CV Gus

"Getting Started In Electronics" is THE perfect book for beginners, and experienced alike. Everything I've been able to do, it's thanks to this book. Here it is: if you can find it, buy it. http://www.forrestmims.com/

I have had no luck finding it, and a 2600 schematic is no good. They are too different, at least for what I'm looking for.

Well, after some success in repairing the Roller Controller for the old CV, I tried my hand at fixing the paddle problem on the 7800. The problem was simple: they didn't work. For players 1 and 2; nothing- for 3 and 4, it was nothing and extremes: the object jumped from one side to the other. Also, the really bad side affected the other (implying a common problem). So, to the best of my ability, using what equipment I have, I traced the schematic, and tested each component. Capacitors (looking for a shorted one), resistors, etc. My multimeter is not precise enough to accurately test such things, but it can compare them- if any one is different, it was probably defective. Couldn't find nuthin'. Lo and behold- players 3 and 4 (right jack) now worked fine, as did player 2. Player one did not work at all- wait- it did- no- not. Re-solder the pin on the jack. All four work fine, now. It was several bad solders!

This website has schematics that can help- just follow the lines. You might have to look up the controller PIN layouts to see what does what. For example, PINs 5, 7, and 9 pertain to the paddle controllers. For your right fire, I think it's PINs 6 and 8.

YUMPIN` YIMMINY! Just a few days ago, I dug up my old 2600 and tried it after I-don't-know-how-many years- I have the same problem (all of my tests indicated the same problem: a bad 7749 chip). Isn't it nice, a plug-in IC?

I'm looking for schematics for ICs. This includes the 4093, 4081, and 7749 (40 pin). Can anyone help? Thanks.

I can also now properly play Defender. Someone mentioned being unable to do so- try playing it on Joystick mode, then Roller. See if that helps.

A while back, I started a thread about the problems I was having with my CV Roller Controller: http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=129538 In short, whenever it was in the "Joystick" position, it always acted as if you were holding the regular controller to the left or right (spinning the trak-ball would determine which way). Also, whatever you did with one controller would affect BOTH players- as if you had it in the "Roller" position. But when in the Roller position, the trak-ball worked fine, and so did the regular controllers. In short, you couldn't play joystick games with the trak-ball (yes, you actually could- it was in the commercials and the instructions). Well, I located a "regular" schematic about the controller. All I had to use was a beat-up old multitester. I set it on "DC Voltage" mode. http://xi6.com/hacks/rollctl.gif Much to my amazement...I actually found the problem. It involves chip U-4. There's a "gate" that is supposed to have a "low" output when the trak-ball is NOT being spun to the left or the right, because you have a Low and High inputs. Only with a High and High (it's an "AND" gate) are you supposed to have a High output. In other words: L+L=L L+H=L H+H=H These refer to voltages. If you look at the "Joy/Roller" switch, you'll notice that when it's in the Joystick position, that lead running to U-4 would be High. Thus, when the roller is spun and a High signal is generated, you get H+H=H. But that point, pin 11 on U-4, was ALWAYS High. This was it: it connects to the horizontal outputs. It fooled the CV into thinking the ball was always being rolled. Since Radio Shack is no longer what it was, getting a replacement chip around here is out of the question. I'd have to order it, except- see that "SPARE" part of the U-4 chip? That's right- I disconnected the 3 pins on 11, 12, and 13, and wired in 4, 5, and 6. Same kind of gate. Now, that part works fine! Of course, there's still that odd fact that it has to be in "Roller" mode to properly play a 2-player joystick game, but that's probably something on the switch. If so, I'll get to it later; if not, I won't bother, because it functions just fine. To make it a bit easier, I built (out of junk) a simple logic probe. It's the 2-lead kind. But I tried (after unplugging the CV) to touch just ONE battery lead to a "NAND" gate, and sure enough saw it light up! Therefore, if I can get a $1.50 chip, I can build a ONE-lead logic probe. It has to have a NAND gate on it somewhere. This was my first repair of this nature.

I do not care for the analog controllers. However, a HUGE problem are those circuit-tapes. Every time you take apart a 5200 controller, you risk ruining them. I've managed to solder them, but it's a REAL hassle. So, if you intend to tinker around with those controllers, do be very careful. Note: If you have a multi-tester, you can see if pushing a button closes a circuit. Here are my plans on how to figure out which hole does what: http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=119395 Hope this helps!

Where can one order the 15-pin plugs for a 5200? Mine just has the one! Can't play certain games properly without at least two. Space Dungeon and Robotron: 2084!

Pulsar would be a great game, too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcjmElnNFus

Well, I finally figured out what the problem might be- it was with the Zener Diode. I'd assumed that it acted like a voltage limiter; in fact, it acts like a relief valve. Thus, the heart of this module is based on the line between the positive and negative lines running to the capacitor. Here's how it should work: 1) Between the battery and capacitor is a variable resistor. This, as you know, allows you to determine how quickly voltage builds up in the capacitor. 2) Once THAT voltage builds up past the point specified on the Zener Diode, in my case 5.1V (more likely 6V), the diode- to lower the voltage going "past" it to the capacitor will conduct. Then, and only then, can you fire. Unfortunately, you cannot switch off just one fire button. They are either both involved, or both "normal." HOWEVER- since each fire button has its own set-up, it is possible to "recharge" them at different rates! Thus, in, say, Mr. Do!'s Castle, the left can swing once every, say, 3 seconds, while the right would only allow it once every 11 seconds. The main reason for this was Looping. However, Mr. Do!'s Castle, Tarzan, Burgertime, and Spectar would also be good. Heck, it can even be used as a rapid-fire module. Good for Zaxxon, Cosmo Fighter 2, and the great Sky Jaguar! Once I get the new diodes, if I can (Radio Shack ain't what it was...), I'll update this after the test. It's an unusual project, but if it works the way I hope it does, I'll publish the plans for it. Gotttt meeee, a 52-0-0 light guuuunnnnn, but I ain't got-no-games fer itttt...

Well, votages is a bit old-fashioned, but they are valid. Resistors, for example, can affect them. So an off voltage can help you trace a blown resistor, for example. My 2600 module has a problem: the player one paddle does not work properly. By comparing the voltages at the pins with a working one, I saw the difference in voltage. A repair scematic would tell you what to look for at that point. But I will check out your website and instructions.

Actually, I'm looking for repair schematics- the ones that tell you what voltages should be where. This way, if something is off, it tells you, and where one should look. I'm sure repair centers had them from Coleco. Are those the ones you have?

Does anyone have any idea how one can obtain repair schematics for the CV, CV 2600 Module, and CV Roller Controller? Thanks.

Well, choppy scrolling is something a CV owner is used to. But if it was even like Cosmic Avenger, then no problem. Still, it's clear that the CV can handle vertical scrolling better than horizontal scrolling. Amidarrrrrr......

There is a version of SMB on the MSX, so it could be put on a CV- although the colors need to be modified. Bleah. Opcode Games' Sky Jaguar and Yi-Ar Kung Fu are MSX-to-CV games, by the way. But I think I'd rather see Amidar, or Drol.

A problem I had here with Vigo's posts earlier can best be described by the CV Pac-Man Collection. Since a CV can only show one color/sprite, to have a 2-color character (assuming you cannot combine a sprite with bit-mapping or custom characters) you will need 2 sprites. The problem is this: if more than 4 sprites line up left-right (why do I keep thinking it's 3?), you will get flickering and disappearing. This problem can be seen in Burgertime. Since "stacking" (look at the enemy soldiers in Front Line) cannot be used in the Pac-Man games, in order to have a 2-color ghost you will need 2 sprites. Therefore, anytime any 3 characters line up, there must be some nasty flickering. Figure in Ms. Pac-Man, and the problem is worse, since it could then be up to 11 or 12 (depending on how the prizes look). Therefore, if you just look at the stats of the CV on paper, you could only conclude that you'd best stick with single-color ghosts and prizes (for Ms. Pac-Man). Otherwise, you'd get an intolerable amount of flickering. But the CV moves fast enough for the "flicker/alternating" trick to work. Thus, you CAN have multi-colored characters in the game, with occaisional minor flickering. It's actually less than what one might guess from a normally-programmed SINGLE-colored version. The sprite-specs made it impossible, but the TOTAL abilities of the CV made it quite possible. The point I'm making here is this: it is not enough to simply keep repeating some tech-specs about a system, since such may not fully represent a system's abilities. If I went back in time and described Opcode's CV Ms. Pac-Man itself to most people, even programmers (at Coleco, no less!), they would've told me that it couldn't be done. But it has been done. So it isn't likely we know what the 7800 could have really done. Vigo, you kept describing the different way a 7800 puts images on the screen as opposed to the NES, but all that meant was that the 7800 had a different way of doing it. What if a 7800 has such an ability to put and change objects on screen that it could handle scrolling backgrounds to match an NES? The key question is this: what limitations- including a similar "flicker" method- does the 7800 have? If it can move fast enough, then maybe it could overcome the limitations you pointed out with Sirius. What can a 7800 do if ALL of its abilities are brought into play, used in a manner not normally considered, as Opcode did? The NES had the overwhelming advantage of a top-notch team of developers who never stopped pushing the limits of the NES. As did the 2600. But if the NES was backed by a group of 800-pound gorillas, the 7800 seemed to have been stuck with a few lazy monkeys. Until a 7800 Opcode appears, we may never really know.

Recently, as I was playing Dig Dug on the 7800, I couldn't help but think about this: just what the blazes was Atari DOING back then? It's commonly said that the 7800 was Atari's answer to the NES, but only recently did it occur to me that a system developed- or started- in 1983 wasn't meant for that. You have to remember that you cannot look at this with hindsight, but try to imagine what was assumed and known in 1983. Nobody foresaw the Crash (just as I missed Obama's victory, big time ). Not one single video game magazine I still have even mentioned the NES anywhere. In any form, by any name. Thus, I maintain that the 7800 was meant to go up against the CV. The CV was the big "third generation" system of it's day. Atari had no reason to assume that it wouldn't "still be around" for at least a few more years, as it actually was (Tank Wars release date is usually given as 1986, even though it was a 1984 game). Actually, the whole thing was strange. Remember the commercial bragging about the Pac-Man you could play on the 5200, and mocking the one on the CV? It was THEIR VERY OWN 2600 VERSION!! Yet, some years ago, prototypes of Pac-Man, Dig Dug, and Joust were all discovered. From 1983. All were superior- or would have been- to their own 5200 versions! They nearly matched the looks of the 7800 versions, even! So- they were making fun of the Pac-Man you could play on the CV, even though they themselves had made a superior version! And if not to release one, why then spend the money and time to make one? What was going on? Either way, they don't come off as very brilliant. So- they rush out the 5200, an Atari computer minus the keyboard. 1982. They start developing the 7800 in 1983. They make superior versions of several games- Pac Man, Galaxian, Joust, and Dig Dug- for their rival. 1983. But wait- Pac-Man could've sort of matched Ms. Pac-Man on the 7800, and more so Joust and Dig Dug! So- they were planting the seeds of the 7800's destruction! Why would anyone go with the 7800 instead of a CV? If the 5200's games didn't have enough appeal to make us get a 5200 instead of a CV, then why would those same games do so in 1984 for the 7800? Especially after just dumping the 5200 owners so casually? Especially since now CV owners would already have had at least two of them- very nearly as good- and Pac-Man was better than the 7800's- oh, wait- it didn't have it! And CV Galaxian was a better translation than 7800 Galaga. You know, I've trashed the Tramiels (grrrrr!) many times, but in retrospect it seems as though Old Atari during those years of 1983 and 1984 was run just as badly. Or was this a case of the different sections of Atari not being coordinated, so no-one knew what was going on with the others?

Funny about this post- I was just wondering what a CV version of Qix would look like. Since no more than two colors can be shown on a single 8-pixel line/space, I would assume that the little marker would have to move at 1/2 space at a time (horizontally). Since you'd want to keep the extreme edges clear (they disappear off the sides on many older televisions), your marker would move about 60 times from the left to the right, although vertically could be more liberal.

Cosmic Alien. Hey- I liked it. SNAP JACK. Wizard of WOR. Spectar. Kangaroo. But Atari had it. Super Pac-Man (not likely, because Atari had the rights). Kickman. Nibbler. Bosconian. Jump Bug.

I started this post because of something at the AGH. The simple number of a CV processor is roughly twice that of the 5200's. But they are different processors, so the number is not all there is to it. In short, AGH implied that it was like two people unloading a truck: one moves twice as fast, but the other can carry twice as much. Thus, the same amount of work is done. But for Opcode's (and Atarisoft's) "flicker" method, it would seem as though speed would be the main factor. The faster you can flicker-alternate the images, the better the composite character would look. For maze games, or games like Q*Bert or Mr. Do!, the CV would have a tremendous advantage, although I'd imagine that with scrolling games, like Moon Patrol or Snap Jack (esp. if you wanted smooth horizontal scrolling), where the processor would be slowed down due to the extra work, the method might not work as well. Is this the case?

There are traditionally two kinds of trackball controllers: one that acts like a 5200 controller (potentiometer), and the "pulse" kind, like a CV. Wico made such. A steering module is just one with a wheel and only one plane of movement. You know how the potentiometer kind works; paddles, just like in Super Breakout. The pulse kind acts like you're tapping a joystick really fast. The former is analog; the latter, digital. If you wanted to build a pulse controller for the 5200, in theory it could be done, but indirectly. For example, the "switches" activated could be for controller buttons 4 and 6; each time the sequence is 4-6, the game would read that as a "left" move. 6-4 would be considered "right." The game programming would read this as with my "CV Pole Position." If you check the spinner of a ColecoVision Super Action Controller, you'll see two reed switches that are closed by the two magnets on the wheel. If the sequence is left/left and right/right, then the move is, say, to the left. If it was right/right and left/left, then the game goes the other way. The actual workings are the same as the Roller Controller or Steering module, but each spin does not work as many times, which is why using such a set-up for Turbo would be slower. The magnets can NOT be too close together. Now, look at the holes in the wheel inside the steering controller. Many more close/opens. But to build a pulse controller for an EXISTING game, like Pole Position...tricky. It would have to be something that would make each pulse lower or raise the current going to the 5200, since that's how the game itself reads the instructions. But I don't think it could be done directly; the game reads an ANALOG signal; pulses are digital. Your best bet is to use potentiometers. I would press a potentiometer against the shaft of the steering module, hard enough to turn, but loose enough so if you spin past the potentiometer's end, it won't break. A spring, perhaps. Maybe add a rubber collar to the steering column, for a better hold. If you wanted to play it safe, you could add something (like a peg) to the shaft, so the wheel itself could not turn past certain points. But then there must be no slippage of the potentiometer. Cogs?

Are you referring to the 5200 trackball? The 5200 trackball does use pulse encoding internally, but the output of the trackball to the controller port is strictly analog. The speed of the balls rotation is converted into a voltage level that goes to the 5200 stick input so moving the ball faster is equivallent to push the stick further in one direction. Dan I haven't looked in detail at the CV steering wheel, but I think it outputs the pulses directly. I've done some analysis and repair on the 5200 trackball: there's a fair amount of circuitry in there to convert the pulse rate to a corresponding analog voltage (more likely current) as DanB described. The way I see the circuitry in the trackball controller, it's a tachometer. The main difference is that with a tach, the output would be zero with no rotation and in the trackball the DC output is offset upward such that no rotation outputs, instead of zero, a voltage that is equivalent to "center" on the joystick pot(s). So, even if you made an adapter (as I was originally thinking) to allow the steering module to mimic the 5200 trackball analog output, it would only steer left and right while the wheel was turning and would return to "center" as soon as you stopped moving the wheel. I've done a bit of experimenting with reading gray code using a PIC uController. In theory, I think I could read the output of the steering controller (not sure of the "protocol" it uses) and vary an analog output based on the information conveyed by the pulses. The analog signal would stay where it is until more pulses are detected which would increase or decrease the signal according to which way the wheel was turned. This would create an output that would closely mimic a potentiometer or a "non-self-centering" version of the 5200 trackball output. I'm working on a project that implements something similar so maybe I'll tear into one of my driving modules and see what it would take to build an adapter for the 5200 when I get that far. Not a big moneymaker, I'm sure. I've built a prototype "no battery needed" steering mechanism. It's so crude it's laughable, but it does show that such a thing is possible. It's based on the design of the spinner of the SAC. Unlike a CV, the 5200 is meant mainly to read analog. A CV? Digital. Therefore, they speak two entirely different languages; this is why my digital 5200 controller cannot work with a CV, and a CV controller cannot work on a 5200. Look at it this way: 5200 and a hypothetical CV Pole Position. The car in Pole Position, unlike the ones in Turbo and Pitstop, actually "turns." The ones in Turbo and Pitstop slide left and right, just as in those ancient electromechanical games. So- if you wanted to program Pole Position for the CV, and use the steering module, how would you do it? Well, you could, and the car would turn just as in the 5200 version. But the WAY it would be done is entirely different. With the 5200, it reads the resistance in the controller. Left=less=turn the car left. Right=more=turn the car right. But it's entirely based on the RESISTANCE of the controller: the more you move the controller, the more (or less) resistance there is, and the more the car turns. In other words, how much the car turns is directly related to how much (or little) resistance there is with the controller. If you knew the exact resistance for when the car first turns a bit to the left, and you pulled apart the controller and just soldered in a fixed resistor to those two wires, the car would be in that position. This is why, when starting a 5200 game, if you want the car to face straight ahead, the stick (or paddle) must be in the "middle position." With a 5200, the HARDWARE- the controller- decides how the car is positioned. Just like the paddle in Super Breakout. With a CV, though, it would be different. When you start the game, the SOFTWARE, not the hardware (as in the 5200) would make your car face straight ahead. After this, when you turn the wheel a bit to the left, the CV reads the order in which the "switches" are closed (this is why the holes in the CV Steering mechanism are uneven), and determines that you have turned the wheel a bit to the left. It would make the car turn a bit to the left. Turn it some more, or in the other direction, and it would act accordingly. It's absolutely identical in effect as if you had programmed it to turn the car one way or the other if you tap the joystick- tap it fast, it'll turn fast; tap it slow, it'll turn slow. Each tap turns it a bit. The only way to directly use a CV Steering controller for a 5200 is if you add something to the hardware- a translator- that would, with each pulse from the controller, make it into a higher or lower resistance in the 5200 circuit. But remember that the 5200 controller is analog; the CV, digital. They could not understand one another.

Did you know that there is a pattern for Pac-Man Plus? It's called the "Lee pattern." It works because the main random elements involve the power pills- but this pattern does not use them at all. It is by no means perfect, but it usually works well enough for a good score. Still, this game is tougher than the original. Thanks for including it. I can't wait to play it.