PropGFX would do amazing things for opening access to advanced sprite and graphics controls allowing more who would be writing games to do just that. You guys hold a vital key to lowing the barriers to access here.
Toss that Trial binary out and test the waters.. I'll bet I'm right..
I have a feeling this could be really useful for a lot of other applications.
Personally I have wanted to computerize my truck and the one of the things that has kept me from doing it has been a nice display. But I think the propGFX could make it a lot easier.
I don't think the Propeller is a good market for the PropGFX. Why? Because it doesn't do anything that you cannot already do with a standalone propeller. One of the things that makes the propeller so powerful is that it was designed to do video! Now if you have project that needs video, the PropGFX will make that task a little easier, and you will get a lot more breathing room with memory. But I think most people that want to do video on the propeller will be ok with just a stock propeller.
But what about all the other MCUs? ARM, AVR, PIC, those MCUs have a more classic design that wasn't meant to do video. Sure people have made applications on those MCUs that render video (I have myself) and it is definitely doable. But you aren't going to find prototype boards with video out already wired up (better be good at soldering), and when you have video running, you will pretty much dedicate the MCU to video only. I think the strength in PropGFX is that you would be able to easily bring video to MCUs that don't natively support it.
Let says you have MCU X that you know inside and out and you want to add video to it with little hassle. Plug in the PropGFX and you are set.I think the key would be to show it working with other MCUs as an easy upgrade. Maybe make a little game system out it and something else.
Of course after people get comfortable with it and find out it is all running on different stock MCU (propeller) then that pique's their interest to look closer at the propeller for their project needs.
I guess the real truth of the matter is that we dont honestly believe that it will get used.
We see their being more mileage away from Propeller circles such as Arduino.....
Ive spoken to Baggers on many occasions about this and we both feel that games development on Propeller has ground to a halt and that is one of the primary reasons we did this.
That would seem a pity. And can Arduino really do all the things the prop can?
Is the problem that it won't make money? I know that is a difficult question because maybe there is no money to be made emulating old games which themselves may still be under copyright.
There ought to be a market for building graphics from scratch on the propeller, even for writing games from scratch.
I've pondered this many times. If you want a complex game you run out of code space. But if you want complex graphics then most/all the hub ram is used for graphics so no space for code. There must be solutions and I think one of them is running Catalina in external memory with all the hub used for a graphics buffer. I'm sure there are other solutions too.
But then again, I posted a youtube video recently of the propeller playing a cartoon and it got linked by youtube to a video you guys did two years ago doing the same thing.
So... if this project is stalled, that would be a great loss. How much of the knowledge so far gained is proprietary?
I think Baggers needs to chime in here, after all there would be an amount of work involved in getting a trial binary released, I have no problem in letting you all have one it's just will it be worth our effort?
All of the code is proprietary, that is where the intrinsic value of PropGFX is, we've put in too much hard work and effort to just give it away.
Ironically the code may be better suited when Prop 2 comes out as at least we would have a way of protecting the IP and expanding it capabilities making it much more attractive away from Prop circles.
The cold hard truth is that bar for a few individuals (OBC being just one) no one is even looking at game development any more, look at the VGA driver Baggers just released, is anyone working with that????
Even Baggers himself has stalled with game development on Propeller, he's got maybe half a dozen half completed games that would knock your socks off if he had the impetus to finish them.
Maybe if you badger him enough he'll get re-invigorated enough to release something ;-)
Be warned though he is very very busy with paying work right now........
Hi All,
Thought I best chime in lol
I too ( like JTCook said ) think that the PropGFX's strengths is going to be not in the propeller market, but in other MCU's basically bringing the joys and powers of the propeller to the rest of the MCU world.
Yes, we too will enjoy it on the propeller, but I think it will get most use elsewhere where they don't have the video capabilities we have.
I've been too busy with paying work and other stuff, but things should ease off during mid Jan
Thanks for all you're patience and continued interest
Cheers,
Baggers.
I can certainly see the Propeller based PropGFX being a great introduction for the "other" microcontroller groups.
One of the strengths of PropGFX other than being multi-processor compatible is that it provides easy access to advanced graphics features of the Propeller. I'm just now getting my Propeller legs on enough to understand signal generation on the Propeller which is pretty much required to work with anything advanced enough to write games. If I'm in this boat after 4 years of part-time Propeller study, then there are probably many.
We have many great video objects thanks to Eric, Baggers, Cook, Chip and others, but honestly the Hydra-book is probably a bit much for folks who have both limited prior experience in microcontroller programming, and limited time to play. Projects like PropGFX will remove these complex barriers allowing many who otherwise would be overwhelmed by the complexities of graphics generation to get into game creation.
Wow, wondered what happened to the PropGFX, now I know.
But I have to agree with JTCook and Baggers, the PropGFX would do better being marketed to users of ARM's, PIC's and AVR's who need VGA or NTSC video capabilities. Because at the moment I don't see much in the way of easy to add on video display that one can buy and with millions using these beasties, the chances of making money look a lot better than catering to a video game development which looks to be dead.
I'm sure it's not as complete or efficient as PropGFX but the Chameleons from Nurve Networks (xgamestation.com) have a graphics driver that runs on the Propeller and responds to a serial command set sent over a SPI link from either a PIC24 or AVR processor on the same board. The code is available so I guess you could use it to allow any MCU (even another Propeller) to talk to a Propeller-based graphics processor. In case you haven't heard of the Chameleons, there are two models. One has an ATmega328p and a Propeller. The other has a PIC24HJ128GP502 and a Propeller. In both cases, the two MCUs are connected through a SPI link.
Is Propeller game development really dead?
I know that this year alone I have made over 10 games with the Propeller, almost all of which were duel-prop systems!
I think the reason that video game development is considered dead is that you put a lot of effort into something that emulates something that was obsolete 15 years ago. There is simply no market or gain in that.
Here's an idea: A Propeller video game that is NOT made after an old one! Has it ever been done?
One of the problems is that the drivers duplicate the same functionality of the old games, hence older games are created.
I think it would be fun to see some retro-style games designed after newer themes.
It would also take a LOT of pressure off folks to completely duplicate the expectations of a game everyone already knows. Kinda like singing a song that EVERYONE knows. You HAVE to get every note right or EVERYONE knows it.
Given that interest in the Hydra and video games has almost died out at this site, it doesn't look like the PropGFX would do well if it's just targeted at a relative handful of die hard video gamers.
I also think by making it a video processor for people using ARM's and whatever other 32bit beastie they have running about, would be a great way to introduce them to the Prop.
From time to time Leon brings some spicey things from the outside-propellerworld into the propeller-world.
Thinking "outside of the box" is a way to innovate. Imagine Chip Gracey would have stopped the development of the propeller-chip
just because somebody commented Huuh no interrupts?!!! no hardware SPI, UART?!!! go away with that!!
Your favorite MCU wouldn't have been developed.
How about picking up some software concepts of this chip for Prop 2?
Leon, that's no CPLD. It has 14 KBytes of SRAM... that rules all Altera, Xilinx and Lattice devices (the only ones I saw with internal SRAM, the MachXO)... besides the packaging. And it only eats 25 mA at 3.3V... that rules FPGAs out .
Its interesting to see everyones opinions about where PropGFX sits.
A lot of comments have suggested ARM would be a good fit and the truth is we decided the same some time ago. We are currently looking at STM32 series and also the increasingly popular MBED.
But you know we are both busy guys and this will always take a backseat to whatever pays the bills.
I will have a proper chat with Baggers over Christmas and see if I can persuade him to release a binary.
@microcontrolled
10 dual prop games eh?
That makes you the most prolific games designer on here, well done!
I for one would love to see them if you would care to share them with us.
You might also be interested in the guitar hero clone, 'Joypad Hero' that Baggers did two years ago.
(Its towards the end of this youtube clip)
Leon, that's no CPLD. It has 14 KBytes of SRAM... that rules all Altera, Xilinx and Lattice devices (the only ones I saw with internal SRAM, the MachXO)... besides the packaging. And it only eats 25 mA at 3.3V... that rules FPGAs out .
I've worked out what it is from the pinout - it must be a16-bit PIC. They can deliver up to 40 MIPS.
Since it came up for conversation, here are my thoughts about games on the Propeller:
When the Propeller and Hydra were first released, there was quite a few people making games. There was a variety of games from clones of other games to original titles. Also at this time there wasn't a huge variety in hardware. You had the Hydra, demo board, proto board, and Hybrid board. With those boards they were very similar were only minor changes needed to be made to have the program work on multiple boards. Now that the Propeller has been out for a few years people are expanding on it by adding memory, extra Propeller chips, etc. I know I have been unable to try anything that falls outside of a "stock" propeller setup.
Games are hard to make. Especially when it is on a limited system like the Propeller and 32K is not a lot to work with. People also have a hard time finishing projects (this is true no matter what platform you are working on). It is easier to start a project then to finish it. And even though the propeller is designed to do video, it can still be a large learning curve to make something others may view as simple.
HD TVs are in more homes than they were a few years ago. On digital TVs NTSC video varies from good to really poor, where on a tube TV the picture quality (across NTSC) was pretty consistent. I am lucky because the games I have done look pretty good on my TV.
I would still say that the Propeller has a good cache of games verses other micros or DIY setups (including Uzebox). Also I know Remz (one of the original Hydra programmers) is working on a nice looking game as well as myself for the C3. I am really excited for both games!
Comments
Really?
<blinks>
PropGFX would do amazing things for opening access to advanced sprite and graphics controls allowing more who would be writing games to do just that. You guys hold a vital key to lowing the barriers to access here.
Toss that Trial binary out and test the waters.. I'll bet I'm right..
OBC
Personally I have wanted to computerize my truck and the one of the things that has kept me from doing it has been a nice display. But I think the propGFX could make it a lot easier.
I don't think the Propeller is a good market for the PropGFX. Why? Because it doesn't do anything that you cannot already do with a standalone propeller. One of the things that makes the propeller so powerful is that it was designed to do video! Now if you have project that needs video, the PropGFX will make that task a little easier, and you will get a lot more breathing room with memory. But I think most people that want to do video on the propeller will be ok with just a stock propeller.
But what about all the other MCUs? ARM, AVR, PIC, those MCUs have a more classic design that wasn't meant to do video. Sure people have made applications on those MCUs that render video (I have myself) and it is definitely doable. But you aren't going to find prototype boards with video out already wired up (better be good at soldering), and when you have video running, you will pretty much dedicate the MCU to video only. I think the strength in PropGFX is that you would be able to easily bring video to MCUs that don't natively support it.
Let says you have MCU X that you know inside and out and you want to add video to it with little hassle. Plug in the PropGFX and you are set.I think the key would be to show it working with other MCUs as an easy upgrade. Maybe make a little game system out it and something else.
Of course after people get comfortable with it and find out it is all running on different stock MCU (propeller) then that pique's their interest to look closer at the propeller for their project needs.
That would seem a pity. And can Arduino really do all the things the prop can?
Is the problem that it won't make money? I know that is a difficult question because maybe there is no money to be made emulating old games which themselves may still be under copyright.
There ought to be a market for building graphics from scratch on the propeller, even for writing games from scratch.
I've pondered this many times. If you want a complex game you run out of code space. But if you want complex graphics then most/all the hub ram is used for graphics so no space for code. There must be solutions and I think one of them is running Catalina in external memory with all the hub used for a graphics buffer. I'm sure there are other solutions too.
But then again, I posted a youtube video recently of the propeller playing a cartoon and it got linked by youtube to a video you guys did two years ago doing the same thing.
So... if this project is stalled, that would be a great loss. How much of the knowledge so far gained is proprietary?
All of the code is proprietary, that is where the intrinsic value of PropGFX is, we've put in too much hard work and effort to just give it away.
Ironically the code may be better suited when Prop 2 comes out as at least we would have a way of protecting the IP and expanding it capabilities making it much more attractive away from Prop circles.
The cold hard truth is that bar for a few individuals (OBC being just one) no one is even looking at game development any more, look at the VGA driver Baggers just released, is anyone working with that????
Even Baggers himself has stalled with game development on Propeller, he's got maybe half a dozen half completed games that would knock your socks off if he had the impetus to finish them.
Maybe if you badger him enough he'll get re-invigorated enough to release something ;-)
Be warned though he is very very busy with paying work right now........
Regards,
Coley
Thought I best chime in lol
I too ( like JTCook said ) think that the PropGFX's strengths is going to be not in the propeller market, but in other MCU's basically bringing the joys and powers of the propeller to the rest of the MCU world.
Yes, we too will enjoy it on the propeller, but I think it will get most use elsewhere where they don't have the video capabilities we have.
I've been too busy with paying work and other stuff, but things should ease off during mid Jan
Thanks for all you're patience and continued interest
Cheers,
Baggers.
One of the strengths of PropGFX other than being multi-processor compatible is that it provides easy access to advanced graphics features of the Propeller. I'm just now getting my Propeller legs on enough to understand signal generation on the Propeller which is pretty much required to work with anything advanced enough to write games. If I'm in this boat after 4 years of part-time Propeller study, then there are probably many.
We have many great video objects thanks to Eric, Baggers, Cook, Chip and others, but honestly the Hydra-book is probably a bit much for folks who have both limited prior experience in microcontroller programming, and limited time to play. Projects like PropGFX will remove these complex barriers allowing many who otherwise would be overwhelmed by the complexities of graphics generation to get into game creation.
We need more of this...
http://www.propellerpowered.com/gaming.html
Guess I know what one of my projects for 2011 needs to be...
OBC
But I have to agree with JTCook and Baggers, the PropGFX would do better being marketed to users of ARM's, PIC's and AVR's who need VGA or NTSC video capabilities. Because at the moment I don't see much in the way of easy to add on video display that one can buy and with millions using these beasties, the chances of making money look a lot better than catering to a video game development which looks to be dead.
I know that this year alone I have made over 10 games with the Propeller, almost all of which were duel-prop systems!
I think the reason that video game development is considered dead is that you put a lot of effort into something that emulates something that was obsolete 15 years ago. There is simply no market or gain in that.
Here's an idea: A Propeller video game that is NOT made after an old one! Has it ever been done?
According to this list.. http://www.propellerpowered.com/propellergaming/ No...
OBC
I think it would be fun to see some retro-style games designed after newer themes.
It would also take a LOT of pressure off folks to completely duplicate the expectations of a game everyone already knows. Kinda like singing a song that EVERYONE knows. You HAVE to get every note right or EVERYONE knows it.
OBC
I also think by making it a video processor for people using ARM's and whatever other 32bit beastie they have running about, would be a great way to introduce them to the Prop.
http://www.4dsystems.com.au/prod.php?id=112
I think that it's actually implemented in a CPLD. I'll see if I can work out which chip they are using.
Wow...
OBC
Thinking "outside of the box" is a way to innovate. Imagine Chip Gracey would have stopped the development of the propeller-chip
just because somebody commented Huuh no interrupts?!!! no hardware SPI, UART?!!! go away with that!!
Your favorite MCU wouldn't have been developed.
How about picking up some software concepts of this chip for Prop 2?
best regards
Stefan
A lot of comments have suggested ARM would be a good fit and the truth is we decided the same some time ago. We are currently looking at STM32 series and also the increasingly popular MBED.
But you know we are both busy guys and this will always take a backseat to whatever pays the bills.
I will have a proper chat with Baggers over Christmas and see if I can persuade him to release a binary.
Regards,
Coley
10 dual prop games eh?
That makes you the most prolific games designer on here, well done!
I for one would love to see them if you would care to share them with us.
You might also be interested in the guitar hero clone, 'Joypad Hero' that Baggers did two years ago.
(Its towards the end of this youtube clip)
Regards,
Coley
I've worked out what it is from the pinout - it must be a16-bit PIC. They can deliver up to 40 MIPS.
That's no CPLD... it's a space station! :-)
Bill
When the Propeller and Hydra were first released, there was quite a few people making games. There was a variety of games from clones of other games to original titles. Also at this time there wasn't a huge variety in hardware. You had the Hydra, demo board, proto board, and Hybrid board. With those boards they were very similar were only minor changes needed to be made to have the program work on multiple boards. Now that the Propeller has been out for a few years people are expanding on it by adding memory, extra Propeller chips, etc. I know I have been unable to try anything that falls outside of a "stock" propeller setup.
Games are hard to make. Especially when it is on a limited system like the Propeller and 32K is not a lot to work with. People also have a hard time finishing projects (this is true no matter what platform you are working on). It is easier to start a project then to finish it. And even though the propeller is designed to do video, it can still be a large learning curve to make something others may view as simple.
HD TVs are in more homes than they were a few years ago. On digital TVs NTSC video varies from good to really poor, where on a tube TV the picture quality (across NTSC) was pretty consistent. I am lucky because the games I have done look pretty good on my TV.
I would still say that the Propeller has a good cache of games verses other micros or DIY setups (including Uzebox). Also I know Remz (one of the original Hydra programmers) is working on a nice looking game as well as myself for the C3. I am really excited for both games!