Author Topic: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate  (Read 10888 times)

nodtveidt

  • Guest
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #435 on: February 19, 2009, 07:01:47 AM »
It wasn't for Microsoft...it was prototyped after the Xbox was already released. The system specs were far more impressive than any console of the era, and would have been a real contender even in the current generation. But since I had no corporate backing, I was never able to have it manufactured, let alone released on the open market to compete with the big boys. It used an AMD XP 3200+ processor, 64MB of main RAM, a Geforce 4 graphics chipset, and a Creative Audigy sound system, plus featured an 8x DVD-ROM drive, removable flash storage, a 40GB internal HDD, and two USB ports for keyboards/mice/etc. I designed controllers for it (based largely on the PSX controller scheme) but never made them; the controller interface was a digital dual gamepad port. Serpent was a lesser system, using a 500MHz AMD K6, 32MB of RAM, 8MB of video RAM (no hardware 3D capabilities), a Creative SB Live! chipset, and a 50x CDROM drive. Both systems were designed to boot their operating system from the disc (much like the Dreamcast, which was where I got the idea from), meaning you could theoretically use any x86-compatible OS to make games (provided you respected the hardware details). For Leviathan, I experimented with FreeDOS, Windows 98, and Slackware as bootable OSes. Ironically, I had the best luck with Windows 98. I ran a custom-compiled version of MAME for my system and had great luck with it through Windows 98. Since I never prototyped Serpent, I don't know how well it would have done, though looking at some of the "kiddie consoles" out there today (like the ones made by Leapfrog), I'd say it could have given some of them a run for their money. :D

Tatsujin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12311
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #436 on: February 19, 2009, 01:14:53 PM »
lol..were or for who do you work TOR? :shock:sounds very interessting :)
www.pcedaisakusen.net
the home of your individual PC Engine collection!!
PCE Games coundown: 690/737 (47 to go or 93.6% clear)
PCE Shmups countdown: 111/111 (all clear!!)
Sega does what Nintendon't, but only NEC does better than both together!^^

nodtveidt

  • Guest
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #437 on: February 19, 2009, 11:50:43 PM »
Wasn't working for anyone...I designed both consoles in my free time.

Tatsujin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12311
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #438 on: February 20, 2009, 01:23:11 AM »
but for what purpose? pics please :) game demos please :) lay off everything please :D
www.pcedaisakusen.net
the home of your individual PC Engine collection!!
PCE Games coundown: 690/737 (47 to go or 93.6% clear)
PCE Shmups countdown: 111/111 (all clear!!)
Sega does what Nintendon't, but only NEC does better than both together!^^

nodtveidt

  • Guest
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #439 on: February 20, 2009, 02:15:23 AM »
Unfortunately, I have neither pics of the machine nor the machine itself anymore. Pics I took of the prototype were on one of the CDROMs that was destroyed a few years back, and I have no idea where the prototype itself went...it might still be in storage in Camuy though...I have to go through storage again anyways so I'll take a look-see. The only "game demo" it would have is the customized MAME version I built so that doesn't help much. :D

And for what purpose? It was designed to be an open-format machine...anyone could dev for it, not just big corporations. Many people have long since dreamed of making such a console and having it run free on the open market...and all attempts thus far have largely failed. Gamepark is the only one to come close to succeeding.

guyjin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3896
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #440 on: February 20, 2009, 04:20:45 AM »
you know, you might want to get in touch with EA and tell them about your projects. I seem to recall that they were bitching about having to develop for so many platforms and having to pay licence fees and all that to the console makers... with your unit, they could kill 2 birds with one stone.

and lose lots of money when it fails.  :twisted:
"Fun is a strong word." - SNK
"Today, people do all kind of shit." - Tatsujin

Keranu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9054
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #441 on: February 20, 2009, 07:32:53 AM »
There was another open source Linux-based console in the works around the time of Xbox/Gamecube I think, maybe earlier. I can't remember the name right now, but if I recall it was making great progress, but for whatever reason couldn't make it to the market. Anyone have links to what I'm talking about?
Quote from: Bonknuts
Adding PCE console specific layer on top of that, makes for an interesting challenge (no, not a reference to Ys II).

nodtveidt

  • Guest
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #442 on: February 20, 2009, 02:06:46 PM »
Keranu, that might have been the Tuxbox...

guyjin, f*ck EA. Besides, I abandoned Leviathan at the prototype stage.

Tatsujin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12311
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #443 on: February 20, 2009, 03:18:22 PM »
how do you approach such a project like that as a one man show?

just assemble existing components together?
designing the hardare from scratch (inkl. pcb, layout etc.)?

it ain't easy to do something lonely.

please tell lil'bit more about :)
www.pcedaisakusen.net
the home of your individual PC Engine collection!!
PCE Games coundown: 690/737 (47 to go or 93.6% clear)
PCE Shmups countdown: 111/111 (all clear!!)
Sega does what Nintendon't, but only NEC does better than both together!^^

nodtveidt

  • Guest
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #444 on: February 22, 2009, 01:21:42 PM »
I found the smallest normal PC motherboard I could find and wrote a custom BIOS for it...yeah bad me, reverse-engineering the original BIOS. :D I used a PCI riser board to fit additional cards, and crafted two plastic rods with grooves cut into them to hold the cards in place, and attached the rods to the motherboard through holes that would normally be used to attach the board to a case. I then fitted the board monstrosity into a plastic shell that I had built at a plastics shop about an hour away. The rest was just basically cutting holes in the shell to attach the additional I/O ports and building risers into the shell to hold the DVD-ROM and HDD. To power the beastie, I found a very efficient, very small 450W power supply and attached an exhaust fan to the back next to it.

The whole process involved finding the smallest components possible that would get the job done to spec. It wasn't easy.

After I had abandoned all hope of mass-producing Leviathan, I attempted to design a handheld...that was even more difficult, because you really have to know computer design...nowhere near the same as building a normal console out of x86-compatible components. Since I was just starting out with "console from scratch" ideas, I based it on the familiar 65C02 and coupled it with a very basic graphics chip (I don't remember which chip I was going to use). For a screen, I found a very nicely done 320x240 pixel LCD screen available pretty cheaply. But after I had finished developing the schematic, I did a power profile and discovered that the machine would require way too much amperage. This was before Li-Ion batteries were widespread and built-in chargers were uncommon, so I had no idea how I would be able to power the damn thing...as it was, it would have required three 9V batteries to run it. So, I scrapped it. :(

Console design really isn't my thing though...I'd rather make games for existing consoles, like the PC Engine. :D

Tatsujin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12311
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #445 on: February 22, 2009, 01:36:36 PM »
yeah..console designing nowadays is more like puting some preferably cheap but small and powerful pc components together, attach some periferials and I/Os then write a stand alone application for it and call it a console (e.g. xbox etc.)

back in the days, especially for the PC Engine, a hardware was designed from the very scratch an CPU base on. compared to now, this time must have been very exciting for game hardware developers.

still if you want do a handheld today, you can either switch to a already existing mobile application or you can do it from the scratch, which will be a hell of work as well needs a lot of cash and outsourced help to reach such a target. but it must be very exciting to something like that :)
www.pcedaisakusen.net
the home of your individual PC Engine collection!!
PCE Games coundown: 690/737 (47 to go or 93.6% clear)
PCE Shmups countdown: 111/111 (all clear!!)
Sega does what Nintendon't, but only NEC does better than both together!^^

Keranu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9054
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #446 on: February 22, 2009, 05:00:54 PM »
Keranu, that might have been the Tuxbox...

After searching for Tuxbox, I found out that the Tuxbox was actually the "successor" to the console I was originally thinking of: The Indrema.
Quote from: Bonknuts
Adding PCE console specific layer on top of that, makes for an interesting challenge (no, not a reference to Ys II).