniclone," probably due to how Famiclone has an "i" before "clone."

 

What is the proper way to pronounce "NOAC," anyway? I've always read it as "no ack," but I will admit that I've never actually heard anyone speak the word before. Have I been doing it wrong?

 

I hate pronouncing acronyms as a word because they usually grate my ears, so I pronounce NOAC letter by letter: N O A C. Typically, that's how I hear NOAC pronounced. Same goes for GOAC; I pronounce that G O A C.

 

Incidentally, about your signature, Ace_1, Radica's plug-n-play line was not called "TV Games"; that was/is Jakks Pacific's. Initially, Radica called their plug-n-play products the "Arcade Legends" line, but during the second wave of the line, it was renamed to "Play TV Legends."

 

Whoops! Gotta correct that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does porting mean entirely new code or did you set up the NOAC as a rendering engine and modified the original assembly as needed?

 

Actually, that's exactly what was done. The brain isn't that different, both the NES, 2600, and 7800 run off 6502 assembly. What differs is the sound and graphics hardware, which is what was changed accordingly for the ports.

 

Ah, I see. I knew that the CPU instruction sets were the same, but I had thought that with such early hardware, the sound and video components of the code might be tied too inextricably to the logic and the hardware timings to make that kind of porting feasible. Maybe I'm too pessimistic.

 

. . . personally, I would always deny a request to AtGames to manufacture hardware unless they stop making half-a**ed systems or move from software emulation to reverse-engineered hardware like unlicensed Famiclones and Geniclones.

 

Given their lack of experience with hardware design, added to their inability to deliver really good work on something they have lots of experience with, I don't think Option #2 there would work out so well.

 

They did hire the former Sega of America Director of Technology to help fix their Genesis emulator back when they first made it, but it was apparently so wanky that the best he could do for them was, well, not a whole lot, as you can see from the production versions. The sound issues stem from some timing errors in the emulator, it seems.

 

Incidentally, is "Geniclone" the accepted spelling? I'm curious about the fourth letter being an 'i' when "Genesis" has an 'e' in that position.

 

It seems that way. It's how I see everyone spell out "Geniclone," probably due to how Famiclone has an "i" before "clone."

 

I'd argue that the 'i' in "Famiclone" comes from the fourth letter of "Famicom," though (and that 'i' comes from the 'i' in "family computer"). Oh, well, if that's the accepted spelling, I won't fight an uphill battle. Americans don't pronounce "karaoke" the proper way, after all ("carry oaky"???).

 

onmode-ky

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given their lack of experience with hardware design, added to their inability to deliver really good work on something they have lots of experience with, I don't think Option #2 there would work out so well.

 

They did hire the former Sega of America Director of Technology to help fix their Genesis emulator back when they first made it, but it was apparently so wanky that the best he could do for them was, well, not a whole lot, as you can see from the production versions. The sound issues stem from some timing errors in the emulator, it seems.

 

Thanks for giving me another reason to loathe AtGames even more. This company needs to be shut down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not just make the original Atari 2600 over again but smaller complete with Cart slot normal size but make it fit into the mini case using the original 3 chipset but smaller and have composite and stereo with mono select switch being the ch3 switch . Then we already can use harmoy like carts or use a 7404 and a normal cart modded w our own games homebrew..

If I wanted a NEW atari I would expect to use my existing cart selection and would want asteroids as the cart or combat rock but w sound as whell as the song ! as REAL CARTS and of course since its a ATARI PRODUCT why not the cart could be thrown in as a atari age promotion as part of the cost... just miniturize the 3 chips put video stereo w mono switch and b/w select switches cart slot w on off selection switch and the 2 joy ports why have a sd slot when you can use REAL CARTS also include 2 joysticks .

a nother game to include would be Adventure II that game is fun. it would probably be cheaper to use disk on chip chipsets for the bult in games and address them exactly like a10 on a 2764 or 2732 chip this would be like exact 2600 hardware REMEMBER youre licencing Atari product so you can use the 3 chipsets in the real atari this way nothing is emulated you select game by switching carts as usuall if its a RETRO FLASHBACK IT should work w youre existing cart collection just think mini atari less clutter .. now it could have memory to store an archival inrformational educational back up of youre REAL cart but come empty you just load up youre carts up to say 10 carts then a built in cart selects a10 lines on the built in memory or chooses the external cart slot witch would be a kit you purchase seperatly the hole and pins are there you just knock out a snap in peice.. you could put a battery compartment inside 5v is easy to get..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say this: I can't wait to see if Ben Heckendorn does a portable with this!

Eh. I must be the only one who thinks so, but for someone of his reputation, I find a lot of Heckendorn's stuff to be very amateurish. I thought his "Portable Jaguar" in particular looked like ass.

 

So let's see your work!!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not worried about how long the FB III would take to come out I always burn my self 2732 chips w hacks on them once i got the apollo cart I figured out how to hook 4 pins on a 7400 to make my own carts I have made chips for gun fight indy500 indy600(i hacked) indy400 nother hack I made cars smaller and no boarder for chase!! AW invaders

letters a w s I instead of ghost aliens I hacked a combat I got hangly pac HACKEM running on the 2764 using the longer 28 pin chip pcb works with no lockups on the flashback just fine! I also have combat AI I have two socket carts I swap 3732 chips in and my crockrocks cart an asteroids hack I hacked for my self where the rocks look like a 'w 's if you start built in asteroids then swap to the cart crockrocks the rocks only change the fb does not lock up even keeps game play as if its live the only thing changes is the shapes of the rocks the score and sound stays the same if i switch to many times the FB will geek and might lock up internally game then finnally all the way as if its just like the 400 when flashing the cart door with pac-man it locks up then locks up more! you have to put b/w switch to internal then power back on eveyr thing alright ...

Here is a responce to a nother post below

*****************************************************

the flashback just needs to be restarted there is not as mutch static protection on the FB's as the REAL 2600 had!!! example no RF cage!!!!..

On a side note, I saw the AtGames Flashback 3 at Wal-Mart yesterday in the videogame section. They wanted $40 for it.

 

Y, I got one at Wal Mart over this past weekend for $39. I was playing Super Baseball with my grandson, got to the second inning and the console reset to the splash screen. I may take it back yet.

 

I have had my Flash back II reboot all the time

just power off and back on again IF you use a slick stick it reboots all the time in the winter!!!!!...

Edited by awace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Last post on this thread was July 20, 2012...

 

I'm sad they keep releasing Atari Flashbacks, WITHOUT legacy engineering.

 

*rocking in the corner* why do they do that? :( arrgh. I LOVE the Atari flashback 2...the only thing better would be a real 80's atari modded with composite.

 

We are now on Atari flashback 5, and it is still emulator based (FB 3-5). I hope Atari flashback 15 comes with a cartridge slot. I hope Curt Vendel designs it from start to finish. As previous people have said, he IS Atari.

 

I am sad that it seems like he was just shoved aside, and they made further flashbacks with very little input from him.

Edited by kaz321123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I received the Flashback 6 as a gift and it's still not up to the awesomeness of the FB2.

It randomly crashes and reboots on certain games.

My moded FB2 has always been my go-to 2600 console and all the others pale in comparison.

They say the next FB will have some cool new features but I'm not holding my breath.

It has 12 years since the FB2 was released and it's still king of the hill of the 2600 retro standalone consoles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...