|
An interesting prototype has turned up
#301014 - 12/20/12 03:13 AM
|
|
|
Via Arcade Heroes
http://arcadeheroes.com/2012/12/19/meteors-the-prototype-arcade-game-that-changed-an-industry
The game is called Meteors, and is either a clone of Venture Line's Space Force/Meteoroids, or the original. Which one it is, is currently unknown and is being investigated. The only differences I see, besides the on-screen info, is that the monitor in Meteors is horizontal, whereas the orientation in VL's games is vertical.
The game has an interesting history, and set a legal precident about the copyrighting of genres. More information and a video of the game is at the page linked above.
I asked on the YouTube page of the video for more information, as I'm intrigued by this new mystery...
While you're there, check out the Q*Bert prototype that some lucky collector snagged... for $425.
http://arcadeheroes.com/2012/12/12/mid-w...ce-update-more/
Yes... $425...
|
"One of these days, I'm going to cut you into little pieces!"- Nick Mason, Pink Floyd
|
|
|
Re: An interesting prototype has turned up
[Re: Brian Deuel]
#301017 - 12/20/12 03:29 AM
|
|
|
We got so lucky with the rom chip format/technology. I find it really amazing that so many of them have held their data for so long. Compared to every other format I've ever seen it is really amazing.
|
|
|
|
Re: An interesting prototype has turned up
[Re: Smitdogg]
#301018 - 12/20/12 03:42 AM
|
|
|
> We got so lucky with the rom chip format/technology. I find it really amazing that so
> many of them have held their data for so long. Compared to every other format I've
> ever seen it is really amazing.
You mean mask roms? Yeah they have a hardcore resistance to time compared to most of what is currently used. If, for example, flash rom technology was developed priorly then everything from that era which wasn't dumped soon enough would be long lost. So yes we are very lucky. And fortunately too, by the time the industry evolved toward less durable material, most of the stuff were being quickly digitalized by scenes.
|
|
|
|
Re: An interesting prototype has turned up
[Re: ReadOnly]
#301020 - 12/20/12 03:48 AM
|
|
|
Flash chips do suck for retention, I wasn't meaning to include those.
|
|
|
|
Re: An interesting prototype has turned up
[Re: Smitdogg]
#301050 - 12/20/12 05:11 PM
|
|
|
> We got so lucky with the rom chip format/technology. I find it really amazing that so
> many of them have held their data for so long. Compared to every other format I've
> ever seen it is really amazing.
That is because they are read only and can't be changed. Physical connections don't just fade away, although they can be burnt out if they are extremely abused.
Eprom & flash rely on residual charges being held that leak over time. Once the charge crosses the sense threshold then you get bit rot. Recovering the data at that point starts getting expensive/impossible.
Pressed CD's and laser discs made with poor quality materials also rot due to oxidisation. Low quality materials, cheap large scale manufacturing and short sighted greed made archival of those more important.
|
|
|
| R. Belmont |
|
Cuckoo for IGAvania
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 9716
|
|
Loc: ECV-197 The Orville
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: An interesting prototype has turned up
[Re: ]
#301055 - 12/20/12 06:10 PM
|
|
|
Mask ROMs do go bad - a non-trivial percentage of bad dumps in MAME are masks.
|
|
|
|
Re: An interesting prototype has turned up
[Re: R. Belmont]
#301057 - 12/20/12 06:25 PM
|
|
|
> Mask ROMs do go bad - a non-trivial percentage of bad dumps in MAME are masks.
They can go bad (under extreme circumstances), but something tells me that an even less trivial percentage of that non trivial percentage are caused by pins issues 
|
|
|
|
Re: An interesting prototype has turned up
[Re: ReadOnly]
#301058 - 12/20/12 06:30 PM
|
|
|
> > Mask ROMs do go bad - a non-trivial percentage of bad dumps in MAME are masks.
>
> They can go bad (under extreme circumstances), but something tells me that an even
> less trivial percentage of that non trivial percentage are caused by pins issues
No, chips actually do go bad even if they don't rely on trapped charge. Oxide layers in any kind of MOS will eventually degrade, doped silicon isn't perfectly stable so semiconductor junction transistors will go bad one day, Schottky barriers will eventually contaminate. Chips built on larger processes and with thicker oxide layers will last longer, but none of them will last forever.
|
|
|
|
Re: An interesting prototype has turned up
[Re: Vas Crabb]
#301059 - 12/20/12 06:39 PM
|
|
|
> > > Mask ROMs do go bad - a non-trivial percentage of bad dumps in MAME are masks.
> >
> > They can go bad (under extreme circumstances), but something tells me that an even
> > less trivial percentage of that non trivial percentage are caused by pins issues
>
> No, chips actually do go bad even if they don't rely on trapped charge. Oxide layers
> in any kind of MOS will eventually degrade, doped silicon isn't perfectly stable so
> semiconductor junction transistors will go bad one day, Schottky barriers will
> eventually contaminate. Chips built on larger processes and with thicker oxide layers
> will last longer, but none of them will last forever.
And why do you start your post with "No" only to repeat what I said?
|
|
|
|
Re: An interesting prototype has turned up
[Re: ReadOnly]
#301064 - 12/20/12 07:16 PM
|
|
|
> > > > Mask ROMs do go bad - a non-trivial percentage of bad dumps in MAME are masks.
> > >
> > > They can go bad (under extreme circumstances), but something tells me that an
> even
> > > less trivial percentage of that non trivial percentage are caused by pins issues
> >
> > No, chips actually do go bad even if they don't rely on trapped charge. Oxide
> layers
> > in any kind of MOS will eventually degrade, doped silicon isn't perfectly stable so
> > semiconductor junction transistors will go bad one day, Schottky barriers will
> > eventually contaminate. Chips built on larger processes and with thicker oxide
> layers
> > will last longer, but none of them will last forever.
>
> And why do you start your post with "No" only to repeat what I said?
because what he listed are not "extreme circumstances"?
|
|
|
|
Re: An interesting prototype has turned up
[Re: etabeta]
#301065 - 12/20/12 07:24 PM
|
|
|
> > > > > Mask ROMs do go bad - a non-trivial percentage of bad dumps in MAME are
> masks.
> > > >
> > > > They can go bad (under extreme circumstances), but something tells me that an
> > even
> > > > less trivial percentage of that non trivial percentage are caused by pins
> issues
> > >
> > > No, chips actually do go bad even if they don't rely on trapped charge. Oxide
> > layers
> > > in any kind of MOS will eventually degrade, doped silicon isn't perfectly stable
> so
> > > semiconductor junction transistors will go bad one day, Schottky barriers will
> > > eventually contaminate. Chips built on larger processes and with thicker oxide
> > layers
> > > will last longer, but none of them will last forever.
> >
> > And why do you start your post with "No" only to repeat what I said?
>
> because what he listed are not "extreme circumstances"?
If decades of time passing by are not extreme circumstances, then what is?
He's basically saying they won't last forever, but what in this world lasts forever? That was a pretty silly statement.
I am talking from my dumping experience anyway, I have dumped several thousands of ass old mask roms and 100% of the bad dumps were bad pins/connections. It's not rocket science.
Edited by ReadOnly (12/20/12 07:58 PM)
|
|
|
|
Re: An interesting prototype has turned up
[Re: ReadOnly]
#301072 - 12/20/12 08:54 PM
|
|
|
> I am talking from my dumping experience anyway, I have dumped several thousands of
> ass old mask roms and 100% of the bad dumps were bad pins/connections. It's not
> rocket science.
Yeah, fixing bad pins is more like rocket surgery ;-)
OG.
|
|
|
|
Re: An interesting prototype has turned up
[Re: Olivier Galibert]
#301076 - 12/20/12 10:08 PM
|
|
|
> > I am talking from my dumping experience anyway, I have dumped several thousands of
> > ass old mask roms and 100% of the bad dumps were bad pins/connections. It's not
> > rocket science.
>
> Yeah, fixing bad pins is more like rocket surgery ;-)
>
> OG.
not sure what you mean there, sarcasm?
anyway there are generally two cases
1. it's just a static dust problem, clean the connections and you're good
2. a pin is badly damaged, then you need to desolder it
but I have yet to see a single mask rom chip which got corrupted internally, the chemicals are very stable and well protected, unless exposed to sever heat or to eternity of time, then it really hard to corrupt them
|
|
|
|
Re: An interesting prototype has turned up
[Re: ReadOnly]
#301081 - 12/20/12 11:46 PM
|
|
|
> > > I am talking from my dumping experience anyway, I have dumped several thousands
> of
> > > ass old mask roms and 100% of the bad dumps were bad pins/connections. It's not
> > > rocket science.
> >
> > Yeah, fixing bad pins is more like rocket surgery ;-)
> >
> > OG.
>
> not sure what you mean there, sarcasm?
Nope, just that as far as I know fixing bad pins can be a lot of non-fun.
OG.
|
|
|
|
Re: An interesting prototype has turned up
[Re: Olivier Galibert]
#301082 - 12/20/12 11:55 PM
|
|
|
Yeah desoldering chips does suck. I don't even have what is required at home, so I need to bother friends about it. Not cool so I only do it if absolutely needed.
|
|
|
|
Re: An interesting prototype has turned up
[Re: Brian Deuel]
#301093 - 12/21/12 01:32 AM
|
|
|
Anyone know someone from Venture Line? Trying to unravel this mystery...
|
"One of these days, I'm going to cut you into little pieces!"- Nick Mason, Pink Floyd
|
|
|
Re: An interesting prototype has turned up
[Re: ReadOnly]
#301108 - 12/21/12 04:51 AM
|
|
|
> If decades of time passing by are not extreme circumstances, then what is?
>
> He's basically saying they won't last forever, but what in this world lasts forever?
> That was a pretty silly statement.
>
> I am talking from my dumping experience anyway, I have dumped several thousands of
> ass old mask roms and 100% of the bad dumps were bad pins/connections. It's not
> rocket science.
Well console ROM chips generally get a pretty easy life. They sit around unused most of the time, and they aren't subjected to much thermal stress. In industrial applications, chips are run close to spec for years on end. A significant proportion of NMOS chips used in industrial applications have gone bad. Modern CMOS chips built on ever-smaller processes with ridiculously thin oxide layers go bad quicker. It isn't that it takes extreme circumstances to make chips go bad, it's just that console ROMs aren't exposed to much at all.
|
|
|
|
Re: An interesting prototype has turned up
[Re: Vas Crabb]
#301122 - 12/21/12 01:15 PM
|
|
|
> > If decades of time passing by are not extreme circumstances, then what is?
> >
> > He's basically saying they won't last forever, but what in this world lasts
> forever?
> > That was a pretty silly statement.
> >
> > I am talking from my dumping experience anyway, I have dumped several thousands of
> > ass old mask roms and 100% of the bad dumps were bad pins/connections. It's not
> > rocket science.
>
> Well console ROM chips generally get a pretty easy life. They sit around unused most
> of the time, and they aren't subjected to much thermal stress. In industrial
> applications, chips are run close to spec for years on end. A significant proportion
> of NMOS chips used in industrial applications have gone bad. Modern CMOS chips built
> on ever-smaller processes with ridiculously thin oxide layers go bad quicker. It
> isn't that it takes extreme circumstances to make chips go bad, it's just that
> console ROMs aren't exposed to much at all.
Yes those are the extreme circumstances I was talking about. Regardless no matter the specs, there is fixed a voltage between the entry and exit of the semiconductors which will determine the amount of energy it will sustain at any time. That amount of energy is way, way inferior to the energy contained in the chemical bonds, so the chemicals should not react. But there is always an epsilon risk of them reacting and the bigger the total amount of energy it sustains over time the higher that epsilon is of course.
|
|
|
|
Re: An interesting prototype has turned up
[Re: ReadOnly]
#301123 - 12/21/12 02:45 PM
|
|
|
> Yes those are the extreme circumstances I was talking about. Regardless no matter the
> specs, there is fixed a voltage between the entry and exit of the semiconductors
> which will determine the amount of energy it will sustain at any time. That amount of
> energy is way, way inferior to the energy contained in the chemical bonds, so the
> chemicals should not react. But there is always an epsilon risk of them reacting and
> the bigger the total amount of energy it sustains over time the higher that epsilon
> is of course.
Voltage across the semiconductor junctions doesn't have much to do with it. The very thin oxide layers in modern CMOS chips easily degrade from heat alone. The first-generation Motorola 7400 CPUs (in FCPGA packages before they went BGA) are well-known for this happening even when run within specified temperature limits. Then you lose the insulation between the gate and the channel, killing (part of) your chip. The IBM POWER chips had far thicker oxide layers, so they used far more power at the same clock speed, but they could run hotter and didn't have problems with oxide degradation.
It's similar with Schottky barrier diodes - the chemical bonds within the metal used for the anode are not particularly strong, and the metal atoms will readily form bonds with the metalloid semiconductors in the cathode. This means atoms from the metal anode will slowly diffuse into the cathode and poison it. Higher temperatures will speed it up, but it will happen at room temperature eventually.
The fact is, console ROMs have survived very well because of extreme circumstances. Sitting in a box at room temperature is not really how semiconductor products are designed to be used.
|
|
|
|
Re: An interesting prototype has turned up
[Re: Vas Crabb]
#301125 - 12/21/12 03:06 PM
|
|
|
> > Yes those are the extreme circumstances I was talking about. Regardless no matter
> the
> > specs, there is fixed a voltage between the entry and exit of the semiconductors
> > which will determine the amount of energy it will sustain at any time. That amount
> of
> > energy is way, way inferior to the energy contained in the chemical bonds, so the
> > chemicals should not react. But there is always an epsilon risk of them reacting
> and
> > the bigger the total amount of energy it sustains over time the higher that epsilon
> > is of course.
>
> Voltage across the semiconductor junctions doesn't have much to do with it. The very
> thin oxide layers in modern CMOS chips easily degrade from heat alone. The
> first-generation Motorola 7400 CPUs (in FCPGA packages before they went BGA) are
> well-known for this happening even when run within specified temperature limits. Then
> you lose the insulation between the gate and the channel, killing (part of) your
> chip. The IBM POWER chips had far thicker oxide layers, so they used far more power
> at the same clock speed, but they could run hotter and didn't have problems with
> oxide degradation.
>
> It's similar with Schottky barrier diodes - the chemical bonds within the metal used
> for the anode are not particularly strong, and the metal atoms will readily form
> bonds with the metalloid semiconductors in the cathode. This means atoms from the
> metal anode will slowly diffuse into the cathode and poison it. Higher temperatures
> will speed it up, but it will happen at room temperature eventually.
>
> The fact is, console ROMs have survived very well because of extreme circumstances.
> Sitting in a box at room temperature is not really how semiconductor products are
> designed to be used.
heat alone? but isn't heat equal to energy?
the semiconductor has a certain resistance r to electrons movements depending on its structure, the semiconductor will sustain an electrical intensity I = U/r, and an energy equal to UI*t, U being the voltage between the entry and exit of the semiconductor, t being the time during which the voltage is active, and unless you throw the chip into the lava, the heat is almost entirely the result of the friction of electrons which itself depends directly on the voltage, so the voltage has everything to do with everything
and as long as this voltage is appropriate, there should be no way the chip will receive enough energy to break the chemical bonds and have them reacting which would end in corrupting the chip
I really wish I could say this in a way everyone could understand but I'm not very good at vulgarizing science
|
|
|
|
Re: An interesting prototype has turned up
[Re: ReadOnly]
#301138 - 12/21/12 05:30 PM
|
|
|
> I really wish I could say this in a way everyone could understand but I'm not very
> good at vulgarizing science
It's like throwing a hot dog down a hallway.
There ya go.
|
|
|
| R. Belmont |
|
Cuckoo for IGAvania
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 9716
|
|
Loc: ECV-197 The Orville
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: An interesting prototype has turned up
[Re: ReadOnly]
#301143 - 12/21/12 06:10 PM
|
|
|
> I really wish I could say this in a way everyone could understand but I'm not very
> good at vulgarizing science
It's not a matter of being vulgar. Vas is right and you aren't, and he has plenty of $64,000 words and real-world examples to prove it.
|
|
|
|
Re: An interesting prototype has turned up
[Re: R. Belmont]
#301154 - 12/21/12 11:45 PM
|
|
|
> Mask ROMs do go bad - a non-trivial percentage of bad dumps in MAME are masks.
Without knowing the provenance of the mask roms in question it's difficult to know just what happened to them. There are plenty of things you can do to a mask rom that will kill it, the mask roms might have got damaged during a "repair".
Edited by smf (12/21/12 11:46 PM)
|
|
|
|
Re: An interesting prototype has turned up
[Re: Brian Deuel]
#301162 - 12/22/12 02:10 AM
|
|
|
I didn't find much more than you, though I did do a post on the game at:
http://allincolorforaquarter.blogspot.com/2012/12/meteors.html
I do know the names of a lot of people at Venture Line, but haven't tracked any of them down yet:
Joe York - founder and president
Bob Linde - chief engineer
Ed Wanisko - director of sales
Dave Massey, Sr. - director of marketing
Phil Vaught - general manager
Rich Malecki - service manager, manager of test engineering
Rick Wood - director of marketing
Roger Dickman - production manager
If you get ahold of someone from Venture Line, let me know as I'd love to interview them for my book (or give them my e-mail address: [email protected]).
|
|
|
Stiletto |
|
They're always after me Lucky ROMS!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 03/07/04
|
|
Posts: 6472
|
|
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: An interesting prototype has turned up
[Re: astrp3]
#301164 - 12/22/12 02:45 AM
|
|
|
> I didn't find much more than you, though I did do a post on the game at:
> http://allincolorforaquarter.blogspot.com/2012/12/meteors.html
>
> I do know the names of a lot of people at Venture Line, but haven't tracked any of
> them down yet:
>
> Joe York - founder and president
> Bob Linde - chief engineer
> Ed Wanisko - director of sales
> Dave Massey, Sr. - director of marketing
> Phil Vaught - general manager
> Rich Malecki - service manager, manager of test engineering
> Rick Wood - director of marketing
> Roger Dickman - production manager
>
> If you get ahold of someone from Venture Line, let me know as I'd love to interview
> them for my book (or give them my e-mail address: [email protected]).
Thank you so much!
- Stiletto
|
|
|
|
Re: An interesting prototype has turned up
[Re: ReadOnly]
#301165 - 12/22/12 02:54 AM
|
|
|
OK, now you're way out. In a CMOS chip, I^2*R losses in the channels are a relatively small contributor to heat. The channel and gate of each transistor separated by the oxide layer form a capacitor. Turning the transistor on requires charging this capacitor, and turning the transistor off requires discharging it. The majority of heat from running the chip comes from losses in charging/discharging gate capacitance. If you clock the chip faster, you're be charging/discharging these capacitors more often, and pump out more heat. Power dissipation depends largely on clock speed.
The temperature of the chip depends on ambient temperature, power dissipation, and how effectively you're getting heat out of the package into the environment. Ambient temperature isn't necessarily room temperature - it's often higher as your chip is in the vicinity of other heat-producing components. Then you're got the inefficiency of getting heat from the die to the package, from the package to the heatskink, and from the heatsink to the air. Even if you're well within voltage and clock speed limits, if your ambient temperature is too high or you aren't removing heat effectively you'll end up with very high temperatures.
Yes, you can damage semiconductors by applying excessive voltage. This can result in "punch-through" collector/emitter shorts in BJTs, and gate/channel shorts from sparking across the oxide layer in MOSFETs. This is something that happens suddenly, it's not what I'm talking about.
Chemical reactions towards lower energy states happen naturally. You don't need to supply large amounts of energy to get this to happen. Most chemical reactions can be accelerated by higher temperatures. Chips just degrade, and they degrade faster if you use them - it's a fact of life.
|
|
|
|
Re: An interesting prototype has turned up
[Re: Brian Deuel]
#301167 - 12/22/12 03:17 AM
|
|
|
> While you're there, check out the Q*Bert prototype that some lucky collector
> snagged... for $425.
>
> http://arcadeheroes.com/2012/12/12/mid-w...ce-update-more/
>
> Yes... $425...
I'm assuming you guys are on this, but the owner appears emulation friendly and has not only a Q*bert proto but also some sort of undumped Q*bert speedup kit.
|
|
|
|
Re: An interesting prototype has turned up
[Re: Vas Crabb]
#301230 - 12/23/12 01:53 PM
|
|
|
so many inaccuracies... if you are graduated from a high engineer school we can take this to pm if you want because seeing the reactions to my last post, I don't think it's wise to post here even further details of the mechanics
|
|
|
|
Re: An interesting prototype has turned up
[Re: ReadOnly]
#301249 - 12/24/12 12:35 AM
|
|
|
> so many inaccuracies... if you are graduated from a high engineer school we can take
> this to pm if you want because seeing the reactions to my last post, I don't think
> it's wise to post here even further details of the mechanics
Yes, I graduated as an electrical engineer with first class honours, no I am not interested in arguing over private messages. I've seen plenty of semiconductor device failures in real life. The most spectacular was when an IGBT in a 15kW 3-phase inverter literally exploded in front of my face (collector-emitter punch-through), but most of them have been far more mundane. I know what you're saying - there shouldn't be enough energy supplied to break covalent bonds so the chemical structures shouldn't change. It's nice in theory, but the compounds used in semiconductors aren't perfectly stable, and they degrade naturally at room temperature. They degrade faster at higher temperatures, and the smaller the process the less degradation it takes to cause failure.
|
|
|
|
Re: An interesting prototype has turned up
[Re: Vas Crabb]
#301298 - 12/24/12 06:32 PM
|
|
|
> > so many inaccuracies... if you are graduated from a high engineer school we can
> take
> > this to pm if you want because seeing the reactions to my last post, I don't think
> > it's wise to post here even further details of the mechanics
>
> Yes, I graduated as an electrical engineer with first class honours, no I am not
> interested in arguing over private messages. I've seen plenty of semiconductor device
> failures in real life. The most spectacular was when an IGBT in a 15kW 3-phase
> inverter literally exploded in front of my face (collector-emitter punch-through),
> but most of them have been far more mundane. I know what you're saying - there
> shouldn't be enough energy supplied to break covalent bonds so the chemical
> structures shouldn't change. It's nice in theory, but the compounds used in
> semiconductors aren't perfectly stable, and they degrade naturally at room
> temperature. They degrade faster at higher temperatures, and the smaller the process
> the less degradation it takes to cause failure.
As you wish good Sir, just one final word, there are many parameters that needs to be considered such as thermal isolation of the chemicals, dissipation and more generally thermodynamics and that's pretty fugly, so don't want to post about this here. Even the energy levels on a sub atomic level should be considered for completeness, and to be entirely honest I no longer have the level to analyze this. But micro devices engineers are no fools and they know all the mechanics perfectly and all the risks are measured.
Anyway I think we basically say the same thing from the beginning but you're focusing on the epsilon probability of reactions happening at low energy levels due to some very rare spacial configurations of the electrons. When you deal with large quantities, it's always easy to point at the epsilon, but it doesn't make the statistical pattern any less true.
|
|
|
| R. Belmont |
|
Cuckoo for IGAvania
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 9716
|
|
Loc: ECV-197 The Orville
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: An interesting prototype has turned up
[Re: astrp3]
#301301 - 12/24/12 07:39 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: An interesting prototype has turned up
[Re: ReadOnly]
#301340 - 12/25/12 01:59 PM
|
|
|
> Anyway I think we basically say the same thing from the beginning but you're focusing
> on the epsilon probability of reactions happening at low energy levels due to some
> very rare spacial configurations of the electrons. When you deal with large
> quantities, it's always easy to point at the epsilon, but it doesn't make the
> statistical pattern any less true.
Yeah, possibly. One doesn't usually have to get involved for the cases when things are working as they should, only when they fail. And it's always easiest to remember the spectacular failures
|
|
|
|
Re: An interesting prototype has turned up
[Re: R. Belmont]
#301663 - 12/31/12 04:08 AM
|
|
|
> > I didn't find much more than you, though I did do a post on the game at:
> > http://allincolorforaquarter.blogspot.com/2012/12/meteors.html
>
> For the record, we all love your site. Can't wait to get your book, too!
Yes... very much so. The depth to which your research goes is unmatched. Great stuff!
|
"One of these days, I'm going to cut you into little pieces!"- Nick Mason, Pink Floyd
|
|
| gregf |
|
Ramtek's Trivia promoter
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 8601
|
|
Loc: southern CA, US
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
|
>> For the record, we all love your site. Can't wait to get your book, too!
>Yes... very much so. The depth to which your research goes is unmatched. Great stuff!
*gregf mode length Nintendo flyer recollection moment* 
iirc Keith S. did the long ago interview with Allied Leisure's Jack Pearson for Game Room Magazine. When Game Room Magazine was online then, one could read the interview article with Jack Pearson.
The reason why recalling this is because way back in winter 2001 when MW Loonybin was a real crazy place then and it was unsafe to lurk then..kidding but heh those were good old days then.....it was a MW member, Fazeo, that was trying to recall an airplane fighting game in which player shoots down airplanes with a machine gune. Fazeo recalled game was larger than an upright video cab and maybe appeared on a film projection screen.
I showed a link to Fazeo about Allied Leisure's Battle Station.
Allied Leisure Battle Station flyer
http://flyers.arcade-museum.com/?page=thumbs&db=arcadedb&id=2
And Fazeo replied with that not being the cab he recalled playing.
That started me on searching about arcade games that use film reels for gameplay. I eventually asked Mr. Goodwraith about another particular Nintendo game in which Stiletto found all the answers for me in spring 2002.
The one that folks are tired of seeing rehashed every-so-often. ;-)
A month or two later, TAFA's Dan Hower mentioned to me of where to find a Nintendo Wild Gunman / Shooting Trainer flyer and I bought one.
And then I had noticed an entry on KLOV about Nintendo's Battle Shark
http://flyers.arcade-museum.com/?page=thumbs&db=arcadedb&id=1070
But I wasn't sure if that was the game Fazeo was trying to remember. In fact, no one on emulation scene back then even recalled seeing or playing Nintendo Battle Shark, but only recall Taito's version.
Eventually Dan Hower mentioned another Nintendo flyer in spring 2003.
Nintendo Sky Hawk
http://flyers.arcade-museum.com/?page=thumbs&db=arcadedb&id=1072
And sure enough....it turned out to be Sky Hawk that both Fazeo and myself were trying to remember. Thanks to Dan's efforts, we might finally have all the likely Nintendo games that used film reels during the 1970s now documented.
http://flyers.arcade-museum.com/?page=ar...rch+the+Archive
And that concludes the Nintendo film reel games flyers recollection moment.
btw: I hope Keith might be able to ask another question to Jack Pearson...if still possible. It was about whatever happened to Allied Leisure's Zap video game. There isn't anything about it and maybe no flyers were printed for the game, but there was an auction of a Zap cab on ebay so it did actually exist. I don't recall seeing the game at arcades I went to back in 1970s.
This is the front page of a stapled, photocopied manual of Allied Leisure's Zap. The photocopied quality is so-so, but better than nothing. Also fortunate that it includes logic schematics, so maybe a chance it could be emulated later. The gameplay is somewhat similar to Wipe Out/Leader/Countdown, but is a two-player only game in which each player can move the paddle up-down-left-right to bounce ball back to opposing player while a square (ie: Zap box) deflects ball if player presses the zap button that is on the control stick.
The points score function is handled by a score pcb that displays the score on led display near the marquee area of the cab.
[ATTACHED IMAGE - CLICK FOR FULL SIZE]
Edited by gregf (01/03/13 07:27 AM)
|
|
|
Index 
Threaded 
An interesting prototype has turned up
Reply
[Re: 
