New Form of Link Cable Idea

Jan 30, 2014 • 03:20

I know DogP is working to make a professional link cable available. I also believe I read that there is a usb cable in development. I’m assuming the point of the usb cable was for online vs. capabilities? If that is correct then a program was going to be written to act as the host controller between 2 virtual boys.

Now with all that out of the way, I had an idea for replacing the cable with a WiFi chip. It would use the same connector from DogP’s cable but run to a logic board with a WiFi chip. This way the system would still maintain its “portable” aspect if that even existed lol. Wouldn’t it be nice to not have to have a cable running to a pc? This all might be crazy but its just an idea that I had and wanted to share. I’m not familiar with the virtual boys hardware but it definitely seems plausible depending on the amount of power that the EXT port puts out. Please let me know what everyone thinks.

Viewing 12 replies - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)

12 Replies

Jan 30, 2014 • 10:11

DogP

I have sorta considered something like that several times… but I’m not sure it’s really worthwhile. It’d be pretty tough to get something like that built into the link connector (without making it much larger), so you’d need an external box that a link cable plugs into. And then you need to write some amount of driver code to run on the VB to talk to whatever WiFi device you’re using (some would actually require the TCP/IP stack to run on the VB).

The two candidates that I’ve considered in the past are the CC3000 and RN-171 (like these modules: http://www.adafruit.com/products/1469#Description and https://www.sparkfun.com/products/11049 ). They could both be used with the VB with a pretty simple hardware and software interface. I’m not totally sure about the specs of the VB regulator, but it could probably handle the extra power load. The link port has a 5V output, which would need to be regulated down to 3.3V… and the parts run at ~200mA-300mA (depending on Tx power), so you’re looking at about an additional 1W-1.5W (assuming a linear regulator). Not a lot of power, but almost doubling that of the VB (and the WiFi box might get a bit warm).

And though I’m sure the stuff will get cheaper over time… none of them are particularly cheap right now, so I can’t imagine many being too interested in spending an additional $40 or so (on top of the link connector cost) for standalone WiFi (which would require specific support from games). For about the same price, you could get a small ARM computer (Raspberry Pi, or similar) and simply plug in the USB cable and run the same USB link program that you’d run on a PC.

DogP

Jan 30, 2014 • 14:16

Tauwasser

WiFi might not be an option, but there are several Bluetooth chips out there that are much nicer power-wise. They take 20-80 mA peak current — depending on chip model –, while most of the time taking less than 3 mA.

They’re not big either, don’t need an external antenna, are relatively easy to communicate with and provide a transparent serial interface, so with a bit of surrounding tech and initial programming of the chip, they can be a drop-in replacement for a cable.

cYa,

Tauwasser

Jan 30, 2014 • 16:08

HoMenace

Thanks for the replies. If wifi was an issue then yeah I would see either bluetooth or RF being a possible substitution. As for it being too large and requiring a separate box, that would basically be counter intuitive. The whole point was to not have to connect the VB to another device. Is it a weight support issue you are seeing or the overall size will just be too bulky? If it is weight, then possibly a clip could come off it to attach to the base for extra support? I understand that we are just normal everyday people that would be doing this in our spare time with what ever equipment we could find and not some huge corporation with tons of r&d resources. But I can’t imagine this peripheral would be that large. Heck, look at the ultra small usb transmitters for bluetooth and RF. They are the size of a dime.

Jan 31, 2014 • 00:08

3DBoyColor

There’s also the other option, solder wires between the two Virtual Boys.

Jan 31, 2014 • 00:13

HoMenace

I was more so meaning this to work in conjunction with the host application on a pc for online vs. play. I think the cable is the ideal solution for local play.

Jan 31, 2014 • 00:49

3DBoyColor

That would require reprogramming games to work with the internet adapter. Most people have flashboys, so I guess that’s not a big issue. Still, the big problem is developing a wireless internet adapter. Not to mention having to build it and sell it for a decent price.

I think the market is too small for this sort of thing. One could definitely make a proof of concept plug-in for the link port though.

Jan 31, 2014 • 01:24

HoMenace

You shouldn’t have to build it into the games at all. It would be self contained in the unit/program. I got this idea from back in the days of the original halo. It had multiplayer through system link but xbox live did not exist back then. Someone made a host program that acted as a server that would allow people to connect their xbox’s through ethernet to their network and the program simulated the system link allowing people to play online. Basically the adapter would plug into the link port and work with the program on the pc to just simulate as if there were 2 virtual boys plugged into each other. I see this being very plausable and the final build cost being between $50-$100 based on some hardware that Ive researched.

Jan 31, 2014 • 08:05

DogP

HoMenace wrote:
As for it being too large and requiring a separate box, that would basically be counter intuitive. The whole point was to not have to connect the VB to another device. Is it a weight support issue you are seeing or the overall size will just be too bulky?

The reason it’d need a seperate box is because the cavity for a PCB inside the link connector (that we’re currently building) is only about 1/4 sq. in. Using what’s available and compatible with the VB (CC3000, RN-171, etc), that’s not going to fit, unless you make a VB link connector shell specifically for this (you mentioned using the same link connector).

HoMenace wrote:
But I can’t imagine this peripheral would be that large. Heck, look at the ultra small usb transmitters for bluetooth and RF. They are the size of a dime.

Unfortunately, a dime is too big. And yes, those are small… but they’re USB, and the VB doesn’t have USB. We require a simple clocked serial connection (that’s what the link port is), and almost certainly want something that simplifies the wireless connection, requiring fairly simple software (buffers data, flow control, simple API, handles all the WiFi stuff, incorporates the TCP/IP stack, etc). That’s why we can’t simply hook up a $5 USB WiFi dongle.

HoMenace wrote:
You shouldn’t have to build it into the games at all. It would be self contained in the unit/program. I got this idea from back in the days of the original halo. It had multiplayer through system link but xbox live did not exist back then. Someone made a host program that acted as a server that would allow people to connect their xbox’s through ethernet to their network and the program simulated the system link allowing people to play online.

If you want to do it without building it into the games at all, you’re going to need another processor between the VB and the WiFi chip. Otherwise, how are you going to select the wireless network to connect to, how are you going to convert just the relevant TCP/IP data into a clocked serial link data, etc?

And trying a link cable replacement like that just isn’t possible, because on one serial clock cycle, it both sends and receives a bit (full duplex). There’s no way to send clock, data, and COMCNT instantly over the internet (or a local network)… it really requires just a simple wire. To make it compatible with the lag involved over a network, you need to make changes to the program to make it “network aware”.

What you’re talking about on the xbox is completely different, because the system link was already Ethernet… the program that let them play online was just acting as a bridge to make multiple networks online appear as a single local network. I’ve done that to play my arcade games that use Ethernet over the internet as well… but the VB link isn’t Ethernet, nor is it anything like Ethernet.

HoMenace wrote:
Basically the adapter would plug into the link port and work with the program on the pc to just simulate as if there were 2 virtual boys plugged into each other. I see this being very plausable and the final build cost being between $50-$100 based on some hardware that Ive researched.

Okay… let me know when you’ve got a working prototype. 😉

DogP

Jan 31, 2014 • 19:49

thunderstruck

I thought about this as well. I still have some arduinos lying around. I understood that the protocol is basically SPI so a connection should be possible. I also have several shields (wifi, ethernet, xBee). An Arduino is quite Big though. However, there are smaller versions of then the one I own. You could also connect it with a cable and have it lying on the table. It would definitely be a expensive solution.

Feb 01, 2014 • 00:09

HoMenace

DogP, you obviously have far more knowledge then I do with the virtual boy’s hardware and technology development in general. I was just trying to share an idea that I had. I never meant it to be a definitive answer or way to develop it.

Feb 01, 2014 • 10:25

DogP

I’m just giving you a hard time. 😉 The WiFi “cable replacement” is just not technically feasable… and IMO, it’s probably too early to really be considering a WiFi link dongle (almost nothing uses the simple regular link cable).

DogP

Apr 05, 2014 • 21:54

e5frog

Just being able to buy cables and a few games using that cable would be nice. It would be fun to meet up with other Virtual Boy owners on fairs and have a game of 4-in-a-row, poker, battle ship or some 3D-shooter…

Viewing 12 replies - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)

Write a reply

News

Database

Development

Community

You are not logged in

New Form of Link Cable Idea