Nightmaretony wrote:
Once you get past prototyping woes from my dimwitted way of going about it the first time, it is a joy to use and I do plan to use it in future applications. I want to keep the pinball project to use straight parts, but I am SERIOUSLY tempted to redesign the hardware to use the 134 and CPLD. The downshot there is that I was going for straight TTL to make it easy to work with in 20 years. Actually, the CPLD is common enough so I think it may be worth looking into for the pinball circuit. It would reduce my cost something fierce there, instead of 15-30 TTLs, just simply a 4 or 5 chip circuit. So I am thinking of looking into that. If it looks good, I will do the hardware redesign to use it and redo the code as needed.
I lack CPLD or FPGA capability. If I had even moderate CPLD capability, I wouldn't have to put up with 160x100 video resolution for the Kestrel 1.
The other problem I have is soldering the damn things into a circuit. I'm still not convinced that CPLDs are hacker-friendly in ANY way. I'd have to etch a PCB just to play with the damn thing, and PCBs are DAMN expensive in small qtys.
And then there is that small issue of voltages -- most modern CPLDs are 1.8V to 3.3V devices; attempting to use them in a 5V logic design, such as the Kestrel 1, will be nearly impossible without expensive level converter chips.
Anyway, what I wanted to say originally was, if you wanted longevity of your circuit, I think the best possible way to achieve it is to include the equivalent schematic or the raw Verilog/PALASM/whatever source code for the design. That's the best possible way I can think of to ensure easy workability for the future.
That way, you leave the choice of future technologies open.
). Expect a minimal blitter as well.
