Pandora 2 Concept
- Thread starter Jonttu
- Start date
Kangal
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2010
- Messages
- 245
Grench said:
Nice ideas. But have to disagree on speakers.
So many devices I've seen with like 6 small speakers. I rather two large ones that are loud enough to get people to swear at you when on the train!
No infrared was in the right spot, cause controls will be on the screen (touch screen remote) aiming like a normal remote.
USB3.0 such thing exists or developing? I thought 2xUSB should be sufficient/minimum (one can TVout while other one charges device... yes TVout by USB is pretty good seen it in action).
Only thing I couldnt do was camera, if there was only 1 good one and if it swivelled :blink: but takes too much space for that
Why AV out? .. its a dying tech. Plus HDMI has sound.
Probably not possible to get HD movie out with surround sound, not enough juice i think so thats why i chose to stay with USB->AV-out cable configuration.
Still, thanks heaps for your ideas. Never know someone with much expertise might see this forum, like ideas/what they see and make it themselves. May fail, may succeed, u never know till ya know, you know?
Kun Fu Panda + Dora the explorer = Pandora (eductional and fun)
Last edited by a moderator:
Some interesting ideas.
What does everyone think about development/design/hardware choicing for the Pandora 2 (I'm assuming that the P1 will be released and will be moderately successful compared to the GP32X releases) being worked on?
Would it signifigantly reduce the development time if *something* was being looked at as a possible successor in the future? I'm not talking about the folks working on getting the current system finished and out the door, but a second 'team' to highlight possible designs and hardware technologies which might affordably be possible to implement in the P2.
I know this is how the 'big guys' do it. As soon as one system is out the door, work starts on the successor. I can see how something like this would be a distraction from the current release, but I had imagined it being kept under-wraps and 'in-team' until the Pandora had been out for a good while and any user-found short-comings, wanted hardware-required upgrades and implementations could be addressed.
Just a thought. Personally I would have liked it if the Pandora were more like a mini-desktop computer and allowed hardware upgrades (Its a shame really that there's still no general or 'standard' upgradable laptop design that all manufacturers can develop for which allows upgrades of most/all the vital components, incl. mobo chipset types) readily available components to 'stretch' the usage life until a proper successor could be released. I know this was probably already discussed and veto'd from the Pandora probably for valid reasons, but I just wanted to blabber it again.
What does everyone think about development/design/hardware choicing for the Pandora 2 (I'm assuming that the P1 will be released and will be moderately successful compared to the GP32X releases) being worked on?
Would it signifigantly reduce the development time if *something* was being looked at as a possible successor in the future? I'm not talking about the folks working on getting the current system finished and out the door, but a second 'team' to highlight possible designs and hardware technologies which might affordably be possible to implement in the P2.
I know this is how the 'big guys' do it. As soon as one system is out the door, work starts on the successor. I can see how something like this would be a distraction from the current release, but I had imagined it being kept under-wraps and 'in-team' until the Pandora had been out for a good while and any user-found short-comings, wanted hardware-required upgrades and implementations could be addressed.
Just a thought. Personally I would have liked it if the Pandora were more like a mini-desktop computer and allowed hardware upgrades (Its a shame really that there's still no general or 'standard' upgradable laptop design that all manufacturers can develop for which allows upgrades of most/all the vital components, incl. mobo chipset types) readily available components to 'stretch' the usage life until a proper successor could be released. I know this was probably already discussed and veto'd from the Pandora probably for valid reasons, but I just wanted to blabber it again.
mali
-
I still remember MWeston's drooling when the OMAP4 specs were published, so I'm sure the right person will do his magic behind the scenes 
Grench
Forum Addict!
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2008
- Messages
- 6,629
Kangal said:
It took me a minute to figure you out - you thought I was replying to you. I wasn't. I don't like your overall design - way too fragile with tilt screens and 3 moving compartments (screen, KB, game ctrls). It also leaves the screen exposed - which is why I keep my tablet screen device in a metal flip case - which adds more thickness. The clam shell design is the -best- way to have built in screen protection while the device is in your pocket - and makes the device thinner in the end by nixing protective cases.
My suggestions above are with keeping the same form factor, keyboard, controls as the current Pandora console.
IR in the back of the lid, because of the way a Pandora is held when open 170*.
Keep the AV output cable method as the current version - but use DVI for video and composite for sound - NO HDMI - we don't need DRM handshake delays for our output. If you REALLY want the output to go through HDMI you can take a DVI output and run it into an adapter - no sound that way, but thats what the composite digital audio output is for.
I would like to have an external antenna port. I may even mod my Pandora to have one. I want to be able to connect it to a highly directional Yagi or cantenna. I was able to pull down a digital ATSC broadcast from 78 miles away a month ago by using a 7' long frequency tuned homemade Yagi to a little Tivax 7" AA battery operated TV. I'd like to see what kind of gain I can get from the chipset in the Pandora for 802.11g.
Last edited by a moderator:
Kangal
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2010
- Messages
- 245
Just saw a detailed review of Zune HD. Boasts Nvidia Tegra (AP2500) able to push out 40M polygons/sec under gaming conditions (lighting, texture etc).
40M!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That whops the Gamecube and PS2, pars (or slightly better) with Xbox.
I mean 2 years ago, Pandora's graphics capabilities was unimagiable,
this has been repeated with the Zune HD.
I mean Pandora = 13M (wow!)
Zune = 40M (get outta town!)
Also saw the PowerVR SGX543. That seems less awe-inspiring than the Tegra.
WHY? Tegra seems less power thirsty (25days of constant music!!!)
I read the polygon/sec count was 133M for the SGX543, but this is without a doubt, probably the max count (not under gaming conditions).
I read somewhere (unofficial) that under gaming conditions SGX343 can push out 35M, sounds reasonable.
Going from these figures, if I could, I would make that "concept" console I uploaded with the Tegra (Nvidia, come on their international experts)
So if it could push out 40M PPS (gaming conditions), what could my device emulate?
Console performance = Handheld performance x Emulator effeciency / Console emulator performance
Console performance = 40M (Tegra) x 0.45 (Emu effec) / 0.80
Console performance = 40x0.45/0.80=22.5M
So if there is any console that has a max. PPS (gaming condition) with less than 22M, This device can theoretically emulate it at acceptable rate.
So what does this mean?
A Pandora with Tegra potentially emulate:
(decently) Gamecube, PS2
(full speed) PSP, Dreamcast, PSone, N64 and earlier consoles.
An Xbox emulator is easier to make (I've heard) but this just couldn't pull it off. And who cares??
Its can do PS2, and from now on what's on Xbox is on PS2 (vice versa) with exceptions.
Can you just imagine it??
Such a device is not impossible, but very very possible, if not probable, if emulators can be made.
40M!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That whops the Gamecube and PS2, pars (or slightly better) with Xbox.
I mean 2 years ago, Pandora's graphics capabilities was unimagiable,
this has been repeated with the Zune HD.
I mean Pandora = 13M (wow!)
Zune = 40M (get outta town!)
Also saw the PowerVR SGX543. That seems less awe-inspiring than the Tegra.
WHY? Tegra seems less power thirsty (25days of constant music!!!)
I read the polygon/sec count was 133M for the SGX543, but this is without a doubt, probably the max count (not under gaming conditions).
I read somewhere (unofficial) that under gaming conditions SGX343 can push out 35M, sounds reasonable.
Going from these figures, if I could, I would make that "concept" console I uploaded with the Tegra (Nvidia, come on their international experts)
So if it could push out 40M PPS (gaming conditions), what could my device emulate?
Console performance = Handheld performance x Emulator effeciency / Console emulator performance
Console performance = 40M (Tegra) x 0.45 (Emu effec) / 0.80
Console performance = 40x0.45/0.80=22.5M
So if there is any console that has a max. PPS (gaming condition) with less than 22M, This device can theoretically emulate it at acceptable rate.
So what does this mean?
A Pandora with Tegra potentially emulate:
(decently) Gamecube, PS2
(full speed) PSP, Dreamcast, PSone, N64 and earlier consoles.
An Xbox emulator is easier to make (I've heard) but this just couldn't pull it off. And who cares??
Its can do PS2, and from now on what's on Xbox is on PS2 (vice versa) with exceptions.
Can you just imagine it??
Such a device is not impossible, but very very possible, if not probable, if emulators can be made.
WizardStan
Mega GP Mania
- Joined
- May 24, 2008
- Messages
- 16,731
Uh huh. And my laptop can last 6 hours on a full battery, if you believe the marketing department.Kangal said:
I reserve judgment until someone actually does something to push it to that 40M limit.
Last edited by a moderator:
lucidchaos
Member
I could be wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that the Pandora 2 would be essentially the same form-factor and case with different parts on the inside.
Seeing as how most likely a great amount of the cost for the Pandora is in R&D and the case, I would like it if I could just buy a Pandora II board, put it in my "First Batch" case, plug in the LCD ribbon cable and battery and be good to go.
After nearly two years of seeing the case tweaked, nubs designed from scratch, and dpad debated, I firmly believe that we will have the best damn gaming handheld on the market - and there is no reason to immediately start again from scratch when new hardware comes out - especially for the market the Pandora is made for. (Us)
I won't object to a faster SOC with more memory, however.
It makes me wonder that if the devs do take this route, how much a newer, faster board would cost. Anyone have an idea what the cost of the board is minus the SOC?
Seeing as how most likely a great amount of the cost for the Pandora is in R&D and the case, I would like it if I could just buy a Pandora II board, put it in my "First Batch" case, plug in the LCD ribbon cable and battery and be good to go.
After nearly two years of seeing the case tweaked, nubs designed from scratch, and dpad debated, I firmly believe that we will have the best damn gaming handheld on the market - and there is no reason to immediately start again from scratch when new hardware comes out - especially for the market the Pandora is made for. (Us)
I won't object to a faster SOC with more memory, however.
It makes me wonder that if the devs do take this route, how much a newer, faster board would cost. Anyone have an idea what the cost of the board is minus the SOC?
I have no idea how you came up with those numbers for "emulator effeciency" [sic], or where you got the idea that polygons per second was the only number that mattered for emulation. In fact, this isn't the case with Dreamcast on the Pandora - the GPU is not a problem, it's the CPU that isn't fast enough. I strongly suspect this is true of PS2 and maybe PSP as well.Kangal said:
It's simply not possible to create some kind of formula for whether an emulator "works" or not on a particular system, and it's silly to base such a thing on PPS anyway.
Last edited by a moderator:
Exophase
Nothing good will ever come of Exophase.
Kangal, this is getting tedious.
Why do you still continue to think that some polygons per second rating of all things dictates how well a device can EMULATE other platforms?? There are many, many components that go into determining what a platform is good at and what it isn't good at, and "polygons per second" is only one element of its 3D graphics performance - never mind its overall capabilities. In fact, a platform which is capable of many polygons per second might have very poor relative per-pixel performance and therefore never achieve the polygon counts unless most of the polygons are only a few pixels large and lack texturing or effects. Moreover, you keep comparing numbers with SGX but you don't understand that it's a 3D accelerator that has a completely different approach to rendering than most other platforms (including Tegra), with its own unique strengths and weaknesses. This makes it unsuitable to compare the two just by using whatever numbers you see promoted. Besides, vendors (including nVidia) are well known for exaggerating polygon counts, especially in programmable GPUs. It might represent polygons that have no textures (no texture coordinate conversion), a single normal, hell, maybe not even transformed at all. IE, something much simpler than what would be used in games. You don't really know.
Now, forgot about all of this graphics nonsense for a minute. When it comes to emulation CPU will almost always be the driving factor, not GPU. It may be that the GPU only has to be a little more powerful than what you're emulating, but the CPU will probably have to be much more powerful. And Tegra's CPU is weaker than OMAP3530's; it's not promising that it'd be able to competently emulate N64, much less Dreamcast or PSP. Suggesting PS2 or Gamecube is completely absurd. I think you need to accept the fact that you do not understand how emulation works and stop making these kinds of estimations and drawing these conclusions. Assuming that platform A can emulate platform B just because its GPU can push enough polygons per second is like assuming that someone great at basketball can single-handedly win the Olympic games for their country. And your justification for all of this is like listening to someone try to explain calculus when they themselves have yet to learn algebra.
And you seriously can't judge a platform's general purpose battery efficiency on how long it play music. Did you know that Tegra has a chip dedicated just to decoding music, so it can just keep the rest down? Still, I can't believe you took a 25 days figure literally, that's obviously with the unit in suspend most of the time.
Why do you still continue to think that some polygons per second rating of all things dictates how well a device can EMULATE other platforms?? There are many, many components that go into determining what a platform is good at and what it isn't good at, and "polygons per second" is only one element of its 3D graphics performance - never mind its overall capabilities. In fact, a platform which is capable of many polygons per second might have very poor relative per-pixel performance and therefore never achieve the polygon counts unless most of the polygons are only a few pixels large and lack texturing or effects. Moreover, you keep comparing numbers with SGX but you don't understand that it's a 3D accelerator that has a completely different approach to rendering than most other platforms (including Tegra), with its own unique strengths and weaknesses. This makes it unsuitable to compare the two just by using whatever numbers you see promoted. Besides, vendors (including nVidia) are well known for exaggerating polygon counts, especially in programmable GPUs. It might represent polygons that have no textures (no texture coordinate conversion), a single normal, hell, maybe not even transformed at all. IE, something much simpler than what would be used in games. You don't really know.
Now, forgot about all of this graphics nonsense for a minute. When it comes to emulation CPU will almost always be the driving factor, not GPU. It may be that the GPU only has to be a little more powerful than what you're emulating, but the CPU will probably have to be much more powerful. And Tegra's CPU is weaker than OMAP3530's; it's not promising that it'd be able to competently emulate N64, much less Dreamcast or PSP. Suggesting PS2 or Gamecube is completely absurd. I think you need to accept the fact that you do not understand how emulation works and stop making these kinds of estimations and drawing these conclusions. Assuming that platform A can emulate platform B just because its GPU can push enough polygons per second is like assuming that someone great at basketball can single-handedly win the Olympic games for their country. And your justification for all of this is like listening to someone try to explain calculus when they themselves have yet to learn algebra.
And you seriously can't judge a platform's general purpose battery efficiency on how long it play music. Did you know that Tegra has a chip dedicated just to decoding music, so it can just keep the rest down? Still, I can't believe you took a 25 days figure literally, that's obviously with the unit in suspend most of the time.
Exophase
Nothing good will ever come of Exophase.
Something else that's been bothering me (sorry, I feel like putting this in another post, hope no one gets too worked up over this) - you keep talking about "your" console. Do you actually hold any illusions that you will be able to make a handheld a reality? Because otherwise I don't understand why you keep looking for feedback on it. Do you want validation?
Kangal
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2010
- Messages
- 245
Exophase said:
Thanks for all that. I know that simple PPS cannot dictate a device's ability to emulate another, in fact I've repeated it before. Its much more complex than people say it is.
Just the concept of PPS i read on several forums say it is an important indicator.
Purely An Example, 3.4L Pontiac (400MHz X-scale) vs 2.0L VW (200MHz SGX4's).
On paper Pontiac looks faster (bigger engine=faster processor) but it isn't it.
It could be that Pontiac pushes out (160hp) 3M PPS, while VW pushes out (220hp) 4M PPS (gaming conditions).
And here these PPS figures are like the Max. horsepower reached at the wheels.
Of course, the VW now seems faster.
But just because it has more horses doesn't make it faster, theres much more regulators than pure power.
However, it is VERY LIKELY that the VW will be faster.
So when I say PPS, it is never the final word.
Hence, read that I wrote the device can POTENTIALLY emulate the console.
ie/ on the surface the hardware specs implies that it could emulate it, in closer observation there could be inhibiting details eg/ cache limitors to reduce heat and consumption.
Thank you for extending the views on device hardware and its capabilities, but there was no need to go off at me.
I was just suprised when I saw the Zune HD's specs (we dont have the device here in Australia).
Admit it, 40M PPS (gaming conditions) is very impressive ... for a handheld!
And I just said "my device" to save time and argument. I couldv'e said Pandora 2 or PandoraX or Pandora killer.
I got no idea why that statement could tick-you-off.
I dont have the expertise or time to build one, so no I dont plan on building it.
But if Icould make my own handheld, that's the design I would choose: hence, "my device". You never know, someone interested in that design just might build it
And I think most members of the Pandora community have their own ideas of a handheld. SO I just wanted t hear those.
I mean the design of the Pandora now cannot be changed, but during the process I think there were people that presented their ideas and it didnt make it to the drawing board.
Some of them could be great ideas, but ideas that werent possible at the time, or didnt appeal to most other people.
All in all, if u asked Pandora comunity to design the Pandora 2, I think not everyone was going to say "original Pandora with better processor".
Some would say, "hey how bout this?"
Maybe just think twice about what's been said before ranting.
Just also want to add. No Clamshell= fail? Not really!
Clamshell helps protect screen. But this means u can use the console only when flipped open (not usable like iPhone/PDAs).
I thought "hey, how bout this", copy the N97 means because it would give you same screen size, extra finger room (shouder pads), extra function "use the device like iPhone, giving an extra usage method that some (imo most) people appeal to.
If you have an N97, you can tell how sturdy the parts are together. It will never be as sturdy as a well-built clamshell but after using N97 for months it still feels like out of the box (much praise to the click system). But remember clamshells are also known for losing their stiffness over time, where the rotation becomes loose and ridiculous (ie DSi ... trust me its frustrating).
Limitation? Yes you can say the screen is exposed. You can say you can buy a cover that will only add size. But these are optional (put it on/or not). I have iPhone 3G and I have a case arround it, it protects every agangle but the screen. Do I care? Very little, because when people pay over $300 for anything (excpt autos) they tend to use them with utmost care. I have accidentally dropped my iPhone, screen down on rocks about 1-1.5m height, and it did absolutley nothing to the screen, no scratch because of scratch-proof protecter and no functional loss (ie dead pixels).
Sorry for extremely long post, but rather make one post everyoe can understand rather than people trying to twist my words or make me look dumb/insignificant.
Last edited by a moderator:
renegadechic
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2008
- Messages
- 787
will you just go away and bore someone else with The Kangal Impossible Machine. this is the Pandora forum and unless you have anything to say about the Pandora other than using it as a springboard for your completely science fiction ideas, then SHHHH
renegadechic
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2008
- Messages
- 787
what game? the Bang, Zoom, PandoraKangal 2 Will Colonise The Moon game?
do you have any pirate memory games?
do you have any pirate memory games?
mali
-
Kangal, you can't compare an xscale to an sgx. One is a CPU the other is a GPU(the Axim x50v/x51v had an xscale+MBX lite). Tegra is ARM11 on the CPU side, so it's much weaker than the Cortex in the OMAP3.
I respect your enthusiasm, but it seems that most people(me included) aren't really open to your suggestions right now. Put them back on the table in a few years maybe
I respect your enthusiasm, but it seems that most people(me included) aren't really open to your suggestions right now. Put them back on the table in a few years maybe
Kangal
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2010
- Messages
- 245
RenegadeChic said:
No sorry. I dont usually search for pirate media since its marinated in p*rn and viral websites.
Only thing pirate i have is a windows game called Conquest. Its based on the boardgame Risk, very fun but very repeatetive (needs new maps)
Last edited by a moderator:
renegadechic
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2008
- Messages
- 787
dont worry, it was a silly cultural reference http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ws-1ZMROWcKangal said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Kangal
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2010
- Messages
- 245
mali said:Kangal, you can't compare an xscale to an sgx. One is a CPU the other is a GPU(the Axim x50v/x51v had an xscale+MBX lite). Tegra is ARM11 on the CPU side, so it's much weaker than the Cortex in the OMAP3.
I respect your enthusiasm, but it seems that most people(me included) aren't really open to your suggestions right now. Put them back on the table in a few years maybe
Thanks for the post. I'm really tired atm so I was suprised when you pointed that out. Few years? lol, if u say so.
Last edited by a moderator:
