[Coco] Including an SSC

[lciotti1]

Nick,

I see you point, however the biggest problem I see is that since Darren 
only ran to runs, and obviously by the mad rush that just occurred over 
the last few day there were others that wanted it, and since he did not 
have any intention of doing another run we had a good piece of hardware 
just out of reach for anyone that wanted it. Releasing it to the public 
will result in 1) more access for people who want it, and 2) the 
potential to build upon what Darren has done. It is obvious his work is 
greatly appreciated by the overwhelming response to this next batch of 
orders, and we defiantly give him all the credit for the work he has done.

Lou

> Nick Marentes <mailto:nickma2 at optusnet.com.au>
> October 11, 2014 at 4:17 AM
>
>
>
> I don't know if allowing it out in the wild for anyone to create a 
> variant is such a good idea.
>
> It starts to fragment the "standard" and makes it a royal mess trying 
> to support the new features.
>
> It also leaves it open for someone to exploit Darren's work for 
> profit. This has happenned all to often.
>
> I think it needs to stay in Darren's control and modifications and 
> enhancements done by "authorised" developers.
>
> My argument has always been that if only a CoCo bus header is inserted 
> into the PCB layout (*if this is even possible*) then people can build 
> all manner of hardware that can attach to this, no other modification 
> to the CoCoSDC require, no need to have a mulitipak.
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
> Louis Ciotti <mailto:lciotti1 at gmail.com>
> October 10, 2014 at 10:48 PM
> Well Darren has said he is going to release all the information to the 
> public. So if this really is wanted, maybe someone who wants the 
> functionality can take the baton and make a variant with the SSC 
> hitches on it.
>
>
> jmlaw at iprimus.com.au <mailto:jmlaw at iprimus.com.au>
> October 10, 2014 at 10:08 PM
> I was just thinking my previous post about how the SSC works may be 
> over-simplified, based on the assumption many know of it’s 
> capabilities already. There’s 3 Tone channels and a noise generator 
> that can be used in place of any of the tone channels. Plus envelope 
> control...
>
> More what I was getting at (and probably should have stated) if Darren 
> does consider it, I’d be happy to put something together with the full 
> details if it helps. Perhaps Tim could check it over first for 
> accuracy :)
>
> Also I'd be happy to write some sample code for testing if that would 
> help too.
>
> Jason
>

-- 
Sent with Postbox <http://www.getpostbox.com>