Rendering of Revision B of Enclosure (Close to Final)

I agree on the BBS's. I actually use my Commodore 64 and Wimodem more for BBS banter than games. Of course games are nice, but social media BBS style was and is great fun.

I might be replying to old news, but I like the parallel and serial ports provided by revision B. They provide the possibility of parallel printer support. Granted there are not many printers left in the world which support parallel. Since the SuperIO chip already provides parallel and serial functionality though, I think the system should keep the ports available. They really distinguish this project from other projects in that this is not condemned to being a gaming machine and nothing more. My memories of growing up, with an Apple II and IBM XT Clone of course included games. To only entertain the gaming specific memories would cut out the fun gathered from creative writing and other things done with those computers.

lOOKS GOOD....but I will probably not be able to print it , because 8" is the maximum size my printer will support.

Dan

@Admin Which software are you using to design and render, and then 3Dprint ?

Hi, bonjour Stefany,

it is just a quick 2 cents post... As the C256 aims to be what a successor of the Commodore 8 bits line would have been, I think that a beige enclosure would be a perfect match. But I don’t know if such plastic exist for 3D printer. I would also see a C64c/C128-128D-like logo on the front of the enclosure, with your little rainbow rays ;-)

I'm new to this forum and I find the project fascinating but I find it odd that there will be a 3 1/2 inch disk drive but no SD card reader. The 31/2 inch disk is seriously obsolete, with very few if any PC's having such drives fitted and the disks difficult if not impossible to buy, while the SD card is a common storage method and already used by many C=64 and C=128 owners. As modern PCs don't have disk drives at all but often do have SD card readers, how do you expect owners to get downloaded programs etc onto the 3 1/2 inch disks? I understand your desire to design the 256 with some retro parts, but it seems to me if you want to sell a device which is use-able in 2018 you need to rethink the 3 1/2 inch versus SD card decision.

Stefany, ok... gotcha. Obviously, there would need to be a little logic and electrical path to the SID. The C-One did something similar so I wouldn't be surprised of something similar. A question that I would have would relate to the joystick port and the SID. The SID is the used with the POTX / POTY lines. I might have missed it somewhere but do you have plans for POTX/POTY implementation on the joystick port. These lines were used for potentiometer (paddles) and analog joysticks, trackballs, and analog mouse that was used on the Commodore. They only need a couple pins on each of the joysticks.

NOTE: Only one SID is required for that unless you were to have FOUR joystick ports and then the second SID would be useful on that front. This can be useful on the extended expansion port to have the extra POTX/POTY lines from the second SID chip. If I read it right, two SID chips since you had some reference for a stereo SID. Those POT lines can be useful for a variety of peripherals even new ones that people may experiment with.

Well, I mentioned many times that I would not be the one to do it. As far as I am concerned, I think Tom is doing software only. I did promise that I would include in the hardware design as much backward compatibility stuff as I could (i.e. user port, IEC, cartridge signals, etc...).

Anybody interested would have to basically reintegrate the VIC and simulate the missing registers of the 6526s and the registers $00/#01 of the 6510 or to integrate a 6510 in the FPGA itself. The SID is there, so I guess some glue logic would be needed as well. Either way, considering that many people have done that kind of job before, I would not be surprised to see somebody do it early on when the hardware will be available.

I for one, am more interested in bringing the C256 to life than to re implement an already existing system that already lives through multiple platforms and emulations either software or hardware.

Cheers

Stefany

Sorry, I meant 3d printed design. Alright. I thought you or Tom or someone was working on the C64 emulation at some point.

I am not sure... But I think you missed something along the way. There is "no" mold. This will be a 3d printed enclosure.

The cartridge is physically not like a C64. It is smaller and denser in terms connections. 64 pins as apposed to 42. However, a section of its pin out is compatible with a C64. You will need an adapter to fit old cartridge to new connector.

I would remind everybody that unless somebody creates a C64 emulation for the C256 all this cartridge compatibilty shenanigans will be pointless.

Stefany

The reset button could also be on the front if that is a consideration. In consideration of the expansion port, Has this been mechanically thought out with an actual C64 cartridge with the plastic housing? I wonder if the plastic housing would physically jam up on part of the physical connector. I would check that out before final mold design is complete. Otherwise, you might hear some reaction. I'm bringing it forth while it can be made.

Luke,

I hear you... Let me tell you what drove many of my decisions... The size of the enclosure. I didn't want to go all plastic molding, because I don't have $15,000 dollars hanging around in my apartment and I didn't want to wait 6 months to get something. Now, since the enclosure was going to be 3D Printed, then I needed to limit myself to a reasonable print bed size. I have a CR-10L that is decently sized without being too big. The CR-10 is a very popular printer and fairly cheap, so for me that was a good choice. Then the design laws of proportion applied hence you get a enclosure with something around 10 x 7. Then, with that in place, you need to find a way to fit everything in.

Mega65 found a way to get a lot of money and he could finance his plastic molds and paradoxically, his board is very tiny and barely takes any space considering that he decided to integrate everything in one single FPGA. I choose to go the opposite direction not because I wanted to be different but because I wanted to have the 1987 design set of rules. The Mega65 team didn't bother having a rule like that because that wasn't their goal. Their goal was to create a replica of the C65 with some obvious enhancements.

You see, different choices, different paradoxes.

In the end, my early choice of using 3D Printed technology to get an enclosure has dictated the fact that the power plug is unfortunately not on the back and because of the cartridge connector being is so close to the side wall, the on/off switch could not be either on the back side or on the right back side thus, it found its way in the front.

Choices, choices...

Cheers

Stefany

In a recent Commodore History video, The 8-Bit Guy says that he was glad that the powerport was moved to the rear of the Commodore Plus/4 (https://youtu.be/ICiZbUypMlQ?t=10m22s). It could said that Commodore would not have done this one the C256 as it was returned to its previous position on the C128, however i don't see this as a reason for why it can't face the back on the Feonix machine. In this event, most of the regularly used ports would face the back, leaving the two sides free unless utilising the joystick or expansion ports.

In this same video, I was amazed at some of the graphics that could be created with the plus/4's colourful TED chip and i think with the addition of hardware sprites, it could produce some amazing results on the C256. I problem with this, however, is the rarity of these TED chips. Apparently they were extremely prone to burning out so this idea might be impossible for a reasonable price.

" Personally, the only thing I can really say about the design is that having cables come off three different sides of the computer might be an issue... but perhaps someone will come up with a way to resolve that, such as a port replicator that uses the cartridge port. :) "

Elaborate what you mean. We already have port expanders for cartridge ports. CMD made a 3 port expander.

http://rr.c64.org/rrwiki/images/3/3b/Commodore_World_Issue07Vol02No02_EX2plus1_EX3.pdf

At the time, Commodore would have used 15-pin DB15 VGA/SVGA connector. DVI can carry traditional VGA video signals but also digital video but Commodore had the choice to do analog RGB 15 KHz to 31KHz at the time and they had the choice of RGBI (TTL digital.... the CGA style). RGBI sends video in TTL digital format but then inside the monitor is a little daughter card called a RGBI video DAC which converts the RGBI to analog RGB. The 1902 monitor is really just an Analog RGB monitor like the one used for Amiga 1000 & Amiga 500 with a video DAC board built in. That's what color CGA monitors really were.

While there are sources for DB15 connectors that can be found in the millions for awhile but VGA is an obsolete connector become more difficult to source. DVI maybe an issue in the future. I am not too concerned.

Honestly, as for keyboard, I have a keyrah ( https://www.vesalia.de/e_keyrahv2.htm ). This is a good way to use a malfunctioning C64/64C/C128/etc.) with a good keyboard. However, it uses USB for connecting to PC so a device similar to that but sends to PS/2 protocol. A USB header (4-pin) would be nice.

SD2IEC is a C= Serial bus device.

PARALLEL PORT: (Throwing out an idea here!)

It shouldn't be too unrealistic for a IEEE-488 connector for a "SD2GPIB" (GPIB = IEEE-488 which is a parallel bus that is what the Commodore Serial Bus protocol was based on) storage device. The fact that the IEEE-488 was used on Commodore machines since the PET and it was FAST compared to the slows as *bleep* Commodore serial bus as found on Vic-20, C64, Plus/4, C-16, and the C-128/128D. Since there is a parallel port, there is a way we can use that port with an interface cable. On the C256, it would be cool to implement IEEE-488 protocol support over the parallel port. (NOTE: It has been done with regular ol' PC parallel port).

We could have a command like: LOAD"*",P#,1 (where P# can mean P0-P30..... P being parallel IEEE-488 protocol mode and if we weren't evil enough.... maybe HS-488 extension) and be on a separate device number chain from that of serial bus so we don't run out of device #'s too quickly. Do something better than Commodore originally did with Commodore Serial bus which ran out of devices it can handle on the bus after a few devices. Sooner or later, Commodore would have had to go to faster bus (back to the IEEE-488 for example) to handle the emerging CD-ROM drivers and faster hard drive access. CD-ROM was an existing technology on Commodore's radar. Remember, CD-ROM was introduced in 1985. To write to the WORM drive (as these were once called --> CD-ROM burner). To write to this drive, you needed data to move fast enough with buffered memory in the controller board Commodore would have employed had they decided to make a CD-ROM drive for the 8-bit line. It would have been an expensive peripheral, I'm pretty sure but also when you want to keep up with their competitor's computer like the MS-DOS PC, you eventually need to get it up to speed so to speak.

The SuperIO standards for EPP would allow up to 2 MBytes/Sec. data rate (half-duplex). In which case, that is fast enough that we can engineer full HP IEEE-488/GPIB + C= PET/CBM support over such a bus. In theory, Commodore PET should be able to support any HP device that had IEEE-488 connector. A C256 could theoretically 'emulate' IEEE-488 protocol over the parallel port. What we basically need is the facility to employ protocol via ML routines. The rest is physical interface cable. If we are really nifty, we could implement HS-488 extension which optimized some of the timing that allowed for a bit faster data rate. Aside from designating pins, the rest is protocol via ML (machine language) routines. It will be great to be able to use IEEE-488 protocol over it when we want to just as we could already do on PC. On the PC, this had already been done many years ago.

I have a little device called the Flyer Internet Modem that has the GPIB interface. I know, it doesn't seem like ethernet over twisted pair existed but actually it did. StarLAN 10 was officially implemented as a 10 Mbps ethernet in 1988 but a slower precursor began to be implemented in 1984. 10Base-T formally standardized in 1990 but hey, why wouldn't one of the largest microcomputer manufacturers in the world not know? The Flyer Internet Modem is basically a 10baseT ethernet interface.

While we could use the User port or cartridge port, it is a lot sleeker to use the parallel port if we can implement IEEE-488 protocol support that Commodore had already been using since around 1977 with the introduction of the PET.

Tom,

The side with Parallel & Serial can be removed, so only 2 sides remains... Like C64/C128. The left side is really to allow peeps to create expansion cards with possible access to the outside world...

Stefany

Yeah, I can't imagine trying to do composite output on a new computer today. Not only are composite-capable displays going away, but imagine the hassle of trying to add yet more circuitry to scale several different resolutions down to a PAL or NTSC monitor. Oh yeah, and there's that issue... NSTC vs PAL vs SECAM vs several other video formats. DVI quite nicely fixes that issue by providing a universal standard with the ability to detect monitor capabilities.

Personally, the only thing I can really say about the design is that having cables come off three different sides of the computer might be an issue... but perhaps someone will come up with a way to resolve that, such as a port replicator that uses the cartridge port. :)

Hey Luke,

I am glad that a new voice is showing up to post comments about the project. I have to admit that it was a long and interesting post. Also, I have to say that I admire the fact that you went out of your way to critic it, based on the dating which I have been trying to enforce. But as any good story would go, the first one to break the rule is often the one who established them in the first place. I have to admit that it has been quite the challenge to stay true to my philosophy while being conscious of the fact that we are not in 1987 but in 2018. Where to draw the line? That has been the most difficult part for me. I had to make sacrifices in order to keep the product at a reasonable cost because at the end of the day I would like people to enjoy it for what it's going to be, as opposed of what it could have been and make it available to a reasonable cost. (I don't intend to make money with it, it was never about the money)

It is impossible to satisfy everybody's wishes and dreams when it comes to something like a possible Commodore successor and your post is a good example of that. Not that your comments are not valid, on the contrary I think they are very relevant, because in principle I agree with most of them, but again I had to make certain choices because of the fact that we are in 2018 and I can't deny certain things just for the sake of denying them. So for example, I did remove the sdcard because I didn't like it either, but instead, I gave an entry point to install an internal custom SD2IEC and while you won't have a sdcard slot on the C256 board, you will ultimately have a sdcard slot in the back attached to an extra module. The micro-usb is for the development model only. The end unit won't have a micro-usb because it is a debug port to help and enable the development and debugging of applications which the platform will need. The DVI/VGA was a no brainer for me because it would have been downright stupid to put a composite out just for the sake of doing so. I want to enable people not discourage them. These are some of the choices I had to make and I am not even getting into the usage of old parts that are bringing more problems (and cost) than solving. But, despite the fact that it was more problematic to use old parts, it also gave it its 1987's vibe which was what I was after.

Finally, you have to understand that this is my take (my vision) of what I think it could have been with the components I have access to today. Besides, something great about that project is that, ultimately you will be able to mold it as you see fit if you so desire since it was one of my own directive to make it open source and flexible. You know that there is actually a C64 compatible connector inside if you so wish to design your own enclosure and use the board and put a C64 keyboard instead!

Alright, I must go back to it... I hope you will eventually get one and have fun with it!

Cheers!

Stefany

I have some thoughts regarding the case design of the proposed Commodore 256.

Typically, the right panel of Commodore machines leading up to 1987 was situated closer to the back side of the case. I believe Commodore would have continued this trend if they ever made the Commodore 256. I also think that the power switch would be better located next to the power-in, however, these are just two subjective opinions.

More imperially, I think the inclusion of the PS/2 connector is a good idea; Wikipedia says that they were introduced by IBM in 1987 so these are historically plausible.

This is in contrast to the DVI on the rear face, designed in April of 1999. I think that the standard 8-pinned a/v DIN connector and an RGBI would be much more appropriate. I do think that the RCA audio connectors are a good idea but I think it would be a good idea to include a composite video signal alongside them to be used with a 1702 monitor. As for MIDI, I haven’t had much to do with so I can’t form an opinion regarding that. On top of this, I would consider adding a DIN connector for a 1531 Datassette (as opposed to the traditional edge connector to conserve space) because a lot of people, especially in the European and Australian Markets, still used cheaper cassettes instead of floppy disks at that time. (An adapter for the 1530 CN2 could be included with the machine.)

I love the idea of having a customisable expansion panel on the side of the computer; my only suggestion would be to allow for a removable cover for uses that do not use this feature. (I think if Commodore had of gone down this path, they would have developed an expansion additionally purchased with the computer that would have allowed for the 128D keyboard to be used on this machine.) I’m not a huge fan of the concept of adding a Micro-USB port on the C256 put I can see how it would be useful in today so I’m not going to say it should be removed. I think that the RESET button is brilliant and also like headphone output you’ve included.

I much prefer this case style over that of the first revision as I found the original colour too distracting against the dark plastic. I’m not sure if this would be the case if it were coloured a classic beige but it may well be; either way I think the new design is a massive improvement. In my opinion, I feel the nameplate is a bit too large and prefer the font Microgamma D Extended that was used on the previous Commodore machines, (and I have my reservations about the name Feonix,) but since you’re developing this computer you have every right to include your own personal flair. (If you have any reasons why you chose this name I would love to hear them.) I think that the change to the standard 3½” floppy disk rather than the 5¼” used in the Commodore 128D (a machine of a similar form-factor) is a prudent choice, making it much more easy to transfer files from modern computers. I looked on Wikipedia and found that this new format was outselling its predecessor by as early as 1988, a year before the C256 would have theoretically came out and I think that this would have happened sooner if Commodore had released this product.

Despite my inclination to historical accuracy, I do think that an SD2IEC would be a vital component if you ever planned to sell the Commodore 256 commercially as copying files to slow floppy disks, while novel, would become a bit of a chore if the only way to move files from the internet to your machine without the need for additional equipment. I hope you reintroduce this feature back into the computer.

To all those who have taken the time to read this rather lengthy comment, thank you. I would like you to know that I bear no malice and don’t want my words to be interpreted with such. Sometimes I can come across as condescending but this is not my deliberately; I wish to provide constructive criticism and feedback on the progress of the Commodore 256 and do so with the best intentions.

"However, I am already pondering a parallel version that will give improved speeds."

Yeah, the parallel port seems interesting. I'll be considering a IEEE-488 interface to parallel port (Centronics) then Centronics to IEEE-1284. If necessary, I'll look into making one. I have something that would benefit somewhat from the parallel port. I know I can use the User Port but that would get busily used by WiiModem or whatever Wifi modem or other user port devices. The soft-kernal routines for driving that could be implemented by custom software.

Here's a reference on interfacing: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/ieee-488-(aka-gpib-or-hpib)/?action=dlattach;attach=57834

There are others....a different thread later can be go into that process.

OK. https://www.thefuturewas8bit.com/sd2iec-sm.html

you can fab a cable, if you want, but for anyone buying a new SD2IEC, the people making them aldready did that work just buy one with a USB or User port cord

I think you misunderstand what the debug port is. it will not supply power; it’s a device port, not a host port.

Still, the black SD2IEC from The Future Was 8-Bit will work nicely; just power it from a USB power brick or the User port.

Either way, this looks great, Stefany. Now I just need to find a place near me that has a printer with a large enough bed for this.

Traditionally Commodore serial bus devices got their power from the wall (look at disk drives and printers). We can make the cable to USB very inexpensively. While we can use the user port, it would make more sense to power it from a USB 'brick'.

I edit out the part on powering from the debug port so powering it from USB brick via adaptor 7-pin mini-DIN to USB adapter is easy.

:) You're two steps ahead of me, then. I'll just go sit in the corner and stay quiet until someone asks me a question. :)

Tom,

If you look at the placement picture you will see a 10 pin header just below the user port. Jim is already all over this. I just need to provide mechanical info. So don't worry Y'all! you will have a SDCard interface...

3D Printing, all the parts will have to printed separately with the different colors. So yes, you will have all the STL for single color parts that you may choose to change as you see fit.

Some assembling will be required, even for the Lettering.

Cheers

S

awesome (on the internal sd2iec). will there be a pin header we can just plug into? If so, maybe we can get Jim Drew to fab one that has a cable and plug, so we can just plug one in. Otherwise, I will just use one I have. However, I am already pondering a parallel version that will give improved speeds. I’m hoping that with a Teensy, I can do maybe 1Mbps.

and on printing the case, the local place that does 3D printing doesnt have a multi-filament printer, so I can only do one color. Will you also have an STL for a single color design?

Hey Tom,

I mentioned that already, but there is an internal connector (10 pins header) for an internal SD2IEC. I didn't get the chance to make the changes on the enclosure, but SDCard slot will be just above the User port.

Now, 3D printer wise, a CR-10 will do. It looks bigger than it is.

Cheers,

Stefany

I think you misunderstand what the debug port is. it will not supply power; it’s a device port, not a host port.

Still, the black SD2IEC from The Future Was 8-Bit will work nicely; just power it from a USB power brick or the User port.

Either way, this looks great, Stefany. Now I just need to find a place near me that has a printer with a large enough bed for this.

An SD2IEC can be simply powered by a 5v DC source. You can use any commonly available USB adapter. Use the black "Plus/4" style SD2IEC. Just make a 7-pin mini-DIN to USB adapter cable and use the SD2IEC with black (Plus/4 style) case. The adapter is a very simple adapter. Stef, you have the knowledge of electronics well enough to do that. I suggest the Plus/4 style SD2IEC because it's color scheme fits closer to the color scheme of the C256.

One of these ( https://www.showmecables.com/mini-7-pin-din-female-solder-connector?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIoM6-zq633AIVlrrACh1znAYOEAQYASABEgKIgPD_BwE ) and a USB cable with a male Type A USB connector and a Type B USB connector

( https://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=5438&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIqfK92LO33AIVirXACh3QPQPLEAQYDCABEgIzUfD_BwE )... lop off the Type B connector and then supply a USB DC adapter: such as these: https://www.ebay.com/i/181280348409?chn=ps (which are 500 mAmp --- more than needed for the SD2IEC ).

All you need to connect in pin 1 & 2 of the 7-pin Mini-DIN to the power & ground line.

http://www.zimmers.net/anonftp/pub/cbm/schematics/computers/plus4/connectors-2.jpg

You can shop around for parts for best economy pricing and color. I chose black where ever possible for cosmetics continuity. Alternatively, I may use red cable but finding the right shade of red as the cord color is kind of difficult and black color cable is much more common and cheaper.

[Edit: Removed the part about connecting to the debug port. Refer to Tom's post below]

It's simple and dumb enough to be PD so there it guys.... out there.

Keep it simple. The reason I suggest the SD2IEC for Plus/4 is the mini-DIN connector is readily available where the connector for the C64 cassette port is not as readily available and sourcing can be a challenge.