what do you want the FB3 to be?

[jpfalcon2003]

2600, 5200, and 7800 compatible. Plus games programmed in the system.

[AussieAtari]

> what do you want the FB3 to be?

 

Designed by Curt Vendel and crew

Full of classic and new Atari games

Released soon

 

that is all.

 

Perfectly said!

 

Give that man a cigar.

[sidcrowe]

Yep, a Curt project FOR SURE, annnnnnnnd I want a DVD. Nothing fancy, just a DVD of old commercials and stuff. No biggie to produce.

[calfranklin]

I agree, make it a compilation of 2600, 7800 and 5200 games, but also with the slot added for true 7800 and 2600 game play. Maybe they can add another slot to play 5200 carts also.

[z28in82]

I think a 26/52/7800 based system would invoke more memories and sense of nostalgia from the casual gamer which is more likely the target demographic.

 

I think an A8 computer model would be neat but don't think it would sell as well.

 

But any Curt & Mike product will have a welcomed place in our home

[Curt Vendel]

A 26/78 system would be possible, but a 26/78/52 based system would be a far greater challenge and VERY expensive to develop, you are essentially talking about 2 separate systems wired together with some glue logic to handle which system would be on the bus and running, possible - but not fun to do as I see it as a kludge and not a pretty one initially...

 

The 7800 platform, while excellent and one of my personal favorites is not widely supported by developers with the exception of pacmanplus and kenfused for the most part and yes of course Harry Dodgson a while back.

 

The 5200/800 platform is a far easier platform to develop on, has an ENORMOUS software catalog - far overshadowing anything remotely close to the 2600 offerings and would open the doors to a much bigger, broader and comprehensive platform for gaming, education, system languages, communications, networking and so much more...

 

FB3 will best benefit everyone if based on the A8/52 platform specifically will be easier to create and build.

 

Now - I've come into possession - documents and preliminary GDS tape outs for "Omni" which was to be a new computer Atari was desiging in Corp research based on Penny, Wendy and Vivian. A new set of high end chips meant for a 68xxx based system - interestingly enough - it mentions being able to play 2600, 800, colecovision games. Who knows, with enough time and research - and depending on how far along the chips were developed and how stable the design was - maybe down the road - FB4 could potentially find its way to using such a chipset, though I would like to perhaps look at an ST based all-in-one in the future, all those GDS tapes outs I already have and I was working with a friend in the UK on this about a year ago as a possible opensource platform...

 

 

 

Curt

 

I think a 26/52/7800 based system would invoke more memories and sense of nostalgia from the casual gamer which is more likely the target demographic.

 

I think an A8 computer model would be neat but don't think it would sell as well.

 

But any Curt & Mike product will have a welcomed place in our home

[+remowilliams]

maybe down the road - FB4 could potentially find its way to using such a chipset, though I would like to perhaps look at an ST based all-in-one in the future, all those GDS tapes outs I already have and I was working with a friend in the UK on this about a year ago as a possible opensource platform...

 

Woohoo! - Now you're talkin' !!

[RMila75]

Speaking as someone who never owned a 5200 or 800/400, I would just like to have a chance to play some of the best games those systems had to offer, along with the essential "classics".

Would the Asteroids prototype be included? Tempest?

The ability to add more games later would be fantastic.

[applekevin]

I don't know if what I'm saying is idiotic, but here goes nothing!

 

I want the FB3 to be a two-part system with a 7800 and 5200 compatible Atari 8-bit computer. This would allow you to play any 2600 or 7800 or 5200 or A8 game. Plus it would allow you to program games in Atari BASIC or something. I think Atari should remake the carts and also make some sort of DevPack which would teach us laymen how to program for it! Now that would be cool! They could also offer a slim-downed version which only played 7800/2600. They could also include USB for a keyboard input and etc. when running in computer mode. Like I said they should sell new carts.

 

Now tell me...Is that not everyone's dream?

[mos6507]

That Omni system sounds really interesting. Just when I knew everything... Curt, you should post more about that on your site.

[jaybird3rd]

I want the FB3 to be a two-part system with a 7800 and 5200 compatible Atari 8-bit computer. This would allow you to play any 2600 or 7800 or 5200 or A8 game.

I'd have a look at one of my earlier posts and Curt's earlier post in this thread before you get too excited about that idea. Long story short: it's easier said than done and will probably never happen.

[nathanallan]

I haven't been following Jeri and Jen's project, but can't multiple machines be run via FPGA with swappable cores? This is just a random thought on the discussion.

[mos6507]

I haven't been following Jeri and Jen's project, but can't multiple machines be run via FPGA with swappable cores? This is just a random thought on the discussion.

 

FPGAs are not aimed at mainstream consumer electronic devices. They are mostly a prototyping tool for making custom chips. Hobbyists use them (and their cheaper CPLD cousins) as a substitute for making custom chips. Plus, the field-upgradable aspect enables these hobby projects to use simpler, cheaper programmable chips since not all the features may be required at once. But for mass-market products, FPGAs do not seem to benefit from economy of scale the way a custom chip can.

 

I'm sure it would be possible to reduce the 7800 and 8-bit chipsets into something that would fit into one custom chip. It's just not an easy task.

Edited December 22, 2006 by mos6507

[jbanes]

FPGAs are not aimed at mainstream consumer electronic devices. They are mostly a prototyping tool for making custom chips.

That's not really true anymore. Xilinx and other FPGA manufacturers have been agressively promoting FPGAs as an alternative to ASICs in consumer hardware. (Xilinx's campaign is, "make it your ASIC".) And slowly, but surely, it has been changing. Granted, it's hard to hit the current $9 price point with an FPGA, but prices are getting awefully darn close.

 

What's changed is that gate counts are jumping through the roof while the cost per gate drops. This is a direct result of the costs of manufacturing rising at a much slower rate than the complexity and density of the chips. As a result, FPGA technology is slowly converging on price points that used to only make sense for ASICs.

 

For example, Altera quotes $12 for 150,000 gates (estimated). 150 kilogates is a lot of logic. In comparison, the 6507 was somewhere in the 80,000-100,000 gate range (source: Black Art of Video Game Console Design), and there was another few thousand gates for the TIA chip and RIOT chip. So it's not unreasonable to consider sticking 95% of the system into a single FPGA. These just aren't quite cheap enough yet. They're getting close, though.

 

Of course, if one was to believe Xilinx, it's possible to get 100,000 gates for only $2 a chip using their latest Spartan 3E technology. Such a chip could probably (if the gate count is not overinflated) fit the entirety of a 6502/TIA/RIOT combination on a single chip. Unfortunately, it would probably be insufficient for later designs like the GTIA and MARIA chips combined with a 6502. So again, very close.

 

Of course, one does have to account for the additional cost of flash memory (which is rather sizable for 100,000+ gates) before jumping to the conclusion that an FPGA is cheap enough. Also, pin counts are a key factor in driving up the cost of a given FPGA chip. Thus the complexity of the interface between the FPGA and the outside world would play a factor in determining the final price of the part. The 2600 is at a bit of a disadvantage as it would (if I understand the specs correctly) require the controller ports to have direct busses to the RIOT portion of the SoC.

 

A few references on the industry's use of FPGAs in products:

http://www.edn.com/article/CA6389417.html?industryid=2283

http://www.instat.com/press.asp?ID=501&sku=IN020476DE

http://edageek.com/2006/12/05/xilinx-90nm-fpga/

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:ipvpSf...lla&strip=1

 

I should note that I have actually spoke with engineers that have deployed FPGAs. So they are out there, even if they're (currently) a fairly small portion of the electronics market.

[+pboland]

Has anybody entertained the idea of a portable 400/800 laptop type FB3. I know a lot of you are saying "no way" to much cost. However, this xmas my daughter got this barbie laptop (b-book). I bought it for $29.95 which I believe was the price point that Curt wrote about. It doesn't have a color screen, but the more I thought about it you don't need a color screen as long as you can plug it in to your tv. Think of it this way. You want to write a program in BASIC, but you don't need a color display while you are programing. Now if the laptop had a composite output jack, you could simply plug it in to your tv to fully test your program in color. Keep in mind the screen doesn't need to be very large either. Maybe say 4" x 3" and back lit. The keyboard on this Barbie b-book is not all that bad. It just might be better than my XEGS keyboard (and yes it is a full computer keyboard minus the function keys). I figure since it is a toy, the keyboard should be pretty tough. The laptop could still look like a 5200 case which would open like a clam shell. Put two joystick ports, composite out, run off of batteries, power in jack (if you don't won't to run off of batteries), headphone jack, a way to save your programs and you are good to go. Is this possible or am I off my rocker?

 

I added this pic as a reference.

[jbanes]

It just might be better than my XEGS keyboard (and yes it is a full computer keyboard minus the function keys). I figure since it is a toy, the keyboard should be pretty tough. The laptop could still look like a 5200 case which would open like a clam shell. Put two joystick ports, composite out, run off of batteries, power in jack (if you don't won't to run off of batteries), headphone jack, a way to save your programs and you are good to go. Is this possible or am I off my rocker?

It's possible, but in order to maintain the $30 price point, you might want to look at that Barbie screen for a moment. The screen is 6.48 inches (measured diagonally) and looks to have a resolution* of about 40x24 pixels. Now think about that for a moment:

 

- A Palm Pilot has a similar screen size, but has 160x160 to 320x320 pixels.

- You can move a Palm Pilot closer to your face to see the screen better. This is difficult to do with a laptop that sits on a table.

- 40 x 24 is the number of characters shown on an Atari 8-bit monitor. The actual resolution is 320x192.

 

Now if you were willing to accept a $50 price point with a similarly small screen (but higher resolution), it would probably be more realistic. Hardware like the VideoNow and VG Pocket show that similar resolutions can even be done in color for products manufactured in sufficient quantities.

 

 

* I can't find the LCD specs, so I'm guesstimating.

[+pboland]

Keep in mind the screen doesn't need to be very large either. Maybe say 4" x 3" and back lit. The keyboard on this Barbie b-book is not all that bad. It just might be better than my XEGS keyboard (and yes it is a full computer keyboard minus the function keys). I figure since it is a toy, the keyboard should be pretty tough. The laptop could still look like a 5200 case which would open like a clam shell. Put two joystick ports, composite out, run off of batteries, power in jack (if you don't won't to run off of batteries), headphone jack, a way to save your programs and you are good to go. Is this possible or am I off my rocker?

 

As far as the screen goes, 4" x 3" is actually bigger than the b-book. I have included a link for the LCD screen I was thinking of. I thought keeping it black & white would keep the cost down, but admittedly I don't know all that much about volume manufacturing.

 

LCD screen

[jbanes]

As far as the screen goes, 4" x 3" is actually bigger than the b-book. I have included a link for the LCD screen I was thinking of. I thought keeping it black & white would keep the cost down, but admittedly I don't know all that much about volume manufacturing.

 

LCD screen

Couple of things:

 

1. All Electronics sells surplus parts. So their prices may reflect volume prices, or they may reflect depreciation on obsolete parts.

 

2. The manufacturing price quoted by a member of the FB2 team is $9 per unit to sell it at its $30 price point. That screen costs $8. I seriously doubt it would cost much less in bulk.

 

As I said, a $50 price point would probably work well. But it's difficult to hit $30 unless you're willing to take a loss on the hardware and make up the difference elsewhere.

 

On an amusing note, you've managed to pull up the exact same LCD screen I was looking at for a possible electronics project. Small world.

[+pboland]

As far as the screen goes, 4" x 3" is actually bigger than the b-book. I have included a link for the LCD screen I was thinking of. I thought keeping it black & white would keep the cost down, but admittedly I don't know all that much about volume manufacturing.

 

LCD screen

Couple of things:

 

1. All Electronics sells surplus parts. So their prices may reflect volume prices, or they may reflect depreciation on obsolete parts.

 

2. The manufacturing price quoted by a member of the FB2 team is $9 per unit to sell it at its $30 price point. That screen costs $8. I seriously doubt it would cost much less in bulk.

 

As I said, a $50 price point would probably work well. But it's difficult to hit $30 unless you're willing to take a loss on the hardware and make up the difference elsewhere.

 

On an amusing note, you've managed to pull up the exact same LCD screen I was looking at for a possible electronics project. Small world.

 

Don't get me wrong, I was not suggesting that Atari buy parts from All Electronics. And yes I am aware that All electronics sells surplus parts and/or obsolete parts. However All Electronics is making money off the sale of these LCD panels. So I would guess that they are getting them a hell of a lot cheaper then they are selling them to you or I. My point was, if one is to volume manufacture a lcd screen it may be (heavy on the maybe) possible to purchase a larger monochrome LCD than it would be for a color LCD at the same cost. On a side note, maybe the FB3 doesn't need the screen, but a built-in keyboard might be pretty cool.

[jbanes]

On a side note, maybe the FB3 doesn't need the screen, but a built-in keyboard might be pretty cool.

I'm with you on this one. Heck, I think it's a natural progression from the existing PnP systems. Not to mention that it's how we used the real "computers" back in the day.

 

The perfect system to lead the charge is the C64DTV. The hardware is already done. All it needs is for Mammoth to pack it into a keyboard. Voila! Instant computer for kids and enthusiasts.

 

It's too bad that Jeri and Robin haven't been able to find funding to do this.

[ijor]

In comparison, the 6507 was somewhere in the 80,000-100,000 gate range (source: Black Art of Video Game Console Design)

 

It must be a typo there. I don't know the exact number, but it should be much smaller.

[DigitalQuirk]

My brother bought me a Flashback 2 this past holiday season. Because of this, I created this account.

 

What should the FB3 be? To be perfectly honest, I think it should be a FB2 with a cartridge port and the games sold seperately on cartridges that would hold 15, 30, or even 40 games each. Think about this for a moment. From a business perspective, it makes perfect sense. You already have the hardware, and the product has proven itself in the market. Last time I checked over the holidays, everyone was sold out of the flashback 2. I would expect that it has already paid for itself and is profitable. It's a solid system. Very well-designed. The elements needed for adding a cartridge port are already present, so creating a Flashback 3 with a cartridge port would be very easy since it's already been done. A remold of the top cover would be the most difficult part.

 

Before releasing this kind of FB3, Atari ought to be ready with brand new paddle controllers, upgraded and built as well as the new joysticks. They also ought to have some new multi-game cartridges ready to sell. The timing of the release of the new paddles, FB3, and cartridges would be critical.

 

I know, as Atari fans, you're probably thinking, "I can already hack in a cartridge port in my FB2, and I'd really want a more sophisticated Atari." However, consider that the majority of people only remember the 2600. Only geeks like us remember the 400/800, ST, and other Atari game consoles. To build a successful base for their business, Atari needs to stick with the 2600, make it into a low cost, high quality "Retro" system, heavy emphasis on the retro (including the carton it ships in; thanks, by the way, Atari; I love the box). Most people wouldn't attempt to hack in a cartridge port, but would buy an Atari that could play the old carts and new ones.

 

Another thought occurred to me; why not also release a "Cartridge reconditioning kit" to sell alongside the FB3, essentially a mock cartridge slot with a stiff, absorbant, and perhaps just ever so slightly abrasive material inside that the customer would wet with "Cleaning solution" (rubbing alcohol) and then insert and remove that old classic cartridge a few times.

 

The market is there. The FB2 has demonstrated this. Atari needs to come back with not just another game system, but a whole array of products that interact and work with each other, completely penetrating and saturating this market. Paddles. Trackballs. Cartridge reconditioning kits. Cartridge programming kits. New games. The Flashback 3 needs to be what the original 2600 was, plus everything people wanted it to be. Keep the quality high, retain the "Retro" look of the products and packaging, and Atari could very well have another "Cash Cow" so they could afford to re-release the classic computer systems in smaller quantities to satisfy us geeks.

[atwwong]

My brother bought me a Flashback 2 this past holiday season. Because of this, I created this account.

Welcome to the forums! You've posted some great ideas that the Atari executives should think about. In case you haven't read it, see the thread Question - FB2 Portable? However, a new full-sized 2600 with the ability to play carts would be an awesome product, IMHO. Damn the "dirty/old carts won't work liabilities" excuse!

[DigitalQuirk]

My brother bought me a Flashback 2 this past holiday season. Because of this, I created this account.

Welcome to the forums! You've posted some great ideas that the Atari executives should think about. In case you haven't read it, see the thread Question - FB2 Portable? However, a new full-sized 2600 with the ability to play carts would be an awesome product, IMHO. Damn the "dirty/old carts won't work liabilities" excuse!

 

Thanks for the welcome! If Atari intends on being successful and great again, they need to stop looking at these so-called "Obsticles" as liabilities and start looking at them as business opportunities. An "Official Atari Cartridge Reconditioning Kit" may cost $2 to make, but would probably easily fetch $10-$15 as an "Official Atari product." Gotta keep the quality there, of course.

 

Where others see road blocks, I see opportunities.

[AussieAtari]

After finally getting a FB2 (Thanks Murph) which took a lot of time, expense and mucking about, I really want the FB3 to be....

 

Available off the shelf in Oz.