new paddle design? (Flashback 2 & 2600)

[appleo]

Will Atari be releasing paddles for the Flashback 2?

Better yet, will they be updated versions that use an encoder wheel (like a mouse) rather than a potentionometer, so they don't wear out or get jittery, but have a digital-to-analog converter chip so they act like potentionometers, making them 100% compatable with the original Atari 2600 (and thus a fully compatable but improved controller like the Flashback 2 joysticks) ?

[moycon]

That would be sweet. You know a ton of them would be sold to old school collectors if they were compatible with the original 2600.

I'd pick up 2 or 3 sets myself.

[vdub_bobby]

Will Atari be releasing paddles for the Flashback 2?

Better yet, will they be updated versions that use an encoder wheel (like a mouse) rather than a potentionometer, so they don't wear out or get jittery, but have a digital-to-analog converter chip so they act like potentionometers, making them 100% compatable with the original Atari 2600 (and thus a fully compatable but improved controller like the Flashback 2 joysticks) ?

931831[/snapback]

That sounds...more expensive than just slapping a pot in them.

 

So my guess is that, no, they won't be making super-paddles for retail sale.

[keilbaca]

If someone can make paddles like that, I am SO up for two sets.

 

As a avid Kaboom! and Warlords fan, I would pay money for those, in a heartbeat.

[Room 34]

Someone definitely needs to pursue this idea. I am guessing most 2600 fans would probably be willing to pay $30-$40 for a high quality set of digital paddles as described here. (Considering that controllers for modern consoles go for almost that much.) I sure would! Some of the best 2600 games are paddle-based (and the ratio of good paddle games is definitely pretty high), but the paddle games are all-but-unplayable with most sets of paddles.

[supercat]

That sounds...more expensive than just slapping a pot in them.

 

The best approach would be to use a small microcontroller to convert a voltage from a pot wired as a voltage-divider into a variable-length delay as used on the 2600. Pots used as voltage dividers are much more stable than pots used as rheostats because wiper resistance is a relative non-factor. Given that each paddle assembly receives wires for VDD, VSS, fire out, and pot out, it would be a fairly simple matter to construct and wire a small board as follows:

VDD  ----,
         |
       ,-+--CAP--,
       | |       |
       P `--1 8--+
       O-+--2 7--|-,
       T |  3 6  | |  
       | C  4 5  | |
       | A       | |
       | P       | |
       | |       | |
VSS ---+-+-------' |
                   |
Paddle ------------'

 

The micro is a 12C671. It starts by outputing a high on pin 7 for a little while, then floating the pin but enabling the internal pullup. It should then wait for the pin to go low. When that happens, it should turn off the pullup, read the ADC voltage on pin 2, and delay an amount proportional to the value read. After the time is up, the program should restart, driving the pin high.

 

Wiring the unit with a perfboard should not be difficult since there's not a whole lot of wiring required. The microcontrollers cost $3 in onesies and $1.85 in quantity 25. One microcontroller would be able to handle two paddles, but the wiring is not convenient for that.

[keilbaca]

Someone definitely needs to pursue this idea.  I am guessing most 2600 fans would probably be willing to pay $30-$40 for a high quality set of digital paddles as described here.  (Considering that controllers for modern consoles go for almost that much.)  I sure would!  Some of the best 2600 games are paddle-based (and the ratio of good paddle games is definitely pretty high), but the paddle games are all-but-unplayable with most sets of paddles.

932291[/snapback]

 

I would too. Non jitter free forever? I'm so down for that, I will easily pay that kind of money for perfect paddles.

 

Anyone interested in making some sets? I'm sure they'd sell like hotcakes on here.

Edited September 16, 2005 by keilbaca

[1980gamer]

It sounds like the same paddles may be used ( one of them per set anyway )

as an Indy 500 controller as well?

 

That would certainly make this very cool and very marketable. IMHO

[A.J. Franzman]

To use them as driving controllers would require a mode select switch and additional programming (plus marking the one controller of the pair that can do double duty), but shouldn't increase the cost much.

[supercat]

...but shouldn't increase the cost much.

934148[/snapback]

 

It would necessitate using a rotary encoder instead of a pot, though. Using a pot as a voltage divider would be cheaper than a rotary encoder, and more durable than most cheap rotary encoders.

[appleo]

An optical encoder should never wear out physically - usually a mouse using these goes bad due to gunk on the mouseball, etc. I am thinking it might take some PIC microcontroller programming & wiring, but once the design is done, the parts should be pretty cheap + easy to build.

 

Dragonstomper's design is interesting, though if I am correct in understanding it, it seems as if the output would not be that of a standard pot, and would require rewiring of the actual Atari console's paddle internals (the crude ADC that converts voltage to time). I don't know too much about that stuff but I would prefer a paddle that has the exact output as a legacy 2600 paddle. Is this correct, or would it output voltage like a paddle? With a PIC, you could probably modify this design to mimic a pot?

 

I am working on a device that lets you plug 2600 paddles into the PC - the beauty of it would be that you could go to digikey or mouser (or even Radio Shack if you dont want to wait for shipping) and buy a couple linear 1 MOhm pots and momentary pushbutton switches and project boxes, cut a cheap DB9 cable in two, and voila, you have paddles. Or you could go the hifalutin route and use these fabled optical or voltage divider paddles (assuming they are compatable), it would all work.

 

...but shouldn't increase the cost much.

934148[/snapback]

 

It would necessitate using a rotary encoder instead of a pot, though. Using a pot as a voltage divider would be cheaper than a rotary encoder, and more durable than most cheap rotary encoders.

934187[/snapback]

[supercat]

An optical encoder should never wear out physically - usually a mouse using these goes bad due to gunk on the mouseball, etc. I am thinking it might take some PIC microcontroller programming & wiring, but once the design is done, the parts should be pretty cheap + easy to build.

 

Good rotary encoders can be built that will endure years of abuse. But cheap rotary encoders can get flaky. The "X position" knob on one of the scopes at the office is really annoying that way.

 

Dragonstomper's design is interesting, though if I am correct in understanding it, it seems as if the output would not be that of a standard pot, and would require rewiring of the actual Atari console's paddle internals (the crude ADC that converts voltage to time). I don't know too much about that stuff but I would prefer a paddle that has the exact output as a legacy 2600 paddle. Is this correct, or would it output voltage like a paddle? With a PIC, you could probably modify this design to mimic a pot?

 

The paddle inputs work by timing how long it takes the paddle controller to charge a capacitor to a certain voltage. The 2600 doesn't know, much less care, whether the controller slowly charged the cap up to that voltage, or whether it sat around doing nothing for awhile and then charged the cap quickly. A normal paddle controller does the former; the PIC would do the latter.

 

The mod could probably be done most elegantly by putting a small micro inside each paddle. This would allow the cabling to remain the same, including the DB-9 plug. Using one micro for both paddles might seem to be more economical, but it would either require building a housing for the micro or redoing all the cabling. Given that PICs are pretty cheap, I don't think that extra effort would be worthwhile.

[appleo]

what would the output from these paddles look like in a multimeter?

 

An optical encoder should never wear out physically - usually a mouse using these goes bad due to gunk on the mouseball, etc. I am thinking it might take some PIC microcontroller programming & wiring, but once the design is done, the parts should be pretty cheap + easy to build.

 

Good rotary encoders can be built that will endure years of abuse. But cheap rotary encoders can get flaky. The "X position" knob on one of the scopes at the office is really annoying that way.

 

Dragonstomper's design is interesting, though if I am correct in understanding it, it seems as if the output would not be that of a standard pot, and would require rewiring of the actual Atari console's paddle internals (the crude ADC that converts voltage to time). I don't know too much about that stuff but I would prefer a paddle that has the exact output as a legacy 2600 paddle. Is this correct, or would it output voltage like a paddle? With a PIC, you could probably modify this design to mimic a pot?

 

The paddle inputs work by timing how long it takes the paddle controller to charge a capacitor to a certain voltage. The 2600 doesn't know, much less care, whether the controller slowly charged the cap up to that voltage, or whether it sat around doing nothing for awhile and then charged the cap quickly. A normal paddle controller does the former; the PIC would do the latter.

 

The mod could probably be done most elegantly by putting a small micro inside each paddle. This would allow the cabling to remain the same, including the DB-9 plug. Using one micro for both paddles might seem to be more economical, but it would either require building a housing for the micro or redoing all the cabling. Given that PICs are pretty cheap, I don't think that extra effort would be worthwhile.

934612[/snapback]

[supercat]

what would the output from these paddles look like in a multimeter?

 

If one were to look at them while playing a typical paddle-based game, the output would resemble a position-based voltage. Looking at them when playing a non-paddle game would most likely just show a constant 'high'. Looking at them when non-powered would, of course, not yield much of anything.

[HP Atari King of Michigan]

New paddles for the Flashback 2? IF YOU ARE READING THIS THREAD, ATARI, GET ON IT, MAN!!!

[+batari]

Clearly the issues here are with flaky wipers on the pots in paddles, and also it seems that people would like the ability to have an infinite turning range instead of the locks in a paddle.

 

So instead of an all-new controller, how would people feel about an adaptor that converts the output from two driving controllers into a single port that outputs a timed pulse (similar to cap discharge) that will trick the 2600 into thinking it's got a set of paddles connected? Should just need a $3 microcontroller and a crystal, and also maybe a couple of cheap passive components.

[supercat]

So instead of an all-new controller, how would people feel about an adaptor that converts the output from two driving controllers into a single port that outputs a timed pulse (similar to cap discharge) that will trick the 2600 into thinking it's got a set of paddles connected?  Should just need a $3 microcontroller and a crystal, and also maybe a couple of cheap passive components.

935287[/snapback]

 

The problem is that the driving controller has way too low resolution for that to work very nicely. Plus, for paddle games, there's nothing wrong with having end stops.

 

BTW, I did once write a program and cobble a cable so that a VIC-20 could act as a paddle-to-mouse convertor so my friend could play Arkanoid on his Amiga. :-)

[keilbaca]

Seriously, if someone comes up and builds a set, I would easily offer cash for them, whatever the cost to make the best paddles and non jitter-free.

[+batari]

The problem is that the driving controller has way too low resolution for that to work very nicely.  Plus, for paddle games, there's nothing wrong with having end stops.

935299[/snapback]

Sure, but an optical encoder would too, unless you got a gigantic one with around 200 holes in it

 

What I mean is that there are algorithms out there that can sense the speed at which a controller is being turned and convert it to an appropriate motion, even if the resolution is small. Slower turning=fine movement. Fast turning=fast movement. This is exactly what mice do, I believe.

 

End stops would not work with the above, of course. But the lack of them has a certain appeal. Like on my car's CD player, the volume knob can be turned infinitely, but after a point the volume doesn't keep going down once it hits zero.

[A.J. Franzman]

Seriously, if someone comes up and builds a set, I would easily offer cash for them, whatever the cost to make the best paddles and non jitter-free.

935318[/snapback]

Do you realize that "non jitter-free" is essentially a double negative? What you're really saying is that you want the best jitter money can buy!

[Lord Helmet]

Seriously, if someone comes up and builds a set, I would easily offer cash for them, whatever the cost to make the best paddles and non jitter-free.

935318[/snapback]

Do you realize that "non jitter-free" is essentially a double negative? What you're really saying is that you want the best jitter money can buy!

935489[/snapback]

 

Damn! If thats all keilbaca wants, I've got a set of the jitteriest fucking paddles ever. They're all yours! $20 shipped

Edited September 21, 2005 by Lord Helmet

[appleo]

Controlling the resolution / # of holes is doable - you can buy optical encoder components from digikey pretty cheap and even print out your own encoder wheel with a laser printer on transparent film, and just glue it to an existing wheel so the new holes (which are really just transparent non-printed areas on the film) stick out.

 

The problem is that the driving controller has way too low resolution for that to work very nicely.  Plus, for paddle games, there's nothing wrong with having end stops.

935299[/snapback]

Sure, but an optical encoder would too, unless you got a gigantic one with around 200 holes in it

 

What I mean is that there are algorithms out there that can sense the speed at which a controller is being turned and convert it to an appropriate motion, even if the resolution is small. Slower turning=fine movement. Fast turning=fast movement. This is exactly what mice do, I believe.

 

End stops would not work with the above, of course. But the lack of them has a certain appeal. Like on my car's CD player, the volume knob can be turned infinitely, but after a point the volume doesn't keep going down once it hits zero.

935450[/snapback]

[else]

What I mean is that there are algorithms out there that can sense the speed at which a controller is being turned and convert it to an appropriate motion, even if the resolution is small. Slower turning=fine movement. Fast turning=fast movement. This is exactly what mice do, I believe.

 

This seems a bit odd. Say I'm playing Tempest, and I want to go all the way around the web. So you're saying if I quickly turn it a small amount I will go all the way around, but if I turn it slowly the exact same amount I might only go partially around the web? To me, this would take quite a bit of getting used to -- it would seem like you would constantly be having to change your grip on the knob....

 

I'm not exactly convinced that this is the way a mouse works either. I think the pointer moves the same distance whether I move the mouse slowly or quickly. I'll have to do some simple expirements. Not saying you're wrong or anything -- I honestly don't know....

Edited September 21, 2005 by else

[keilbaca]

Seriously, if someone comes up and builds a set, I would easily offer cash for them, whatever the cost to make the best paddles and non jitter-free.

935318[/snapback]

Do you realize that "non jitter-free" is essentially a double negative? What you're really saying is that you want the best jitter money can buy!

935489[/snapback]

 

Ahahahaha I was half asleep at the time I posted that. Nice catch

[mos6507]

This seems a bit odd.  Say I'm playing Tempest, and I want to go all the way around the web.  So you're saying if I quickly turn it a small amount I will go all the way around, but if I turn it slowly the exact same amount I might only go partially around the web? 

 

No, what he's saying is that if he twists the rotor controller all the way around over the course of a half second it will move the player the same distance if he twists the rotor controller all the way around over the course of a minute.

 

In the case of the Driving controllers, there are 16 state changes over the course of 1 revolution. This works well for driving games which feature sprites that rotate in 16 direction, but not so great for a Tempest style game where you are pushing your player around a larger area.

 

With an Atari trackball in joystick mode, moving the ball steadily (but slowly) in one direction is equivalent to moving the ball steadily (but quickly) in the same direction just as it would be if you were holding a joystick in the same direction.

 

Classic games that use rotor controllers or trackballs (like Tempest or Crystal Castles) use special support hardware that samples them at a fast enough interval to resolve very fine control and then sends some kind of aggregated movement data to the main program. The 2600 has to sample the controller itself. In practice, that means 16-degree rotor controllers are the limit for kernels that only sample once every frame. The missile command trackball hack samples during the screen in order to provide finer control.