Issues and questions.

Nagging hardware related question? Post here!
stephen_usher
Gold Card
Posts: 429
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 8:00 pm
Location: Oxford, UK.
Contact:

Re: Issues and questions.

Post by stephen_usher »

The box is highly configurable. There's very little border at the top and bottom, it's a little tricky to see as the screen surround is black and it was a dark room. You'll have borders left and right as it's a 4:3 display on a 16:9 screen.

As for the case, that's the only one available, but you can make your own. Technically you could build your own unit as it's fully open source, both hardware and firmware.


User avatar
Peter
QL Wafer Drive
Posts: 1953
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:47 am

Re: Issues and questions.

Post by Peter »

stephen_usher wrote:As for the case, that's the only one available, but you can make your own. Technically you could build your own unit as it's fully open source, both hardware and firmware.
Thanks, but to design and build a case ist not the work I want to do when I spend so much money for a finished solution.

It would then be cheaper to turn a Q68 into a (then QL-specific) converter, and spend the time with the FPGA logic design, instead of making a case for the OSSC.


stephen_usher
Gold Card
Posts: 429
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 8:00 pm
Location: Oxford, UK.
Contact:

Re: Issues and questions.

Post by stephen_usher »

The three metal plate "case" is protective enough. To be honest, it's fine.


User avatar
Peter
QL Wafer Drive
Posts: 1953
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:47 am

Re: Issues and questions.

Post by Peter »

stephen_usher wrote:The three metal plate "case" is protective enough. To be honest, it's fine.
No shielding for EMI and dust goes in.


stephen_usher
Gold Card
Posts: 429
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 8:00 pm
Location: Oxford, UK.
Contact:

Re: Issues and questions.

Post by stephen_usher »

Peter wrote:
stephen_usher wrote:The three metal plate "case" is protective enough. To be honest, it's fine.
No shielding for EMI and dust goes in.
True about dust, but plastic cases will be even less protective against RF and static charge. The aluminium or steel plates will be a partial faraday cage.


User avatar
Peter
QL Wafer Drive
Posts: 1953
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:47 am

Re: Issues and questions.

Post by Peter »

stephen_usher wrote:True about dust, but plastic cases will be even less protective against RF and static charge. The aluminium or steel plates will be a partial faraday cage.
It is presented in the shop like a commercial high-end product for the general market, so I think it deserves a closed metal or metallized case.
With EMI frequencies of several hundred MHz up to GHz generated by the FPGA, even small holes in shielding are a problem. Let alone the completely open sides between the steel plates.


User avatar
tofro
Font of All Knowledge
Posts: 2685
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:53 pm
Location: SW Germany

Re: Issues and questions.

Post by tofro »

The (definitely questionable) make of the "case" would be my least concern with this box.

The price tag on the OSSC is my main one, to be honest. I'm a bit unwilling to spend that amount of money to have the benefit of a QL spitting out an acceptable picture when I can have a new Q68 with a native VGA port (and a proper case) for less.

Just my 2cts.

Tobias


ʎɐqǝ ɯoɹɟ ǝq oʇ ƃuᴉoƃ ʇou sᴉ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ʇxǝu ʎɯ 'ɹɐǝp ɥO
User avatar
Peter
QL Wafer Drive
Posts: 1953
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:47 am

Re: Issues and questions.

Post by Peter »

I'm thankful that you and many others enjoy my Q68 design, but even I would love to keep my QLs usable.

It seems that you had luck with QL video conversion, but I had not... so I almost seriously considered:

- Redesign the Q68 to become sort of an "UltraGoldCard" extension for the QL
- Make a half-populated variant of the Q68 board and abuse it as video converter for the QL
- Design a 8301 replacement (most work, least likely)

No time for all of that at the moment, so if the OSSC would not collect dust inside and act as a jamming transmitter, I'd be tempted.


User avatar
tofro
Font of All Knowledge
Posts: 2685
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:53 pm
Location: SW Germany

Re: Issues and questions.

Post by tofro »

Peter,

My experience with the SCART-HDMI scalers (the "boxy" type that was once linked here) in the meantime is the following:

They seem to be all the same - No difference between time manufactured. I have three of them now purchased over about five years and they all behave the same with the QL.

The difference between working and non-working seems to be the monitor (or, rather the care it takes for a proper HDMI signal).
  • All three of mine work with a cheap Chinese TV (of "Kendo" make, was a bargain once at some discounter).
  • All three work with a cheap Toshiba TV (Toshiba 24D1763DA) that I got non-working from a garage sale and repaired)
  • None of them works with a relatively recent Sony TV
  • All of them work with a predecessor model of the Sony
  • None of them works with a modern NEC Multisync
  • None of them seems to work with some other HP and Benq HDMI/DVI monitors
So, the TV (or monitor) seems to be the key to success - The cheaper it is, the more likely to work, and, overall, I had better success with TV sets than computer monitors.

Maybe it's time you pack up the QL, the scaler and some cables and go visit some shops ;)

Tobias


ʎɐqǝ ɯoɹɟ ǝq oʇ ƃuᴉoƃ ʇou sᴉ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ʇxǝu ʎɯ 'ɹɐǝp ɥO
User avatar
Peter
QL Wafer Drive
Posts: 1953
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:47 am

Re: Issues and questions.

Post by Peter »

Many thanks for describing your experiences! I also own the "boxy type" SCART-HDMI converter (more compact than the OSSC and nicely cased). With that, the screen blanks most of the time, but once in a while I see a clear picture.

Yes it could be the choice of monitor/TV, but I also have doubts about my QL mainboards... you might have newer ones. I tried several TVs already, but no cheap ones.


Post Reply