You can take the problem from another angle : if the OCM is an hardware emulator of the MSX2 system with some improvements, than openMSX and blueMSX are the best software emulators and are actually the MSX3, with (almost) all the video/sound chips for MSX and with extra features (save states, video captures, trainer, debugger, audio captures, screenshots, renderers, audio mixer, ...).

Besides that, blueMSX is a MSX3+, because it supports also systems that are very close to MSX (SVI, Coleco, Sega). A living proof of that ? See the projects of opcode !!!!

Emulators are an issue on their own. Once there's an OCM emulator then the value of a physical OCM decreases. (I think)

The only advantage is the limitation of the gates in the OCM, compared to the limitless options for emulators on PC's. These gates limitations imply that not just everything can be made out of it, these limitations will give it its charm (or "personality", as old 'n emotional Latok calls it ).

All this PC vs physical is true for game consoles as well. Perhaps the latest PS/XBox will be blazingly fast on its release, but it's a matter of waiting before PC's run circles around it.

There can't be such a thing as an OCM emulator, unless you want to include a complete VHDL simulator. That sounds like nonsense.

Why couldn't a VHDL emulator be made?

Let's open the usual doors. For me, MSX is a system on which it is easy to create things yourself. Whether it's gfx, music or coding stuff. On the 'hardware' side, an important part of MSX3 should be an easier memory access. Also, MSX3 needs a faster CPU and VDP with GFX9000 features. All in all the updates don't have to be that spectacular indeed. Just fix some typical MSX limitations and that will do just fine.

More important than the usual blabla......MSX3 should motivate me to visit MSX community sites and go to IRL MSX meetings. For the fun of it.

Actually, mr. Wolf......If you ask me 'what is MSX', I should say: WE are MSX

I still DO like a fixed hardware setting, though. And I like your 'gates limitations'. Actually, in line with this limitation, I think MSX3 also should have some serious problems. Those problems are cool to find a work-around-solution. And that makes us feel good

Although I think its a fun project and I'd like to dig into the VHDL code and do stuff, I think its a bit late to talk about an MSX3 computer. I really think the MSX ended with the Turbo-R when the real commercial production ended (I don't count hobby like project like Moonsound and GFX9000 here. They are great features but nothing that brings food to the table).

So talking about an MSX3 standard sounds like a fantasy of some projection of what may have happened in the early 90's if the MSX would have continued commercial development.

I think its better to take the OCM for what it is, a neat little piece of hardware that can emulate MSX, just like those joysticks you can buy that embeds namcot or c64 games. It is of course more substantial than that and is also a fun toy for people that wants to experiment with VHDL and like to try out hardware development. But imo talking about MSX3 is really just unrealistic fantasies. Its a fun toy that has its place in the MSX scene but I doubt it will have even close to as much impact on the scene as PC emulators, Wii, or woomb.

Well, I don't think the OCM was developed just to be a neat little piece of hardware that can emulate MSX. That would be pretty useless, as there are plenty of second hand MSX computers available for sale to everyone interested. Not to speak about ever improving MSX emulators such as blueMSX and openMSX.

Then I think the OCM developers may get a bit disappointed. I don't think it will become a well defined MSX3 that is a mature successor of the TR (besides its 15 years too late). Those C64 joytsicks were on the front shelves in stores for 6 months or so and now they are in the back. I think the OCM will have a similar future. I think MSX users will most likely just treat it as a neat little toy. What makes people interested in MSX is that it is retro, simple and brings back memories from the good old 80's and early 90's. The OCM is not retro at all and for the same price you can get a Wii which is about the same size and a lot more capable.

Still though, I think its a neat little piece of hardware and I wouldn't mind having one.

If there is only going to be fragmented OCM VHDL coding, then the whole OCM will indeed slowly die, I agree completely, dvik. That's why there is a great need for a structured OCM development platform.

I practically see NO action on that part. And that makes me pessimistic about the long-term OCM success.

Alex Wulms his contributions to this thread are bright spots, though. With his talent and attitude, I'm confident something good will come out of it. Alex, can I ask you: do you have serious motivation to start OCM VHDL development? And are you doing this in some kind of structured way with other people or all by yourself? You're operating from the side line for quite some time now, yet you seem to be very well informed. Please, enlighten me

Quote:

That's why there is a great need for a structured OCM development platform.

Definately. VHDL gives both great possibilities but also big challenges. I don't want to see the OCM die, and I'm hoping there will be some structure of the OCM development.

Quote:

I think MSX3 also should have some serious problems.

NO! For once let the MSX3 be plain logical, so one could do things without too much trickery. Move yourself to the position of an artist. Wouldn't it be great if the artist can cook things using his own idiom without having to ask a programmer whether things are possible or not? "Ye olde Fuzzy Logic saying: if it looks cool on MSX, then it's a trick". We've endured those tricks enough I think.

Quote:

Those problems are cool to find a work-around-solution.

Do you ever read MRC at all? See the current poll, the last thing we need now is something that takes all our precious time in order to get somewhere.

Quote:

WE are MSX

Senile ol' geek.

Are you on speed or something? ^_^ Don't reply only to snippets, you bastard!

@wolf_: If you want plain and logical, why don't you program PC games instead? They solved the problem 15 years ago and so did nintendo and others. To motivate the existence of an OCM MSX3 I think it needs to have MSX characteristics (whatever that is). Making a totally new gaming platform based on 15 year old technology for the price of a modern console doesn't really make sense, does it?

Just in a rush.. MSXDev'06 knocking on the door and Edwin's buggy editor kicking projects out..

Anyway: let imagination be a limiting factor, not a machine..

Indeed Wolf, reacting that way almost gives the idea you don't get the charm of the MSX system. That can't be true, tho