#12725 - ampz - Mon Nov 24, 2003 6:04 pm
The rumor cannot be ignored, and it does make alot of sense considering the PSP threat. Nintendo will most likely release a new handheld within a year or two. The name "Gameboy X" can be read on a few places on the net, and there's lot's of speculations on the possible hardware specifications of this new handheld.
Let's just hope the name is a codename. :-)
My opinion is that Nintendo should do like they did when they built the GBC. The GBA platform is a winner, so let's keep it as it is, but add support for higher CPU clock speed, and add more graphics hardware (for example: 3D hardware, better screen, some more video memory, ..). I'd also add a small cache memory to speed up code execution from ROM considerably, and add support for higher speed ROM access as well as trying to find a way to increase ROM adress space with one or two bits without using pages. 32MB is enough even for many 3D games, but it will be on the low side in a few years.
I would not follow Sonys example and use optical discs for storage, it requires more power, and much more RAM since code and graphics must be loaded from the disc to RAM before execution. RAM is either expensive (SRAM) or powerhungry (DRAM).
Optical discs would also make backwards compatibility a big problem.
According to the rumor, beta devkits will be made available to game developers before christmas this year, so I guess we will learn if there's any truth behind this rumor soon.
#12730 - tepples - Mon Nov 24, 2003 7:01 pm
| ampz wrote: |
| Let's just hope the name [Game Boy X] is a codename. :-) |
Because if it isn't, then the emulation community, which has used "GBX" to stand for Game Boy and Game Boy Color, will run into a namespace collision. I'm still confused over Sony's "PSX": does the name refer to the PS1 in the original form factor (as seen here) or a PS2 and DVR joined at the hip?
| Quote: |
| as well as trying to find a way to increase ROM adress space with one or two bits without using pages. |
What's so bad about mappers? Seventy-five percent of NES games used mappers that could bankswitch the program space.
| Quote: |
| 32MB is enough even for many 3D games |
It was already on the low side when Square was planning Final Fantasy VII, which is the primary reason why the game came out on PS1 rather than N64.
| Quote: |
| RAM is either expensive (SRAM) or powerhungry (DRAM). |
As of the Game Boy Advance SP, Nintendo is already on rechargeable lithium-ion batteries, so "power-hungry" would just mean the system has to go back to the charger a bit more often. This wouldn't impact habits nearly as much as the terrible alkaline battery life of the Game Gear, Lynx, and Nomad.
| Quote: |
| Optical discs would also make backwards compatibility a big problem. |
Not really. Game systems with optical disc media typically have a cartridge slot in the front for saving game state. All Nintendo would need to do is give this cartridge slot the same form factor as the GBA's, and it would still be possible to read GBA and GBC carts.
The real reason why I'm opposed to optical discs on a Nintendo handheld is that Nintendo implied plans to use GameCube discs on a handheld. The GameCube uses bare optical discs (essentially 8cm DVDs) rather than encased discs (as seen in MO drives, MiniDisc, early DVD-RAM drives, and the PSP), and bare optical discs would scratch too easily under typical handheld handling.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#12731 - ampz - Mon Nov 24, 2003 7:44 pm
Yes, it would be possible to have both a disc drive and a cart slot, but in that case the device would become way too big.
Power consumption is very important. I'd say it's one of the most important things. I want nothing of this PSP 3-6 hours battery time crap.
Memory pages was neccesary on older 8 and 16bit consoles because of the 16bit address space. The 16bit address limitation does not exist on 32bit platforms like the GBA. It is highly inconvenient for developers, and since it is fairly easy to avoid...
If they in fact do a updated version of the GBA, do you think they will name it "Gameboy Advance 3D"? Like they updated the name to "Gameboy color" when they added color to the original gameboy.
#12735 - Touchstone - Mon Nov 24, 2003 10:36 pm
| ampz wrote: |
| Let's just hope the name [Game Boy X] is a codename. :-) |
I can guarantee that Nintedo would never use the letter 'X' in the name of any of their systems. (To the extent someone not working at or with Nintendo can guarantee something like this. :)
| tepples wrote: |
| I'm still confused over Sony's "PSX" |
The PSX is the new and improved PS2 system. I belive early SDK's for the PS1 was cluttered with the abbreviation "PSX" but in the PS1 game guidlines Sony prohibited developers to use the phrase "PSX" in games.
It feels like only yesterday the GBA was released but come to think of it the gba was released some 2-3 years ago, right? It feels a wee bit to early for a new system from Nintendo and their philosophy has always been to "do their thing" and not bother about the competition so speculations about a response to the PSP doesn't fit the Nintendo style. At least not their "official" standpoint.
_________________
You can't beat our meat
#12736 - DekuTree64 - Mon Nov 24, 2003 10:38 pm
And better speakers with 16 bit sound hardware! The sound quality is the only thing I don't like about GBA. Some hardware mixing would be nice, but writing software mixers is fun anyway.
But I think the most important thing is to keep the price reasonable. All those new handhelds coming out are neat and all, but they cost way to much for most people, especially kids.
I agree that discs just don't suit a handheld. It's much more prone to getting dropped and abused, and disc readers are just too delicate.
And more VRAM would definately be nice for page flipping in mode3, since the 3D hardware would most likely be 16-bit.
And a backlit screen is a must, even if it does soak more battery power. Just give it a brightness control so you can turn it down if you don't need it up full blast.
_________________
___________
The best optimization is to do nothing at all.
Therefore a fully optimized program doesn't exist.
-Deku
#12739 - ampz - Mon Nov 24, 2003 11:47 pm
As noted, the GBA have been out for like 3 years, and according to the rumor, we will not see the new one until late next year, that means 4 years. Isn't that about the same timeframe as between the GB and the GBC? Is there perhaps even a similarity between the timelines of the gameboy and the GBA?
GB -> GB pocket -> GB color
GBA -> GBA SP -> GBA 2/X
One thing they really have to include in a new GBA system is a cache to speed up code execution from ROM.. Just a small 2kB cache would do wounders to performance and/or power consumption.
I think the GBA is just about the only ARM7 based system I know of that completely lacks a cache. Most ARM7 systems have the cache as a optional feature. You can choose to use part, or all of the internal RAM as either cache or generic RAM.
And yeah, 16bit sound would be a good thing.. However, good stereo speakers is a bit of a size tradeoff. How much size should be traded for better sound? It is of course also a cost issue. Two speakers cost twice as much as one. :)
#12751 - Daikath - Tue Nov 25, 2003 2:20 pm
I just barely got a GBA... I dont wanna buy a new handheld yet..
_________________
?There are no stupid questions but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.?
#12755 - col - Tue Nov 25, 2003 6:16 pm
| ampz wrote: |
...Isn't that about the same timeframe as between the GB and the GBC? Is there perhaps even a similarity between the timelines of the gameboy and the GBA?
|
nope :)
GB 1989
GBPocket 1996
GBColour 1997
GBAdvance 2001
GBASP 2003
the gameboy was the one with the longevity :)
cheers
Col
#12761 - ampz - Tue Nov 25, 2003 7:48 pm
Ok, but almost.... ;-)
According to nintendo.com, the Gameboy color came 1998.
#12769 - dagamer34 - Wed Nov 26, 2003 1:13 am
My Christmas list.
The things that should happen:
1)Increase CPU speed: I am thinking... 40mHz-120mHz, depending on if Nintendo's gonna push some kind of 3D graphics or effects on the system.
2)More memory!!: double or triple memory. I like mode 3 but its too slow.
3)Better sound!!!!!!!!!: Well, the GBA did finally give us SOME decent sound, in fact the tunes to Golden Sun are really cool, but most games don't have that. 16-bit at LEAST, maybe 24-bit but let's not push it.
4)Backlit screen since launch day, not an improved version later on. How many people who bought a GBA traded it in and paid $60!!! for the SP? Not me. It should have some kind of dimmer control, so we don't such up too much battery power.
5) Nintendo personally giving ME the first autographed copy of the system as well as all the games available on launch day (EVERYBODY, PUSH FOR THIS)
It doesn't matter how many things you add to a system... If the games aren't fun, no one will play it. How many of us bought the original Game Boy? How many bought the Game Gear?
_________________
Little kids and Playstation 2's don't mix. :(
#12779 - Lord Graga - Wed Nov 26, 2003 9:03 am
pretty goood list dagamer...
Here's my little all-in-wonder GBA2:
- Same registers as the GBA + some more registers for more silly effects ;)
- Support for 256 sprites (or even 512)
- Inbuilt MP3 support in BIOS (not really needed, but it's nice to have though).
- At least 133 mhz (I played SNES on a p166 just fine).
- 4-16 meg of RAM (I won't need much for my operations).
- 320*256 backlit screen (it'll be HUGE).
- A mono/stereo switch for headphones.
I don't really care about handheld 3d graphics, the only 3d game I would ever play was Doom ;)
#12781 - ampz - Wed Nov 26, 2003 11:55 am
Well, 4MB ram will never happen. It is simply too expensive. Besides, you have ROM, why do you need RAM? :)
MP3 will be no problem if they increase the CPU speed to 40MHz or more. That's what's required to play MP3's in realtime.
Regarding sound... 8bits would work if they implement a hardware mixer. Four or eight 8bit channels or so..
If they don't implement a hardware mixer, then we need 16bit.
#12790 - poslundc - Wed Nov 26, 2003 4:42 pm
| Daikath wrote: |
| I just barely got a GBA... I dont wanna buy a new handheld yet.. |
Haha... this rings true with me. I spent a year learning QuickDraw 3D and was just starting to make my game when Apple sent it to the chopping block. That was an important lesson that I could not afford to stay on the cutting edge of technology with hobby programming.
That's why I love the GBA: it's literally decade's old technology in a modern, portable wrapper.
Now I'm faced with the plug getting pulled again, just as I'm starting to write my game...
Dan.
#12791 - poslundc - Wed Nov 26, 2003 4:51 pm
| ampz wrote: |
| Well, 4MB ram will never happen. It is simply too expensive. Besides, you have ROM, why do you need RAM? :) |
I would like a 32-bit port to the ROM versus the 16-bit that's currently on the GBA. This would make it practical to run ARM instructions from ROM instead just from IWRAM (which we only have 32K of). Maybe give it an instruction cache as well, or something, so that load/stores don't impact the reading of instructions so much.
Conditional execution in ARM mode could make for some very zippy code. Processor speed is only half the battle...
Dan.
#12794 - tepples - Wed Nov 26, 2003 6:12 pm
A 32-bit bus to ROM would require a larger or denser physical cartridge connector, possibly breaking GBC and GBA compatibility. Faster ROM access would drain the battery more. Whether Nintendo would accept this, after having switched to Li-ion batteries, is up for debate. But the real showstopper is that fast ROMs are expensive to replicate.
I'd be willing to settle for an expansion of IWRAM to 256 KB, which would give the same benefit of larger ARM inner loops without stressing ROM too much.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#12795 - ampz - Wed Nov 26, 2003 6:35 pm
poslundc: A cache will make it possible to run ARM code from ROM at high speed. In reality, only loops are performance critical, and the code will be loaded from ROM to the cache at the first iteration of the loop, all iterations after that are executed from the cache.
A 32bit bus to the ROM is virtually impossible as tepples notes, and it is not really neccessary.
tepples: a cache would be a cheaper way to increase execution speed than a larger internal RAM. Another handy thing with a cache is that we don't have to start by loading the code from ROM to RAM manually, and configure the linker to understand that some pieces of code will be executed from ROM and some will be executed from RAM.
#12799 - Touchstone - Wed Nov 26, 2003 8:15 pm
| ampz wrote: |
| a cache would be a cheaper way to increase execution speed than a larger internal RAM. Another handy thing with a cache is that we don't have to start by loading the code from ROM to RAM manually, and configure the linker to understand that some pieces of code will be executed from ROM and some will be executed from RAM. |
A little off topic but how would an instruction cache work with interrupts? Would it be emptied just to be filled with the new code for the interrupt or would there be a seperate cache per CPU operating mode? How does instruction caches work today?
_________________
You can't beat our meat
#12803 - ampz - Wed Nov 26, 2003 8:25 pm
Usually the cache is divided into several sections. Only one section is emptied and filled with new code at a time. So if a interrupt occurs, the cache section that was least recently used is emptied and filled with the interrupt handler. That way, after returning from the interrupt, the relevant code will most likely still be in the cache, unless the interrupt handler is _very_ large, requiring all the cache sections.
#13593 - haduken - Wed Dec 17, 2003 10:23 pm
Hmmm,... seeing that the ENTIRE COMPUTER INDUSTRY (not really, but you get the point) is intent on switching to PowerPC chips (made by IBM. These are the chips used in the GameCube and Apple Macintoshes), It wouldn't suprise me if the next GameBoy has a 64-bit (I am not joking!) PowerPC chip. Also, a GPU for 3D stuff would be nice, and maybe a few more buttons like X and Y and R2 and L2 (please?). Then, give it a full 320x240 screen! But alas, all this is wishful thinking. I fully expect to see another 32-bit 240x160 10-button GBA next year.
_________________
There were worms, lots of worms, worms that made me crazy,..
#13615 - ampz - Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:14 pm
| haduken wrote: |
| Hmmm,... seeing that the ENTIRE COMPUTER INDUSTRY (not really, but you get the point) is intent on switching to PowerPC chips (made by IBM. These are the chips used in the GameCube and Apple Macintoshes), It wouldn't suprise me if the next GameBoy has a 64-bit (I am not joking!) PowerPC chip. |
I don't agree with that assessment. ARM is gaining more and more market shares. I think ARM has superior MIPS/Watts, very good for handheld stuff. PowerPC is more of a option for stationary systems.
There are several new powerful ARM CPU's out there. The Intel Xscale, StrongARM, ARM9, ...
Switching to a more powerful ARM would be a easy way to preserve backwards compatibility. (they did that for the GBC). Sticking a PowerPC, a ARM AND a z80 CPU in one handheld would be stupid and expensive.
#13623 - tepples - Thu Dec 18, 2003 4:24 pm
Can Xscale or ARM9 decode Thumb? Can Xscale or ARM9 precisely emulate ARM7TDMI cycle timing?
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#13626 - ampz - Thu Dec 18, 2003 8:12 pm
To my knowledge, ARM9 and Xscale are ARM7 compatible. As far as I know they simply have a extended instruction set, and run at higher clock speeds. But I might be wrong.
#13627 - haduken - Thu Dec 18, 2003 8:18 pm
| ampz wrote: |
| haduken wrote: | | Hmmm,... seeing that the ENTIRE COMPUTER INDUSTRY (not really, but you get the point) is intent on switching to PowerPC chips (made by IBM. These are the chips used in the GameCube and Apple Macintoshes), It wouldn't suprise me if the next GameBoy has a 64-bit (I am not joking!) PowerPC chip. |
I don't agree with that assessment. ARM is gaining more and more market shares. I think ARM has superior MIPS/Watts, very good for handheld stuff. PowerPC is more of a option for stationary systems.
There are several new powerful ARM CPU's out there. The Intel Xscale, StrongARM, ARM9, ...
Switching to a more powerful ARM would be a easy way to preserve backwards compatibility. (they did that for the GBC). Sticking a PowerPC, a ARM AND a z80 CPU in one handheld would be stupid and expensive. |
I wonder when Ninty will dump the Z80 alltogether in favor of software emulation,..
Anyway, it DOES seem more logical that the next GameBoy will have a StrongARM or ARM9, but If Nintendo ever wants a handheld that plays GameCube games (maybe in another 15 years..) or Microsoft gets into the handheld industry, they're probably going to want to find someone to develop a low-power equivalent of the MPC730.
_________________
There were worms, lots of worms, worms that made me crazy,..
#13630 - Miked0801 - Thu Dec 18, 2003 8:30 pm
I love ROM, but you run out of 16Megs so quickly when doing really detailed stuff (even with compression.) I'm all for going the Sony route and having a minidisk system - as long as there's enough RAM to do some decent buffering - though I know Nintendo is loathe to do this.
That said, the next GBA needs to run a bit faster, have way more RAM (I'd love to see 2-4 Megs of RAM of Slow and 256K of fast at least so we can use more advanced compression schemes and store more data), a math coprocessor chip (not necessarily for floats - I'm thinking more like the GTE chip on the PS1 for matrix math, and trig), and give me a hardware divide already that doesn't suck. I believe the sound stuff is pretty good as is (I know I'm in the minority here). Also, give me the extra 2 buttons from the SNES and perhaps the 2 extra shoulders from the PS1 as well. Make sure the screen is still lit and leave X resolution on a number that's easy to compute w/o multiplies. Then make sure all the documentation for it is in English from day 1 so I don't have to learn Japenese for the 3rd time.
#13640 - NoMis - Thu Dec 18, 2003 11:36 pm
i think they would not ignor the psp. but nintendo will find the balance between battary lifetime and power. i'm not sure if nintendo will stick to the Catriges. if not they will need enough ram for buffering. 2 more buttons on the front would be nice but forgot about that 2 additional shoulder buttons, what do i want with them, they just would make the thing thick and thats not what we want.
NoMis
#13660 - haduken - Sat Dec 20, 2003 1:09 am
| NoMis wrote: |
forgot about that 2 additional shoulder buttons, what do i want with them, they just would make the thing thick and thats not what we want.
NoMis |
Not necessarily. I can see adding two more shoulder buttons without making the thing any thicker. (The buttons would be thinner, of course, and you might accidentaly hit the wrong one, but you would have two more buttons.)
_________________
There were worms, lots of worms, worms that made me crazy,..
#13661 - Lord Graga - Sat Dec 20, 2003 1:30 am
Personaly, I would like it to keep it's 2 shoudler buttons, and just those. Then, with 2 more action buttons, it would be a awesome handheld. Remember, the number of buttons has to be kept down and simple. That's what N is good at :)
I can't figure the XBOX controller out (3 thumbstick, 4 start/select like buttons, etc).
Just my opinion.
#13670 - poslundc - Sat Dec 20, 2003 4:51 am
| Lord Graga wrote: |
| Personaly, I would like it to keep it's 2 shoudler buttons, and just those. Then, with 2 more action buttons, it would be a awesome handheld. |
That would make it the same as a Super NES controller, and I don't recall anyone ever complaining that the SNES had insufficient buttons.
Plus, it would make it a helluva lot easier to port old SNES games. Not that it's stopped them. But for the life of me I can't figure out why they left the X and Y buttons out in the first place.
Dan.
#13677 - ampz - Sat Dec 20, 2003 1:47 pm
| poslundc wrote: |
| Lord Graga wrote: | | Personaly, I would like it to keep it's 2 shoudler buttons, and just those. Then, with 2 more action buttons, it would be a awesome handheld. |
That would make it the same as a Super NES controller, and I don't recall anyone ever complaining that the SNES had insufficient buttons.
Plus, it would make it a helluva lot easier to port old SNES games. Not that it's stopped them. But for the life of me I can't figure out why they left the X and Y buttons out in the first place.
Dan. |
Most likely to keep the thing simple, and to prevent ports of SNES games. They wanted new games for the GBA, not just a bunch of old SNES games.
#13678 - NoMis - Sat Dec 20, 2003 3:12 pm
| haduken wrote: |
Not necessarily. I can see adding two more shoulder buttons without making the thing any thicker. (The buttons would be thinner, of course, and you might accidentaly hit the wrong one, but you would have two more buttons.) |
I don't understand that some people think that more buttons are better. "yeah give me more butten, i can control more things!!". the Gamecube controler proves that this is wrong. The made fewer buttens than other consoles have but its always enough. I realised that on the ps2 every single butten controls another thing. but on cube games one butten can do many things depending on the situation.
NoMis
#13680 - poslundc - Sat Dec 20, 2003 3:54 pm
| ampz wrote: |
| Most likely to keep the thing simple, and to prevent ports of SNES games. They wanted new games for the GBA, not just a bunch of old SNES games. |
How ironic.
(I am, of course, thinking of Super Mario Advance 4, which has to be the ultimate example of Nintendo not following this philosophy. After they had already converted just about every other Mario game they could, they still chose to go back and re-release a MUCH older game than those featured for SMA2 or 3, rather than come up with something new.)
Dan.
#13729 - haduken - Sun Dec 21, 2003 6:48 pm
| NoMis wrote: |
| haduken wrote: |
Not necessarily. I can see adding two more shoulder buttons without making the thing any thicker. (The buttons would be thinner, of course, and you might accidentaly hit the wrong one, but you would have two more buttons.) |
I don't understand that some people think that more buttons are better. "yeah give me more butten, i can control more things!!". the Gamecube controler proves that this is wrong. The made fewer buttens than other consoles have but its always enough. I realised that on the ps2 every single butten controls another thing. but on cube games one butten can do many things depending on the situation.
NoMis |
Look at Metroid Fusion. It has all the same functions as Super Metroid, but there is no dash button, so you have to hold down the L shoulder button to dash. The same with Megaman Zero. But wouldn't it be alot easier if the thing had X and Y buttons in the first place? The L button does two different things (dash/aim diag.), but it could be confusing to people who are used to the Super Nintendo where each button does one thing.
_________________
There were worms, lots of worms, worms that made me crazy,..
#13731 - XeroxBoy - Sun Dec 21, 2003 8:14 pm
Actually, the L Button doesn't let you dash at all, near as I can tell. Nintendo (smartly) decided to give Samus an autorun ability.
Personally, I don't see why people would complain about only four buttons - it's more than enough for almost any 2D game (I could see an issue if camera control came into play)...Even fighting games (see the King of Fighters series).
NES games got by with only two buttons, and that system bred some of the most innovative and accessible games ever - certainly, clever game designers can more than accomplish this.
When I first played True Crime: Streets of LA on the XBox, I was literally overwhelmed by the number of controls. There were seperate button combinations for arresting, firing a warning shot, frisking civilians, flashing your badge, etc. What ever happened to pure, simple, simplicity? What ever happened to gameplay? Who at Luxoflux figured that the game would play better if you could flash your badge at criminals?
#13736 - tepples - Sun Dec 21, 2003 10:43 pm
Say you have a game like Robotron or Smash TV. In that game, you can move in any of 8 directions and fire in any of 8 directions. On systems such as the Super NES, PlayStation, and N64, the + Control Pad controlled movement, and the trigger buttons controlled the direction of firing (e.g. on PS1, O = east, X = south, A+# = northwest). How could such a scheme be adapted to the controls of the GBA or GBA SP?
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#13758 - FluBBa - Mon Dec 22, 2003 10:33 am
Thats a great example where it would be good to have 4 face button (still only 4 buttons though). They apparently solved the problem on the C64 and Amiga with only 1 button back in the days if I remember correctly.
In games which are less chaotic you can use some kind of "Last Ninja" style turning/walking, where you turn if you change the joypad 1/8 (1/4?) and "strafe" if you change the joypad more.
There are litterarly hundred of ways of solving input problems (some good, some not so good).
One dont automaticly solve input/playability problems by adding more buttons to the controller.
_________________
I probably suck, my not is a programmer.
#13785 - XeroxBoy - Mon Dec 22, 2003 7:59 pm
Exactly. You could, for instance, map up/down fire to the A/B buttons, or only allow the player to fire in the direction they're facing. You could even do something strange, like making the player hold down R to modify facing direction with the D-pad. Better yet, simply use the L and R buttons to rotate the player, similar to what Contra 3 on the SNES did in its mode 7 overhead levels. All it requires is a clever designer - not more buttons.
#13881 - Samer! - Wed Dec 24, 2003 1:49 pm
interesting argument..
i'm personally inclined towards fewer buttons, one of the qualities of GBA gameplay, is the ability to play frequently in short-periods, thus the controls need to be as intuitive or seamless as possible, simplicity is directly proportional to intuitiveness.
but on the other hand, take notice that the next generation of handhelds will surely focus on 3d games and the added complexity of 3d 'might' call for additional buttons
also more buttons would mean more functions, and 'form follows functionality'
we'll see what uncle N decides, it's up to him after all!
_________________
tough cookies are hard to bite.
#14385 - SmileyDude - Mon Jan 05, 2004 10:59 pm
I'll toss in my opinions as well (for free! Can you believe it? ;) )...
I think that the next GB will be an incremental upgrade... the GBA has a lot of life left in it, and since the GB Color was successful, I can see Nintendo reusing that idea, and extending the GBA in similar ways.
Ideally, I would like to see the following:
- 16-bit sound
- more graphics modes (maybe a 4 layer rot-scale mode, with independent pallettes)
- more sprites
- faster CPU -- at least 100mhz would be ideal, but of course, more is better, with the option for the programmer to slow down the CPU as needed (or, I guess if VBlankIntrWait() is used, it wouldn't really matter...)
- more IWRAM/EWRAM -- in fact, I would like to see IWRAM and EWRAM both become equivalent, i.e, 32-bit bus, same wait states, etc. 1 meg of RAM would be nice, but I dunno if that will happen.
- more VRAM to go with the better graphics modes
- two more face buttons (X and Y)
- improved battery life (why not? just about every GB model has improved on the battery life of the previous one)
- local wireless link support (bluetooth?) -- let's get rid of that damn link cable for once and all :) Ideally, for existing GBA games, this should look exactly like the cable, but then again, I can see where that may cause some problems. They could also release an adapter for older systems as well....
As far as software emulation of the GB/GBC, I don't see it happening... since the GB/GBC used 5v and the GBA uses 3.3v, it would probably just be cheaper to include the GBC chip in the next system.
Some other points -- hardware mixing would be nice, but in all honesty, writing a mixer isn't rocket science and (as DekuTree pointed out) it's quite fun to write. I'd rather have the ability to put out CD quality audio through the headphone jack, and decent audio through the internal speaker.
3D support? naaa... with a faster CPU, we can finally have some really decent software 3d engines anyway, and besides, I'd rather have Nintendo give us something like hardware divide and floating point instead of 3d anyway...
Optical media -- well, only if it was done in a way that made sense -- i.e, having GCN media doesn't make much sense. I would never give that to my kid for his GB. I do agree that memory cards would be best implemented using the existing cart port -- in fact, I'm disappointed that Nintendo didn't simply use the GBA port for the GCN's memory carts. But, I guess they could always do that for the next home system, huh?
BIOS modifications -- I don't really like the idea of modifying the BIOS. In fact, I was really surprised that the GBA had routines in the BIOS. In all honesty, having 16k of BIOS doesn't really save much from the overall cart size. Just make the minimal changes necessary to support the new hardware, and leave the rest the same. Bugs and all.
I believe that all of my ideas could be implemented without breaking compatibility with the existing GBA... there's plenty of register space available, and even if the CPU timing isn't perfect, I don't think there are many games (if any) that would break because of the CPU timing. Most games are synced to the V-blank and H-blank anyway, so having a few more cycles to burn isn't gonna make much of a difference :)
Anyone else care to comment? :)
_________________
dennis
#14388 - poslundc - Mon Jan 05, 2004 11:12 pm
| SmileyDude wrote: |
| 3D support? naaa... with a faster CPU, we can finally have some really decent software 3d engines anyway, and besides, I'd rather have Nintendo give us something like hardware divide and floating point instead of 3d anyway... |
If you don't include 3D you will get burned by everyone who does. Besides, part of what makes the GBA so great is all of its high-level features (sprites, bgs, etc.) that make it easy to code for.
I don't need floating point, but hardware divide would be very nice. Don't know if you can have one without the other on ARM, though.
When all is said and done, I think I pretty much want a Nintendo-brand zodiac. Man, that thing is cool.
Oh, and software mixers aren't necessarily the worst thing to write in the world, but I don't think I ever heard anyone complain about the SNES's on-board sound. Meanwhile, mixers on the GBA are a pain overall, steal processor time, and worse quality than the SPC-whatever that the SNES had.
Dan.
#14394 - tepples - Mon Jan 05, 2004 11:48 pm
| SmileyDude wrote: |
| - 16-bit sound |
This isn't going to help while soft mixers still use nearest-neighbor resampling rather than linear interpolation. Still, I haven't hooked my Super NES up to an oscilloscope to see what its DSP uses.
| Quote: |
| Optical media -- well, only if it was done in a way that made sense -- i.e, having GCN media doesn't make much sense. |
Is the PSP's encased media any better?
| Quote: |
| In fact, I was really surprised that the GBA had routines in the BIOS. In all honesty, having 16k of BIOS doesn't really save much from the overall cart size. |
The point there was that the BIOS is as fast as IWRAM, and IWRAM is small.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#14401 - Miked0801 - Tue Jan 06, 2004 12:33 am
Though the people who coded the stuff didn't do a great job on some of the functions as they were more interested in space saving the execution speed :(
Mike
#14428 - SmileyDude - Tue Jan 06, 2004 3:36 pm
| tepples wrote: |
| SmileyDude wrote: | | - 16-bit sound |
This isn't going to help while soft mixers still use nearest-neighbor resampling rather than linear interpolation. Still, I haven't hooked my Super NES up to an oscilloscope to see what its DSP uses. |
16-bit sound will help, though, for things like MP3 playback -- quite unlikely to be used if the next GBA uses carts, but more than likely if it uses optical media.
As far as hardware mixing goes -- how many channels would make it worthwhile? I would that you would want at least 16 channels -- 8 seems way too limiting, while 32 is probably too much for most games. Hardware panning would be nice while were at it -- full left and/or full right is annoying :D
| tepples wrote: |
| SmileyDude wrote: | | Optical media -- well, only if it was done in a way that made sense -- i.e, having GCN media doesn't make much sense. |
Is the PSP's encased media any better? |
Yeah -- it is better. So is Mini-Discs. Both are Sony properties, and I think that can rule out any chance in hell that Nintendo would use them (Sadly). I just don't see that Nintendo really has a good track record in making portable durable optical media, and therefore, they would have to license from some other company. What other companies are making small durable optical media besides Sony?
| tepples wrote: |
| SmileyDude wrote: | | In fact, I was really surprised that the GBA had routines in the BIOS. In all honesty, having 16k of BIOS doesn't really save much from the overall cart size. |
The point there was that the BIOS is as fast as IWRAM, and IWRAM is small. |
Point taken -- but, wouldn't you rather have had more IWRAM than the BIOS? Of course, though, they had to have some sort of BIOS -- just to show the logo and validate the cart -- and, once you have the space to use, might as well use it :D
| poslundc wrote: |
If you don't include 3D you will get burned by everyone who does. Besides, part of what makes the GBA so great is all of its high-level features (sprites, bgs, etc.) that make it easy to code for.
|
Another part that makes it great is simple hardware, and great battery life. If they can put the 3D hardware in without sacrificing battery life and complicating up the architecture to the point where it becomes difficult to program for, go for it.
BTW -- how would the 3D hardware work? Would it be used in conjunction with the existing 2D modes? Could you intermix sprites and 3-D objects? What about the API? Would it be in the BIOS? Libraries that have to be included in the ROM/Disc? Adding 3D is more complicated than simply dropping in a chip... especially if the system is going to be backwards compatible. I still think that having a faster CPU, hardware divide and floating point, and more RAM will make up for a lack of dedicated 3D hardware. I'm sure that some company could make a chunk of change writing an optimised OpenGL library for this machine.
_________________
dennis
#14436 - poslundc - Tue Jan 06, 2004 5:33 pm
| SmileyDude wrote: |
| BTW -- how would the 3D hardware work? Would it be used in conjunction with the existing 2D modes? Could you intermix sprites and 3-D objects? What about the API? Would it be in the BIOS? Libraries that have to be included in the ROM/Disc? Adding 3D is more complicated than simply dropping in a chip... especially if the system is going to be backwards compatible. |
I'm not saying this with any scientific certainty, but I think most modern systems use the 3D hardware to supplant their 2D processing. Therefore traditional "sprites" just become a "square" geometry (two triangles edge-to-edge) which are always projected to be facing the camera, with the desired image as the texture shader. From this principle, you can then extrapolate things like backgrounds. It should be possible to emulate all of the functionality of the GBA by replacing the rendering hardware it uses with an intermediate layer that translates its needs to the 3D system.
When I was programming with QuickDraw 3D (ages ago, before Apple sent it the chopping block), that's how I did it.
Dan.
#14437 - SmileyDude - Tue Jan 06, 2004 5:43 pm
| poslundc wrote: |
| I'm not saying this with any scientific certainty, but I think most modern systems use the 3D hardware to supplant their 2D processing. Therefore traditional "sprites" just become a "square" geometry (two triangles edge-to-edge) which are always projected to be facing the camera, with the desired image as the texture shader. From this principle, you can then extrapolate things like backgrounds. It should be possible to emulate all of the functionality of the GBA by replacing the rendering hardware it uses with an intermediate layer that translates its needs to the 3D system. |
Well, my concern is that to keep compatibility, you would need to have the same hardware registers as you have on the current GBA -- so, if Nintendo did use the 3D hardware as the backend for the 2D functionality, it would have to expose the same registers as we have now.
Much simpler, IMO, would be to just give the ability to put 3D graphics in a layer, that would work hand in hand with the existing graphics modes. So, you could have a traditional 256 color tile layer above the 3D layer, with another 256 color tile layer below. Of course, you would also have the option of just ignoring the 2D modes/layers as needed.
There is still the issue of the API for the 3D layer as well -- would there be an OpenGL library in the BIOS? Would Nintendo give the developers libraries? Would they have low-level access to the 3D hardware, similar to the access we now have with the 2D hardware?
And, I'm still not convinced that 3D hardware is actually needed yet -- if the screen was bigger, it might be necessary... but, in all honesty, we have a 240x160 screen. With a faster CPU, and some hardware support for divide and floating point, I'm sure that it wouldn't be too hard to toss a ton of textured and lit polygons to the screen. And, as a bonus, the faster CPU and hardware divide/floating point benefits non-3D games as well -- unlike dedicated 3D hardware would.
Hey -- if Nintendo can give us the best of both worlds without compromising compatibility, size, and battery life, I say go for it. But, I certainly don't want to see a system destined for crappy 3D only games that eats batteries faster than my kid's Tickle Me Elmo doll....
_________________
dennis
#14440 - DekuTree64 - Tue Jan 06, 2004 6:43 pm
I think it would work best to just have the 3D hardware render to wherever you want, An EWRAM buffer, VRAM for mode4, just add regs for the 3D render target address, and resolution. Then add a mode6 that uses the newly expanded VRAM to do a double-buffered 15-bit bitmap. The problem with that though, is that the sprite hardware always uses 0x6010000 as its base address, which would then be filled up with the second buffer, so if it was to allow sprites, they would have to make some modifications to the existing sprite hardware, although I don't know if that would be a problem or not if they were making all those changes to the rest of the gfx hardware anyway.
All that said, I don't really want 3D hardware either. If they do add it, I want full low-level access, if they don't, I'll write my own just because it's fun. Either way I probably won't ever make a 3D game. Also, what's most important to me is the battery life, and the price of the system itself, so I'd rather not have 3D if it's going to hike up the price very much.
And I'm sure nowadays they can get the system itself small enough to leave more room for a speaker. Headphones make the regular GBA sound plenty good enough for my taste, so I think the speaker is more of a problem than the 8-bit-ness. 16-bit DSound channels would help though, especially with a faster processor to do linear interpolation in mixers.
My current mixer does as many channels as I want with full panning (although running 16 chns takes about 25% of the frame, but that wouldn't be much with a faster CPU), so I don't really care wether it has hardware mixing or not. Although if it does still use cartridges, hardware decompression+mixing of compressed samples (ala SNES) would be a big plus. But then with more RAM you could cache decompressed samples youself.
_________________
___________
The best optimization is to do nothing at all.
Therefore a fully optimized program doesn't exist.
-Deku
#15362 - ampz - Wed Jan 21, 2004 1:01 pm
Finally!
A press release from N:
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/040120/206239_1.html
Sounds like it will not replace the GBA, but rather complement it.
It also sounds like it will use ROM cards, rather than optical media. ("up to 1G of semiconductor memory")
#15366 - LOst? - Wed Jan 21, 2004 2:12 pm
The handheld everyone would hate:
Base unit with 4 face buttons (A, B, START, SELECT), a cart slot, a link cable connector, a connector for the headphone adapter, and a monitor connector.
Monitor with high resulotion (384x240) + cable to connect into base unit.
Monitor with low resulotion (240x160) + cable to connect into base unit.
Adapter for headphones (if you want sound. The base unit doesn't include speakers).
Link cable for linking with two base units.
Link cable for linking with four base units.
Base unit specifications:
16 MHz 16 bit bus RISC CPU. 8 bit sound with no hardware support. 1 DMA. Video Processor that can use these graphics modes:
High resolution: 48x30 character mode, 16 colors/16 palette lines, 1 bg, no scroll, 64 sprites. (Only used for the cool BIOS logo during initialition! Can't be accessed from outside BIOS at all)
Low resolution: 30x20 character mode, 16 colors/16 palette lines, 2 bgs, scroll support, 64 sprites.
Low resulotion RGB: 16384 colors 240x160, no backbuffer, 64 sprites.
High resolution RGB: 16777216 colors 384x240, textured polygons, 3d api in BIOS, Must have license to be used, else BIOS will reboot or hang!
All high resolutions require the high resolution monitor.
1 battery for the base unit.
2 batteries for the low resolution monitor.
4 batteries for the high resulotion monitor.
I call it Super Gameboy Advance!
You can now vomit!
#15368 - tepples - Wed Jan 21, 2004 3:26 pm
LOst?: Is your conjecture a worst case scenario, or do you have an inside line to something that the press release didn't cover?
Specifically, the press release claims that both displays are 3 inches in size; this would imply a 150 dpi "high res" screen. Do there exist such color LCDs? (Most TFT LCDs, used in laptops and GBAs, run about 100 dpi.) And where's the second processor? And how would the 3D BIOS reliably determine whether such a "license" exists?
No, it wouldn't be called "Super Game Boy Advance" because 1. given the public's association of the name "Super Game Boy" with TV adapters, that name would be confused with the Game Boy Player, and 2. it'll be marketed separately from the whole GCN/GBA setup.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#15371 - LOst? - Wed Jan 21, 2004 3:41 pm
| tepples wrote: |
LOst?: Is your conjecture a worst case scenario, or do you have an inside line to something that the press release didn't cover?
|
Just a worst case scenario! I really think that having an adapter for the headphones in GBA SP is bad, so if Nintendo keeps doing those idiotic things, it may be the next handheld :(
#15377 - ampz - Wed Jan 21, 2004 4:59 pm
| LOst? wrote: |
| Just a worst case scenario! I really think that having an adapter for the headphones in GBA SP is bad, so if Nintendo keeps doing those idiotic things, it may be the next handheld :( |
The non-standard headphone connector is there simply because a standard headphone connector is too deep. It would have made the entire GBA SP larger.
Look at your SP.. The cart and the battery take upp almost the entire SP. There are only a few millimeters left for the connectors.
Are'nt there headphones with SP connector so that a adapter is not neccessary?
#19124 - mr_schmoe - Sun Apr 11, 2004 7:03 pm
Ok, first a comment about the press release. That kind of system would be insane. Two screens? The thing would be huge. And what's this about comming out late 2004. Surely they'd have more information out. Especially on the nintendo website. Maybe it's just a rumor. Oh well, we'll just wait and see.
And about the next gameboy advance. Here's what I'd like to see.
Faster CPU.
More memory.
Hardware 3D, mostly just to keep up with the market.
X and Y buttons
And least we forget, an anolog control stick!
#19135 - DiscoStew - Sun Apr 11, 2004 9:28 pm
It's one thing to talk about progress on software months, even a year, before the actual release date, but with hardware, it's another thing.
My opinion on why Nintendo is being so secret on the DS is because of competition. If another company knows of the final (of semi-final) specs of another company's hardware, then they can change their specs on their hardware to make it more appealing and powerful.
If Nintendo has something really special under their sleeve, why spill the beans so that other companies can counter it? Same goes for the next Gameboy. This is just my opinion.
I'd like to see it play GBA games just so that I wouldn't have to get an SP. My current GBA is starting to wear out.
_________________
DS - It's all about DiscoStew
#19154 - ampz - Mon Apr 12, 2004 8:19 am
| mr_schmoe wrote: |
Ok, first a comment about the press release. That kind of system would be insane. Two screens? The thing would be huge. And what's this about comming out late 2004. Surely they'd have more information out. Especially on the nintendo website. Maybe it's just a rumor. Oh well, we'll just wait and see.
And about the next gameboy advance. Here's what I'd like to see.
Faster CPU.
More memory.
Hardware 3D, mostly just to keep up with the market.
X and Y buttons
And least we forget, an anolog control stick! |
It is not a rumor.
More information will be released at E3.
And secondly, according to Nintendo, this is NOT the next gameboy.
Third, why would it be huge just because it has two screens? Imagine a SP with a extra screen where the buttons are.
According to the leaked specificationsheet, the device will have CPU, memory and 3D performance similar to N64. It will also have a touchscreen and 802.11. (This is according to a leaked spec. sheet, the specifications might be outdated)
#19878 - duron - Tue Apr 27, 2004 6:42 am
thats hilarious the ds is going to be something completely different, and as far as the next gameboy goes its going to be much better than the current gameboy and you can damn guarantee nintendo is gonna do something to hold onto this market, look at their console the gamecube, its not doing to well right now and the handheld market is whats keeping them alive.. not that gamecube sucks i have one, but its not getting support, nintendos next gameboy is gonna be a monster.