Re: [Ql-Users] Q60 + OSSC
68080...miracle could happen?:-) I am using mainly the Q60 with Peter solution on a modern LCD using the new PLCC developped by him (1024x512 leaving the lower part of the screen black). I am also playing time by time with Q68 and Mister, for the QL (used rarely) i used a standard VGA converter that work nicely (not perfect, but acceptable) Future is FPGA, I am then ready for a Q68 Gold Version Fabrizio However, and as you perfectly know, there are other solutions, based on "IP cores" and FPGAs. I recently stumbled upon: https://wiki.apollo-accelerators.com/doku.php/apollo_core:start That "68080" core (implemented with current FPGAs) is 3 times faster than a 68060 @ 66MHz ! Sadly it does not implement a MMU, so it won't be able to run Linux and some programs under SMSQ/E would pose issues (IIRC, QLiberated programs use the MSB of the address registers to store data, and the Q40/Q60 uses its MMU to "mask" it). Perhaps a cut-down MMU support (i.e. MSB address "masking") could be added to the "68080" core so to solve the issue under SMSQ/E... A hint for a successor to the Q68 ?... :-D Regards, Thierry. ___ QL-Users Mailing List ___ QL-Users Mailing List
Re: [Ql-Users] Q60 + OSSC
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 12:20:16 +0100, pgraf--- via Ql-Users wrote: > If the OSSC wasn't such an expensive, clumsy setup, I would also just > say: Issue solved. Period. All what matters for me is that it plain works and secures the usage of my Q60 in the future. "Clumsy" or not, the fact the OSSC is Open Source is also a big plus compared to other commercial "solutions" (that won't even work at all in the first place). > It's very good that you published your experience - I would never > spend the money without knowing that it actually works with the Q60. > For the BBQL, I have a better HDMI solution, so I have no other use > for an OSSC. If it has not happened yet, I would encourage you to > post your result on the QL forum also. In my case, the OSSC also allowed me to make use again of a QL and of the Thor XVI, both of which became unusable after my good old NEC Multisync 3D died. It also works nicely with my Atari 1024 STE and Falcon 030... > Or a different board that would run with the 68060 pulled out of the > Q60, hence my original question. While the 68060 is a wonderful CPU (much superior to *any* of its contemporary competitors), it is alas "dead" (no more produced, almost impossible to find, even as a second hand product, and when you find one, you must pay a fortune for it; I know it "first hand" for having bought a second hand MC68060RC50 a few years ago). So, a different board to host it sounds like a dead end project. However, and as you perfectly know, there are other solutions, based on "IP cores" and FPGAs. I recently stumbled upon: https://wiki.apollo-accelerators.com/doku.php/apollo_core:start That "68080" core (implemented with current FPGAs) is 3 times faster than a 68060 @ 66MHz ! Sadly it does not implement a MMU, so it won't be able to run Linux and some programs under SMSQ/E would pose issues (IIRC, QLiberated programs use the MSB of the address registers to store data, and the Q40/Q60 uses its MMU to "mask" it). Perhaps a cut-down MMU support (i.e. MSB address "masking") could be added to the "68080" core so to solve the issue under SMSQ/E... A hint for a successor to the Q68 ?... :-D Regards, Thierry. ___ QL-Users Mailing List
Re: [Ql-Users] Q60 + OSSC
On 16 Jan 2020 at 0:43, Thierry Godefroy via Ql-Users wrote: > > Those are small PLDs, optimized almost to the last gate, not FPGAs, > > and 800x600 is not doable. > > Surprising, since it's "just" a change in divisors/counters/ > frequencies, but if you say so (I'm certainly no expert in PLD/FPGA > programming). Maybe you can look at it this way: The video controller of the Q60 squeezes _more_ functionality than a contemporary Lattice reference design, into a PLD with less than _half_ the resources. This came not only from manual optimization using every possible trick, but also at the cost of flexibility. I had to exploit constraints that are not given at 800 x 600. I clearly remember that I tried hard to implement 800x600 some time after flatscreens came up, and came to the conclusion there is absolutely no chance. > > I would find an answer to my original question interesting. > > As I already explained, the OSSC has brought to me the solution for > the Q60 (and since a 800x600 mode is ruled out, I don't see any > point in modifying it now). Thanks for clarification. If the OSSC wasn't such an expensive, clumsy setup, I would also just say: Issue solved. Period. It's very good that you published your experience - I would never spend the money without knowing that it actually works with the Q60. For the BBQL, I have a better HDMI solution, so I have no other use for an OSSC. If it has not happened yet, I would encourage you to post your result on the QL forum also. > But you'd have to ask other Q40/Q60 owners about what they would > prefer (i.e. the use of a scan converter (*), or a heavy modification > of their Qx0 to output a higher resolution compatible with modern > monitors). Or a different board that would run with the 68060 pulled out of the Q60, hence my original question. > (*) In fact, a "cut-down" OSSC (that would only be able to deal with > the Q40/Q60 and QL video modes, and with just the VGA input and no > LCD display, no remote) could be a cheaper and easier solution. Of course. And also smaller, nicer, decently cased. If not for time shortage _plus_ other priorities even for the QL hobby, that would be an intersting project. ___ QL-Users Mailing List
Re: [Ql-Users] Q60 + OSSC
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 23:07:53 +0100, Peter Graf via Ql-Users wrote: > Those are small PLDs, optimized almost to the last gate, not FPGAs, > and 800x600 is not doable. Surprising, since it's "just" a change in divisors/counters/ frequencies, but if you say so (I'm certainly no expert in PLD/FPGA programming). > I would find an answer to my original question interesting. As I already explained, the OSSC has brought to me the solution for the Q60 (and since a 800x600 mode is ruled out, I don't see any point in modifying it now). But you'd have to ask other Q40/Q60 owners about what they would prefer (i.e. the use of a scan converter (*), or a heavy modification of their Qx0 to output a higher resolution compatible with modern monitors). Thierry. (*) In fact, a "cut-down" OSSC (that would only be able to deal with the Q40/Q60 and QL video modes, and with just the VGA input and no LCD display, no remote) could be a cheaper and easier solution. ___ QL-Users Mailing List
Re: [Ql-Users] Q60 + OSSC
Thierry Godefroy wrote: >> Besides lack of time and the BGA soldering issue, I remain unsure if >> such a massive board modification is appropriate for a historic computer. >> >> A lot depends on the question, what do we actually prefer today: Keeping >> the historic machine alive, or any 68060 machine that has decent video >> and runs SMSQ/E? > > That's why I always suggested a 800x600 SVGA mode to replace the 1024x512 > one... Granted, you loose 44288 pixels, but 800x600 is totally decent and > workable (under both SMSQ/E and Linux), and won't require any additional > VRAM, "just" needing a reprogramming of the FPGA(s) (or so is my wild > guess). Those are small PLDs, optimized almost to the last gate, not FPGAs, and 800x600 is not doable. I would find an answer to my original question interesting. ___ QL-Users Mailing List
Re: [Ql-Users] Q60 + OSSC
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 17:40:26 +0100, Peter Graf via Ql-Users wrote: > Thierry Godefroy wrote: > > In fact, I found out today that by increasing the sample rate to 1260 (from > > the 1200 I used so far) on the OSSC, I could get it to output a 1024x512 > > (without scan doubling) or 2048x1024 (with it) resolution in the 480p HDMI > > signal format... and the good news is that the monitor accepts it ! > > What does the OSSC do then... > > a) scale 512 to 480 vertical pixels? > b) somehow make the monitor display a 512 pixel signal? > c) just output 480 pixels, and 32 lines are lost? It's b) As you can see on the high res photos, the monitor menu displays the input resolution: 1024x512 (without x2 scan) or 2048x1024 (with it)... That's why with the 1260 scan rate I get a pixel-perfect picture (or very, very close to it, and certainly as good as, if not better than, what my old 17" CRT can display). > > Very interesting, since the best solution would indeed be to gain a > > standard resolution output on the Q60. > > My personal preference would be a solution that includes more VRAM, so > it is not interpolated, but an actually usable resolution. > > Besides lack of time and the BGA soldering issue, I remain unsure if > such a massive board modification is appropriate for a historic computer. > > A lot depends on the question, what do we actually prefer today: Keeping > the historic machine alive, or any 68060 machine that has decent video > and runs SMSQ/E? That's why I always suggested a 800x600 SVGA mode to replace the 1024x512 one... Granted, you loose 44288 pixels, but 800x600 is totally decent and workable (under both SMSQ/E and Linux), and won't require any additional VRAM, "just" needing a reprogramming of the FPGA(s) (or so is my wild guess). You then get both of "keeping the historic machine alive" and a "68060 machine that has decent video and runs SMSQ/E"... :-P It might as well be possible to "cheat" a bit with nowadays' LCD monitors, and see if they can be persuaded to display a 800x640 mode (i.e. to sync 640 lines in each frame with timings close enough to a true 800x600 mode), which would be only 12288 less pixels when compared to 1024x512... This said, the OSSC totally does the job for me, and I'm not worried any more about the remaining lifetime of my last CRT (which I repaired myself twice already, so I don't expect it to survive much longer)... Regards, Thierry. ___ QL-Users Mailing List
Re: [Ql-Users] Q60 + OSSC
Thierry Godefroy wrote: > In fact, I found out today that by increasing the sample rate to 1260 (from > the 1200 I used so far) on the OSSC, I could get it to output a 1024x512 > (without scan doubling) or 2048x1024 (with it) resolution in the 480p HDMI > signal format... and the good news is that the monitor accepts it ! What does the OSSC do then... a) scale 512 to 480 vertical pixels? b) somehow make the monitor display a 512 pixel signal? c) just output 480 pixels, and 32 lines are lost? >> I have been generating 1024x768 @ 60 Hz DVI/HDMI directly from $5 FPGA >> with only moderate overclocking, maybe that leads to a better Q60 >> solution one day. > > Very interesting, since the best solution would indeed be to gain a > standard resolution output on the Q60. My personal preference would be a solution that includes more VRAM, so it is not interpolated, but an actually usable resolution. Besides lack of time and the BGA soldering issue, I remain unsure if such a massive board modification is appropriate for a historic computer. A lot depends on the question, what do we actually prefer today: Keeping the historic machine alive, or any 68060 machine that has decent video and runs SMSQ/E? >> At the moment I still struggle with manual BGA soldering. > > I never tried that myself... There are a few interesting videos on > Youtube about it, in particular this one: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8EWqWj2srg Using a hot air gun like in that video looks even more difficult than the IR lamp I'm experimenting with. All the best Peter ___ QL-Users Mailing List
Re: [Ql-Users] Q60 + OSSC
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 01:16:14 +0100, Peter Graf via Ql-Users wrote: > Many thanks for taking a highres picture. It is nice to get the screen > filled, still single pixels can not be distinguished in every area. The > picture is significantly clearer on my 1024x768 monitor using the "black > bar" CPLD workaround. Hard to tell what I'd actually prefer, unless I try. In fact, I found out today that by increasing the sample rate to 1260 (from the 1200 I used so far) on the OSSC, I could get it to output a 1024x512 (without scan doubling) or 2048x1024 (with it) resolution in the 480p HDMI signal format... and the good news is that the monitor accepts it ! Here are the new high resolution pictures I took: http://qdos.free.fr/images/Q60-1024x512.dng http://qdos.free.fr/images/Q60-2048x1024.dng They are almost pixel-perfect. For a comparison between the OSSC+LCD solution with a CRT 17" monitor, here are a couple more pictures (at a lower resolution so that you can compare them side by side): http://qdos.free.fr/images/OSSC-Q60.png http://qdos.free.fr/images/CRT-Q60.png As you can see, the OSSC and LCD monitor perform quite well... > I have been generating 1024x768 @ 60 Hz DVI/HDMI directly from $5 FPGA > with only moderate overclocking, maybe that leads to a better Q60 > solution one day. Very interesting, since the best solution would indeed be to gain a standard resolution output on the Q60. > At the moment I still struggle with manual BGA soldering. I never tried that myself... There are a few interesting videos on Youtube about it, in particular this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8EWqWj2srg Thierry. ___ QL-Users Mailing List
[Ql-Users] Q60 + OSSC
Thierry Godefroy wrote: > Here are two new photos (full resolution, untouched: 30Mb each !) in DNG > format, with and without scan lines doubling: > http://qdos.free.fr/images/Q60-1960x1024.dng Many thanks for taking a highres picture. It is nice to get the screen filled, still single pixels can not be distinguished in every area. The picture is significantly clearer on my 1024x768 monitor using the "black bar" CPLD workaround. Hard to tell what I'd actually prefer, unless I try. I have been generating 1024x768 @ 60 Hz DVI/HDMI directly from $5 FPGA with only moderate overclocking, maybe that leads to a better Q60 solution one day. At the moment I still struggle with manual BGA soldering. ___ QL-Users Mailing List
