OPCODE GAMES announces: IntelliXpander - Castlevania & Goonies! RESERVE NOW

[opcode]

I've been away for a while and I see this thread became active once again. I am a little confused, though.

Is this an "expansion" of the Intellivision capabilities, or is it a new and modern platform which hooks up to the Intellivision in order to get power and an RF signal out to the television set?

In other words, is its nature closer to the ECS or the System Changer?

Will it be under the control of the CP-1610 microprocessor and constrained to its memory model? Or is it essentially a separate system?

dZ.

Long story short it started as a much more modest expansion and after a lot of suggestions here, it grown into this nice little beast.

We need to take a few things into consideration:

1) the casing for the module is the most expensive component here. That is the reality of small runs. So you add 8Kb of RAM inside a case like this and it will cost like $100. You add sound and it is now $105. You add CPU and it is now $110. And so on. See what I mean.

2) we need to keep a certain balance. The weak link in the Intv architecture imho is the CPU. That is the bottleneck. You add extra sound, and it can barely keep up with everything. A system is as good as its weakest component.

 

On the other hand, I wouldn't call it a "modern platform" because 1) it is an expansion and depends on the Intv, 2) it isn't modern in the sense there is nothing inside that wasn't available in the 80s (except for some glue logic to save space, but in a larger run they would have created ASICs anyways).

[+DZ-Jay]

Long story short it started as a much more modest expansion and after a lot of suggestions here, it grown into this nice little beast.

We need to take a few things into consideration:

1) the casing for the module is the most expensive component here. That is the reality of small runs. So you add 8Kb of RAM inside a case like this and it will cost like $100. You add sound and it is now $105. You add CPU and it is now $110. And so on. See what I mean.

2) we need to keep a certain balance. The weak link in the Intv architecture imho is the CPU. That is the bottleneck. You add extra sound, and it can barely keep up with everything. A system is as good as its weakest component.

 

On the other hand, I wouldn't call it a "modern platform" because 1) it is an expansion and depends on the Intv, 2) it isn't modern in the sense there is nothing inside that wasn't available in the 80s (except for some glue logic to save space, but in a larger run they would have created ASICs anyways).

Fair enough. However, it is still not clear to me whether you are using the stock CPU. What does it mean "depends on the Intv"? Does it depend in it for power, RF signal output, CPU, memory bus, STIC, or what?

 

By comparison, the System Changer "depends" on the Intellivision inasmuch as it needs to be plugged into it in order to get power an operate. However, it uses none of its components, except the RF circuitry and power supply (and some external program that may feed hand-controller data into the System Changer itself).

 

At some point, these "expansions" cease to be the original system in all but name and provide an entirely new platform on which you can program new games.

 

If this is the case for the IntelliXpander, then it is no longer "Intellivision," but yet another "retro-gaming" platform, of which we have plenty.

 

dZ.

[opcode]

Fair enough. However, it is still not clear to me whether you are using the stock CPU. What does it mean "depends on the Intv"? Does it depend in it for power, RF signal output, CPU, memory bus, STIC, or what?

By comparison, the System Changer "depends" on the Intellivision inasmuch as it needs to be plugged into it in order to get power an operate. However, it uses none of its components, except the RF circuitry and power supply (and some external program that may feed hand-controller data into the System Changer itself).

At some point, these "expansions" cease to be the original system in all but name and provide an entirely new platform on which you can program new games.

If this is the case for the IntelliXpander, then it is no longer "Intellivision," but yet another "retro-gaming" platform, of which we have plenty.

dZ.

As I explained, it was originally a more modest expansion that evolved from the feedback I got here. The CP1600 can barely keep up with its 8 sprites, how could it manage 64 sprites on screen, a second sound chip and such? Sure, the other option is don't do any of those things. That is why I don't believe that any hardware discussion can be disassociated from discussing the games.

[Rev]

It does use Intellivision controllers of course. (I think). I haven't heard otherwise.

 

Will expander require its own power plug or use power from intv console?

[opcode]

It does use Intellivision controllers of course. (I think). I haven't heard otherwise.

Will expander require its own power plug or use power from intv console?

Yes, controllers and power comes from the master component. In fact the IntelliXpander and master component can communicate any time.

[opcode]

Wait until I can show some of the games before making a judgment.

 

Edit: and if you are a developer that would like to develop for the IntelliXpander, please let me know so a prototype can be arranged.

[+DZ-Jay]

As I explained, it was originally a more modest expansion that evolved from the feedback I got here. The CP1600 can barely keep up with its 8 sprites, how could it manage 64 sprites on screen, a second sound chip and such? Sure, the other option is don't do any of those things. That is why I don't believe that any hardware discussion can be disassociated from discussing the games.

OK, so not really an "expansion," more like a new platform, with its own processor, programming paradigms, hardware access patterns, and assembly/programming language.

 

That's fine, and that doesn't mean I am judging it in any negative light. It could be a very good platform.

 

It's just not an Intellivision. *shrug*

 

Sort of like how a PlayStation 2 is not a PS-One even though the former can emulate the latter. Except that in this scenario the PlayStation 2 came 30 years after nostalgia was solidly implanted on the PS-One.

 

dZ.

[+DZ-Jay]

Wait until I can show some of the games before making a judgment.

 

Edit: and if you are a developer that would like to develop for the IntelliXpander, please let me know so a prototype can be arranged.

Thanks for the offer. Unfortunately, I'm having enough of a hard time finding the time to dedicate to projects for the platform to which I have an actual emotional connection.

 

Good luck, though!

 

dZ.

[opcode]

Oh, should have done my homework. You are a developer, makes sense now. Good luck with your projects.

[Rev]

Make a Super Pro Christmas Carol, Dz.

[Rev]

In my opinion, Any add on for any platform isn't really the same system. Similar to the 32x. It's really a different system. It's not a bad thing in the least.

[+DZ-Jay]

Oh, should have done my homework. You are a developer, makes sense now. Good luck with your projects.

Thanks. For the record, I wasn't putting it down. I'm sure it'll allow for some great games.

 

I do object to it being referred to as a mere "expansion," when it uses a new CPU and architecture, and seems that a programmer will not be able to transplant any experience on the Intellivision to the new platform.

 

My only worry is on how this will splinter development effort for our beloved console when, essentially, you will have two ostensibly different systems for which to program. It is hard enough enticing people to make games for the Intellivision already.

 

Considering that we are a small community of part-time, hobby programmers, every resource spent on targeting the IntelliXpander is a resource not available to the "classic" console, and vice-versa.

 

(It'll be awesome if people programmed for both, but the chances of that in such a small community is very slim. I'd love to be wrong, though.)

 

I'm sure it'll be great and I look forward to what you can come up with, but people should be aware of these trade-offs. Learning a new platform (as a hobby) does not come for free.

 

dZ.

[mr_me]

The Intellivoice, ECS, and even the keyboard component would be considered add-ons that are still Intellivision. KC Basic wasn't but the plan was to have another Basic that was compatible with Intellivision cpu, sound, and graphics. Intellixpander was first described as using Intellivision graphics but using a different cpu and sound processor. As opcode mentioned that has changed and it now has its own cpu, graphics and sound processors. [i think the advantage here is that the Intellixpander can share code/games with other systems; existing and new.]

 

Did anyone think the sega 32x was a good thing?

Edited August 14, 2017 by mr_me

[+DZ-Jay]

The Intellivoice, ECS, and even the keyboard component would be considered add-ons that are still Intellivision. KC Basic wasn't but the plan was to have another Basic that was compatible with Intellivision cpu, sound, and graphics. Intellixpander was first described as using Intellivision graphics but using a different cpu and sound processor. As opcode mentioned that has changed and it now has its own cpu, graphics and sound processors.

The biggest difference is that the ECS, the Intellivoice, and the Keyboard Component came out 30 years ago and are tied to our childhood memories.

 

I may be in the minority, but I program games for the Intellivision because of that connection, not because it's a very attractive platform. That's just my opinion, though.

[opcode]

Thanks. For the record, I wasn't putting it down. I'm sure it'll allow for some great games.

I do object to it being referred to as a mere "expansion," when it uses a new CPU and architecture, and seems that a programmer will not be able to transplant any experience on the Intellivision to the new platform.

My only worry is on how this will splinter development effort for our beloved console when, essentially, you will have two ostensibly different systems for which to program. It is hard enough enticing people to make games for the Intellivision already.

Considering that we are a small community of part-time programmers, every resource spent on targeting the IntelliXpander is a resource not available to the "classic" console, and vice-versa.

(It'll be awesome if people programmed for both, but the chances of that in such a small community is very slim. I'd love to be wrong, though.)

Im sure it'll be great and I look forward to what you can come up with, but people should be aware of these trade-offs.

dZ.

Those are all good points, DZ. I don't see it as divisory though. In fact it may have a chance to bring new blood to the intv scene, both new players and programmers. People that may have dismissed the Intv as too "limited". And the other thing is that a system may get a little stale after 35+, as we reach the limits of what can be done with the hardware. Intellixpander isn't replacing anything, it is adding to the Intv arsenal, in a unique way. And finally there is the chance there might be some cross development between the two, where someone can port games from the classic Intv to the IntelliXpander (as I plan to do), and vice versa.

[opcode]

Add-ons are a uphill battle, but we did that with the SGM, where with the 4th run we will have 1,000 modules in the hands of fans, making it a near obligatory accessory if you want to enjoy modern ColecoVision.

 

I heard a lot of the same concerns back in 2010, and now the SGM is highly sought after accessory.

[opcode]

And finally IntelliXpander isn't a clone of anything. In fact its video chip was never used in any commercially released product. This is all pretty unique and still very accessible for those wanting to program for it. It is very game oriented.

[mr_me]

It's not possible to port Intellivision games to Intellixpander. They would have to be rewritten. My understanding is that you can port games from other systems to Intellixpander. And I'm using the term port as making code "portable" ie. copying it over.

 

Edit:

And I think few Intellivision games use the limits if the Intellivision hardware. Almost all of the Mattel library use an inefficient software framework. And it takes time for new programmers to learn all the tricks and techniques.

Edited August 14, 2017 by mr_me

[+DZ-Jay]

Those are all good points, DZ. I don't see it as divisory though. In fact it may have a chance to bring new blood to the intv scene, both new players and programmers. People that may have dismissed the Intv as too "limited". And the other thing is that a system may get a little stale after 35+, as we reach the limits of what can be done with the hardware. Intellixpander isn't replacing anything, it is adding to the Intv arsenal, in a unique way. And finally there is the chance there might be some cross development between the two, where someone can port games from the classic Intv to the IntelliXpander (as I plan to do), and vice versa.

Cool! good point. In the end, we still have the original Intellivision for us old-timers.

 

dZ.

[JohnPCAE]

In my opinion, Any add on for any platform isn't really the same system. Similar to the 32x. It's really a different system. It's not a bad thing in the least.

 

My "bird's nest" project is meant to stay close to the same system. Sure, you could theoretically go crazy with it and add capabilities not remotely close to what Mattel ever envisioned, but at the moment, overlay text fits exactly within the KCs capabilities (albeit that I'm having to use an Arduino UNO and a modern FIFO chip).

[opcode]

It's not possible to port Intellivision games to Intellixpander. They would have to be rewritten. My understanding is that you can port games from other systems to Intellixpander. And I'm using the term port as making code "portable" ie. copying it over.

Edit:

And I think few Intellivision games use the limits if the Intellivision hardware. Almost all of the Mattel library use an inefficient software framework. And it takes time for new programmers to learn all the tricks and techniques.

Isn't a game like Intellivision's Frogger a port anymore? C programs can be portable and still compile to different CPUs and architectures. So yeah, CP1600 and Z80 aren't binary compatible, and yet it didn't stop Mattel from porting their games to the Aquarius, arguably a totally different architecture. Any port involves some degree of technical challenge.

[mr_me]

All of the games Mattel wrote for other platforms (atari, coleco vision, ibm, apple, aquarius) were rewritten. None of the Intellivision code was ported over. I think aquarius Utopia was written in C. C code is portable. With the Intellixpander you do have the opportunity to port code over to it from other compatible systems.

[opcode]

All of the games Mattel wrote for other platforms (atari, coleco vision, ibm, apple, aquarius) were rewritten. None of the Intellivision code was ported over. I think aquarius Utopia was written in C. C code is portable. With the Intellixpander you do have the opportunity to port code over to it from other compatible systems.

As I have stated many times now, there is no other compatible systems, unless you mean other Z80 systems, but having a Z80 doesn't make it any more compatible with any system than an Aquarius is compatible with a ColecoVision.

[+DZ-Jay]

Isn't a game like Intellivision's Frogger a port anymore? C programs can be portable and still compile to different CPUs and architectures. So yeah, CP1600 and Z80 aren't binary compatible, and yet it didn't stop Mattel from porting their games to the Aquarius, arguably a totally different architecture. Any port involves some degree of technical challenge.

I think he is making the pedantic argument that a "port" is compiling a game from one platform to another, and a "conversion" is translating the code from one platform to another.

 

This sort of arguments just get in the way of the discussion (as you can plainly see) and obscure the main point, which is that games from the classic console can be re-made with enhanced capabilities on the IntelliXpander.

 

dZ.

[opcode]

I think he is making the pedantic argument that a "port" is compiling a game from one platform to another, and a "conversion" is translating the code from one platform to another.

This sort of arguments just get in the way of the discussion (as you can plainly see) and obscure the main point, which is that games from the classic console can be re-made with enhanced capabilities on the IntelliXpander.

dZ.

Thanks DZ. That is why I love this group here. I will make sure I get you a beer when we meet.