1chipMSX Western Edition news

ok !

Is there any way to buy a japanese version trhough Basix? Since I live in the US I'm more interested in a Japanese version because of e.g. power compability.

Nice, was it hard to get? I suppose I can look at some auction sites if Bazix doesn't sell them (would be easier if they do though )

Dvik: Bazix is not to distribute the Japanese One Chip MSX at all, but as you probably know some people are importing it on small scale. The Western One Chip MSX will, naturally, also support 110-240V though...

Thanks snout. I think you mentioned that you couldn't sell the Japanese version before but I wasn't sure or if it had changed. The good thing with waiting for a European version is that the manuals will be a bit easier to read. And if it supports 110V it will work just fine here

Ok, Music Module (MSX-AUDIO would be better) support would be great! Also imagine if their made a MSX2/2+ version with 2 MB Mapped RAM.Since the MSX2+ was only released on Japan, it would be interesting for customers to have a hardware offering a more advanced MSX model. Otherwise it would be easier to stick to the old (used) computers on the Market!

SCC is popular, but I really don't know how this made the list to the original One Chip MSX.

Yukio, OCM's FPGA source can be relatively easy modified to have more RAM or VRAM, but having advanced hardware support may require more gates than its FPGA has.

That's why I think western OCM should use FPGA with more gates, and it's the most important thing to make it success. These days bigger FPGA should be cheaper.

My suggestions:
-bigger FPGA
-single (stereo) audio output connection
-ethernet
-better USB support

The EP1C12Q240C8N isn't available in a compatible package?

Yeah I'd prefer a minijack over 2 cinch connectors. Do you know of any reason why 2 cinch connectors are used instead of a minijack plug?

I just got my japanese OCM from rklok, works great, and shipping to Canada was nice and cheap.

cax: to reduce production cost, Cyclone I, II and II series are not pin-compatible. They might be (backwords) compatible in other aspects (e.g. code for Cyclone 1 might easily be compiled on Cyclone II), but not when it comes to pin-compatibility.

How easily the OCM PCB can be adapted to support Cyclone II or III with more Logical Elements and what its effect would be on production costs (and compatibility with the Japanese OCM) is beyond my technical knowledge. If there is high demand for more Logical Elements we could at least investigate the possibilities though. The best way to inform Bazix on the changes you would like to see to the OCM (and the suggestions you might have on how to actually implement them) is by e-mail. Although we do read these reactions it's harder to keep track of these than to those that are submitted to us by mail.

I've checked the number of I/O pins for each Altera Cyclone/II/III chip, and almost all of them (except single pair) have different number of pins, even if they have the same package !!! Are really chips with different number of pins incompatible between them ? How can it be that the whole line of chips of the same company is like this ???

Months ago I read in a interview (Retro News) that the initial batch of Western OCM was 500 units (the current OCM). After, for a lot of users was impossible to book one unit.
I don't know how many MSX users there are out of Japan and althought I pre-ordered the 1st and 2nd OCM (I hope soon the 3th one), I would like that the maximum people can buy this new MSX.

Snout: Are 500 units enough?

Thank you for suggest new specs for OCM.

Altera chose to cut costs and make the new generation of chips cheaper by not worrying about pin-compatibility. I guess there's a lot to say for both options.

Bigger FPGA is nice and all, but there's hardly any development on the current 1chipMSX. So, current practice doesn't justify spending more money on a larger FPGA chip.
I'd rather see the current hardware 1chipMSX VHDL expanded to the MSX2+ standard at high speed and quite a bit of RAM.

I just talked with another MSX fan here and especially about this:
"As D4E focuses more and more on digital software distribution, it didn't seem probable for this company to become responsible for the Western 1chipMSX after all, so Bazix came to the conclusion that it would be better to focus on production of the Western 1chipMSX elsewhere."

We actually thought this could be an opportunity. Build the 1chipMSX with an interface to the D4E (or for europe Woomb?) portals to buy programs online! *that* would make the whole 1chipMSX apparatus incredibly interesting. Maybe even profitable for all parties.

I see in this an opportunity to make this OCM a truly 2nd generation one. Bigger FPGA, that is. In this sense it would be a real improvement over the previous version, and may even be attractive to those who got the previous OCM & those who would like to make it compatible with non-MSX systems.

I think "westerners", among others, proved their development skills & motivations, now it's a matter of time, so bigger FPGA seems justified. Compatibility with MSX generations 3 (MSX2+) & 4 (TR) is in many people's minds: for some it may be hard to consider OCM a "generation 5(...) MSX hardware" till compatibility with previous generations is not reached. Well, let's avoid this recurrent MSX definition issue, messed with the FPGA definition it quickly becomes mind blowing. This long await would turn into a real advantage if updated technologies could be included into this OCM version, otherwise it would just be a waist.

Second thing, the link with Woomb software: Ok for running Woomb software under Windows, but something should definitely be done to make them run on OCM too! Even if not running on previous MSX generations for any reason. Bazix & Woomb activities would certainly benefit from this bridge. Otherwise, where would be the coherence in this interesting business? What is to be hoped? But I know, there may be partner companies involved and agreements sometimes go against logic.

Anyway, best wishes to all.

I would like the OCM to be able to run all the existing software, not just msx1&2. If this means it needs another FPGA to meet the msx2+ and turbo-r standards I definitely vote for a bigger FGPA

I have a sad feeling that "western ocm" will never materialize.

Ah.. ok. But what are those pins that looks like an IDE connector in the middle of the board?

1cM or OCM, it's all kinda mixed-up here, the JP box says 1chipMSX ..

PCB redesign will cost money, producing PCB and soldering chips will cost money, and the smaller is the order, the more is the cost per unit.

Dhau has exposed crystal clear the problem here, I'm afraid a new design is highly improbable as this time the japanese market (and the biggest one) would be left apart and sadly the rest of the world can't be compared to the asian market in terms of MSX. There's no profit on create a "high-spec" european OCM or at least is a riskier operation than with the original OCM...

Like all projects, there will most certainly be a "go/no-go" moment in this project as well. Making things work out fine financially is definitely going to be a challenge. Based on the experience with the Japanese OCM and our estimations of how many Western OCMs can be sold it was concluded that it's certainly not impossible and all parties involved are determined to give it everything they've got to make it happen. By making an improved OCM, the device can also be marketed in Japan as a new, limited edition, increasing its potential and production volume - hence reducing cost per unit. You won't hear me say that it's going to be easy, though...

Thanks for thinking along, Hydlide! Actually, we have already put some efforts in getting the FPGA/VHDL/PLD-community to know about the OCM and received quite a bit of interest from there. If and when the Western OCM situation comes more concrete, we'll certainly try and bring it under their attention again.

I still believe it would be helpful if the machine could appeal to a wider audience. I think the best way to achieve that is still to break up the board into two separate pieces. One with the FPGA and the basic connectors you'd want for all machines. And an IO board that connects to one side with the specialised slots, necessary external chips and other stuff. It would require a complete redesign though, but the market potential is a lot bigger.

Another though is that it might be useful to integrate the USB blaster chip on the board. That way there is no hassle with buying a special cable and a standard USB cable can be used.

You're somewhat optimistic there. Unless you're a student, you'll pay a great deal more for a decent dev board that can handle the msx code. And even when you have one of those, it's still not up and running. Porting of the code from one board to another requires more knowledge than most are willing to learn. And you should not underestimate the need for a cartridge slot in a machine that has no disk drive. That's exactly why the 1chipMSX works so well. The only problem with it is the size of the target audience. And that can be fixed by splitting the board. And as a bonus you can have several machines with limited additional cost.

Preinstalled SymbOS?! Haha, just kidding.

LOL