[HN Gopher] OpenFPGA. The future of video game preservation
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       OpenFPGA. The future of video game preservation
        
       Author : _benj
       Score  : 199 points
       Date   : 2024-02-11 11:16 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.analogue.co)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.analogue.co)
        
       | junaru wrote:
       | So how is this different from MiSTer FPGA [1]?
       | 
       | [1] https://mister-devel.github.io/MkDocs_MiSTer/
        
         | multiplied wrote:
         | You can't carry a MiSTer in your Pocket, but you can Dock a
         | Pocket.
         | 
         | It doesn't support a few power-hungry systems supported by
         | MiSTer.
         | 
         | MiSTer doesn't support OG physical carts.
        
           | fayalalebrun wrote:
           | What about the actual FPGA specs? Is it more power efficient
           | per LUT? A newer generation or the same generation but a
           | smaller chip?
        
             | ndiddy wrote:
             | The Pocket has an FPGA from the same series as the MiSTer,
             | but it's a lower-end model that's optimized more for power
             | consumption. Most notably, it's missing the 800 MHz ARM
             | core (meaning that it runs a custom "OS" off of a
             | microcontroller rather than Linux like the MiSTer), and it
             | has a bit less than half the amount of logic elements. This
             | means that 16-bit console emulation is about the highest
             | you can go on the Pocket, while the MiSTer can emulate the
             | Playstation, Saturn, and N64.
        
         | paulhart wrote:
         | I've pasted the specs below, but in my opinion the biggest
         | difference is that the OpenFPGA - in its Analogue Pocket form -
         | is an end-user friendly target. MiSTer is more "enthusiast-
         | friendly" with more options and upgrades (including an
         | recommended add-on to the basic kit).
         | 
         | MiSTer "tech specs":
         | 
         | Intel/Altera Cyclone V SE (5CSEBA6U23I7) FPGA SoC with
         | 110,000LE (41,500ALM) and 5,570Kbit of Block RAM.
         | 
         | ARM Cortex A9 dual-core CPU at 800MHz.
         | 
         | HDMI video and audio allowing easy connectivity to any modern
         | monitor/TV.
         | 
         | 1GB of DDR3 RAM that is directly available to both ARM and
         | FPGA.
         | 
         | High-speed ARM <-> FPGA interconnect due to both being in the
         | same chip.
         | 
         | OpenFPGA specs:
         | 
         | Intel/Altera Cyclone V FPGA 49K logic elements and 3.4Mbit BRAM
         | 
         | Intel/Altera Cyclone 10 15K logic elements
         | 
         | 2x independently addressable 16MB cellular RAM (128Mbit x 16)
         | 
         | 32MB low latency memory 1x synchronous DRAM 64MB (32Mbit x 16)
         | 
         | 1x asynchronous SRAM 256KB (128Kbit x 16)
        
       | lagrange77 wrote:
       | The name is a bit misleading.
        
         | nereye wrote:
         | It also seems to re-use the name of a (from what I can tell)
         | separate project:
         | 
         | https://github.com/lnis-uofu/OpenFPGA
         | 
         | https://openfpga.readthedocs.io/en/master/
        
         | q3k wrote:
         | Yeah, it makes no sense. It's like naming a TV remote
         | 'OpenMicrocontroller'.
        
       | gchadwick wrote:
       | I think it's a bit rich to describe this as the 'future of video
       | game preservation'.
       | 
       | The MiSTer project https://github.com/MiSTer-
       | devel/Wiki_MiSTer/wiki more rightfully deserves that title. It's
       | got a huge range of systems (across consoles, arcade and micro
       | computers) and it's all GPL licenced. The base board is a Terasic
       | DE10 Nano which is proprietary but all other hardware required is
       | open source.
       | 
       | The MiSTeX project aims to make MiSTer portable across different
       | FPGA platforms https://github.com/MiSTeX-devel so a DE10 Nano
       | won't be mandatory enabling a new ecosystem of open hardware and
       | commercial for profit solutions.
       | 
       | I take no issue with people wanting to make money in this space.
       | I take great issue with trying to gatekeep system preservation
       | behind a mostly closed system you stamp an 'open' moniker on.
        
         | DrNosferatu wrote:
         | Absolutely 0 mentions of the word "MiSTer" negatively impacts
         | this "open" project.
         | 
         | Their self-appraising pitch applies more to the MiSTeX project
         | than themselves.
         | 
         | [https://github.com/MiSTeX-devel]
        
           | pipes wrote:
           | Yeah but they seem to be suggesting no one has done fpga
           | emulation before.
           | 
           | (I'm biased, I love my mister!)
        
             | jonhohle wrote:
             | After DE-10 Nanos what up in price (likely due to MiSTer),
             | there was rumblings that it was too tied to the hardware to
             | be portable.
             | 
             | I missed out when things were cheap and always assumed
             | buying a board at the higher prices would be the trigger
             | which caused the project to move to the next generation of
             | hardware.
        
               | pipes wrote:
               | Yeah I paid the higher price unfortunately. The best
               | thing about it is I don't spend all my time fiddling with
               | settings like I do with software emulators.
        
           | thrillgore wrote:
           | Which is just rich, as Analogue takes advantage of preorders
           | to limit hardware on a per-order basis, meaning they are
           | always out of stock. Don't have this issue with the MiSTer.
        
         | pbj1968 wrote:
         | Five years ago the Mister people were similarly unable to STFU
         | about raspberry pi's. Mister is still emulation, it still has
         | tons of issues, and it's still $700 invested before you're
         | actually playing games. Meanwhile we're in a golden age of RGB
         | mods, flash carts, and optical drive emulators for original
         | hardware.
        
           | xqzv wrote:
           | "FPGA is emulation"
           | 
           | You can have any number of issues with Mister, but this is
           | just flat out incorrect if you know the definition of either
           | of those words.
        
             | thehias wrote:
             | Of course Mister uses emulation - there are only few chips
             | in older arcade boards that truly can be simulated in FPGA
             | with circuit-accuracy.
             | 
             | The Mister SNES core has less accuracy like the software
             | emulator bsnes, not all game work or there a bugs - they
             | still "emulate" the hardware how they interpret it.
             | 
             | FPGA is just a different way of "hardware emulation"
             | instead of traditional "software emulators".
             | 
             | The only real advantage of FPGA compared to software is the
             | improved latency.
        
               | vardump wrote:
               | An FPGA can be 100% hardware perfect with practically no
               | extra processing cost. The potential is there, even if
               | it's not initially exploited.
               | 
               | CPU based emulation will require a fairly powerful CPU
               | just to emulate SNES. It's pretty expensive to emulate
               | hardware in 180-190 ns increments.
        
               | scientist4397 wrote:
               | Not only, the ability to replicate hardware allow to
               | render some effects that can't be render with software
               | emulation. I'll try to find the video I saw on YT
               | explaining that point.
        
             | chungy wrote:
             | > if you know the definition of either of those words
             | 
             | Let's put that to the test, ok
             | 
             | https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emulate
             | 
             | 1a: "to imitate by means of an emulator"
             | 
             | https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emulator
             | 
             | 2: "hardware or software that permits programs written for
             | one computer to be run on another computer"
             | 
             | Yup, FPGA recreating other hardware definitely fits the
             | bill of emulation. Granted, Analogue has played up a
             | marketing spin that boxes in "emulation" to mean "software
             | running on some generic CPU" in order to claim "no
             | emulation", but it's just marketing doing the work of
             | marketing.
        
               | Gormo wrote:
               | > Yup, FPGA recreating other hardware definitely fits the
               | bill of emulation.
               | 
               | It really doesn't. The FPGA actually _implements_ the
               | target hardware, rather than using other hardware to
               | produce equivalent behavior.
               | 
               | That's not to say that no emulation is involved, as not
               | all of the functionality is actually achieved through the
               | FPGA, but where it is, it's perfectly valid to
               | distinguish it from emulation.
        
               | naikrovek wrote:
               | FPGAs are reimplementations, to me, not emulation. But I
               | don't begrudge anyone who wants to be a stickler on the
               | definition of "emulation".
               | 
               | Even the original hardware "emulates" a game if you want
               | to get down to it.
        
               | markemer wrote:
               | That's how I see it too. The FPGA version are knock offs,
               | like would have been done back in the day but with fancy
               | future hardware. A gate level reproduction would be kinda
               | strange aside from pure desire for preservation. (Which
               | is still a decent goal, just not of these projects)
        
               | cacois wrote:
               | So your argument is that its closer to virtualization,
               | than to emulation?
        
               | Gormo wrote:
               | Not really. And I'm not sure the concept of
               | virtualization makes sense when applied to hardware in
               | the first place.
               | 
               | The FPGA is _actually implementing_ the hardware. It 's
               | like using a newly manufactured edition of the original.
        
               | fourfour3 wrote:
               | The FPGA is used to implement an approximation of the
               | original hardware's functionality - not a perfect clone
               | of the original hardware itself, which means they have
               | their own unique bugs and inaccuracies compared to the
               | original designs.
               | 
               | I think "emulation" fits as a reasonable description of
               | this, personally - at least as something an average
               | person will understand.
        
               | BearOso wrote:
               | It doesn't implement the original hardware. It's not copy
               | of the original chip. Reverse engineering is used to get
               | the _behavior_ of the hardware. They reproduce the inputs
               | and outputs with Verilog and write it to an FPGA.
               | 
               | If it weren't emulation, they would decap the original
               | chip and directly copy the chip, gate-by-gate. It could
               | be done, but it hasn't been done that way anywhere to
               | date.
        
               | mburns wrote:
               | WINE fits that definition but is generally considered to
               | be Not Emulation in a technical (if not colloquial)
               | sense.
        
               | armada651 wrote:
               | It depends on your interpretation of the definition. If
               | the two "computers" that the webster definition is
               | referring to have a different architecture, then Wine
               | does not fit that definition, because Wine relies on the
               | fact that it's the same computer architecture, namely an
               | x86 PC.
               | 
               | If you combine Wine with Rosetta to run Windows programs
               | on an M1 Mac, then it _is_ definitely emulation by any
               | definition. But then it 's not Wine that's doing the
               | emulation, it's Rosetta.
        
             | jtvjan wrote:
             | They may have read this article written by Near arguing
             | that FPGA-based products are still (hardware-based)
             | emulation: https://archive.is/fWosI
             | 
             | It's a well-written article, and presents a balanced view.
             | Its stance is against the idea that FPGA-based emulation is
             | always better than CPU-based emulation.
        
               | pipes wrote:
               | That is a fantastic read. Thanks.
        
               | BearOso wrote:
               | There's no circuit-level reproduction happening anywhere
               | yet, it's basically emulation with a hardware clock.
               | Analogue and kevtris know that FPGA isn't magic. Rather
               | than contribute to the knowledge pool, like the MiSTer
               | project, they're being bad actors and trying to muddle
               | the situation to make money off of it. Near was trying to
               | clarify the situation, but now we see where good
               | intentions gets you.
        
             | armada651 wrote:
             | The argument being made is that the distinction between an
             | FPGA and CPU is irrelevant to determine whether something
             | is emulation.
             | 
             | An emulator accelerated by an FPGA is still an emulator and
             | a CPU simulating a console at the circuit level is no
             | different in accuracy than an FPGA doing the same thing.
             | 
             | The main difference is the experience, where the FPGA can
             | offer an experience closer to the original than a CPU
             | running an operating system can, especially for older
             | consoles. Not because of a difference in emulation
             | accuracy, but because the user experience is different.
        
           | belthesar wrote:
           | While I'm a strong supporter of your position that the MiSTer
           | (and any FPGA console implementation) is still emulation,
           | it's worthwhile to keep in mind that this will indeed be _a_
           | future for preservation (unsure about it being the only, and
           | warmer to, but not sold on it being the best way).
           | 
           | Original hardware is great, but it's getting older, and
           | failing. The Super Nintendo / Super Famicom, for instance,
           | uses a ceramic oscillator as a clock source for its sound
           | processing unit, and as the console is designed, the sound
           | clock is essential for keeping the entire system in sync.
           | Members of the Tool Assisted Speedrunning community have been
           | experimenting with parts replacements to resuscitate this
           | clock source with only mixed successes. This is one of many
           | pieces of silicon on these old platforms that will continue
           | to fail as time goes on.
           | 
           | We can't make brand new classic consoles because the parts
           | are just unavailable, and the industry has a well trodden
           | path of reimplementing discrete electronics in FPGA for
           | decades now with great success. If your goal is to keep
           | playing games for a while longer on your OG console, then
           | heck yeah, go for it. It does indeed do the thing. But if we
           | want to be able to preserve this history in as close to the
           | original form factor and play environment as possible, then
           | we have to explore other options, and FPGA system cloning is
           | a grand way to do this.
        
             | AlienRobot wrote:
             | I think the most worrying thing about emulating old
             | consoles by reverse-engineering them is that you're running
             | out of time to test it. Say for example that the original
             | Luigi looks blue in the hardware it was made for, but in an
             | emulator he looks green. If there are no original NES left,
             | you will never be able to know the emulator's code doesn't
             | match how the NES actually worked. From that point on, the
             | emulator experience is as canonical as it gets.
        
               | incrudible wrote:
               | Different NES revisions actually output different colors.
               | Plus, _originally_ it 's an RF signal, then composite. It
               | was displayed on some CRT. It's possible to RGB mod an
               | NES, but is that authentic? No.
               | 
               | The one true color of Luigi is the one that you saw as a
               | child on a sunday afternoon in the eighties. Lost in
               | time, like tears in rain.
        
           | vardump wrote:
           | My MiSTer FPGA was about $200 before I was playing games.
           | $700 is either hyperbole or have DE10 Nano board prices
           | really gone up THAT much?
           | 
           | After DE10 Nano, you need just a RAM module and a I/O board
           | and you're ready to go.
        
       | dark-star wrote:
       | I wish people would stop treating FPGAs as the Second Coming of
       | the Lord or whatever. It is really not.
       | 
       | It's emulation, plain and simple. Not bettero or worse than
       | software emulators. It usually lags behind the pure software
       | emulators because there are fewer devs and because emulating
       | stuff in hardware is harder than emulating stuff in software.
       | 
       | Just because it's in hardware doesn't mean that it is "better" or
       | "more accurate".
        
         | grapescheesee wrote:
         | Isn't it hardware emulation, built with software?
        
           | 15457345234 wrote:
           | You're getting into the weeds and will get different answers
           | based on semantics, here.
           | 
           | A FPGA emulation isn't inherently better than a CPU-based
           | emulation of any given chip; it's not more authentic because
           | it still lacks the particular quirks of any old CPU that are
           | associated with the way the hardware was laid out, path
           | lengths, imperfections etc.
           | 
           | I'm glad it's introducing FPGA programming to a wider
           | audience because FPGAs are probably going to become more
           | important going forward - and are probably going to be what
           | keeps Intel alive - but it doesn't make the emulator
           | inherently better.
        
           | flohofwoe wrote:
           | When you look at typical FGPA emulator source code, it often
           | looks pretty close to software emulator code ported to
           | VHDL/Verilog instead of an attempt to re-create the original
           | reverse-engineered 'transistor-level design' which would
           | automatically reproduce any 'undocumented behaviour' of the
           | original chip (like
           | http://www.visual6502.org/JSSim/index.html)
           | 
           | As such, an FGPA emulator isn't necessarily any closer to the
           | original hardware behaviour than a software emulator. I guess
           | the main advantage of FGPA is better performance on lower
           | cost hardware.
        
             | m45t3r wrote:
             | > As such, an FGPA emulator isn't necessarily any closer to
             | the original hardware behaviour than a software emulator. I
             | guess the main advantage of FGPA is better performance on
             | lower cost hardware.
             | 
             | The price of the majority of FPGA chips are really
             | expensive compared even against cheap (yet still way more
             | powerful) SoCs (like really cheap ARM CPUs that are used in
             | sub $100 handheld emulators). Also, technically a FPGA
             | based emulator could be more efficient compared emulating
             | everything in software, but AFAIK even Analog Pocket is not
             | really that better in battery life compared to say a Miyoo
             | Mini + (maybe because a ARM SoC have better energy
             | management, but I don't know).
             | 
             | I think really the main hype of FPGA is lower input
             | latency, that is really difficult to archive with software
             | emulation. There are still some tricks you can do in
             | software that reduces the input latency significantly, but
             | they generally are expensive to compute [1], so it wouldn't
             | be feasible to be done in a cheap handheld device (at least
             | yet).
             | 
             | [1]: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/04/better-than-
             | reality-n...
        
           | astrange wrote:
           | Many people think an FPGA is automatically accurate emulation
           | because it's "hardware" and the original console is
           | "hardware".
           | 
           | But the FPGAs are based on C software emulators because
           | that's where all the knowledge in the world of how to emulate
           | the original system is kept. You can't translate original
           | hardware to Verilog and skip the figuring out how it works
           | process.
        
             | robinsonb5 wrote:
             | There are a very few cores which are derived from die shots
             | of the original chips - but in the majority of cases you're
             | correct.
        
         | actionfromafar wrote:
         | One practical difference is that software emulation almost
         | always runs under an operating system and all sorts of cruft
         | which can add latency and jitter. An FPGA just does the one
         | thing.
        
         | ndiddy wrote:
         | The main advantage of FPGA emulation is concurrency. When
         | you're emulating a piece of hardware with multiple chips in
         | software, you're often forced to run the emulation in batches
         | (i.e. run the CPU for 10 cycles, then run the video chip for 10
         | cycles, then run the audio chip for 10 cycles) for performance
         | reasons. This matters because some games require a higher level
         | of timing accuracy to (for example) paper over bugs in the game
         | code, or perform fancy graphical tricks. There are cycle-
         | accurate software emulators, but they aren't really playable
         | for consoles after the 16-bit era and require relatively
         | powerful CPUs. FPGAs allow you to run multiple chips in
         | parallel, which eliminates this issue, allowing for accurate
         | emulation in a small battery-powered handheld device.
        
           | bowsamic wrote:
           | Very few systems depend on this to the point of being an
           | issue. The only one that this was a reasonable problem for
           | was the PS2.
        
             | flohofwoe wrote:
             | For pretty much all 8-bit home computers cycle-correct
             | emulation is essential, without it most modern scene demos
             | simply don't work, but also a lot of old games (although
             | those are usually more forgiving).
             | 
             | In later computer architectures, hardware components have
             | become more and more decoupled from each other, running on
             | separate clocks and busses, with caches and buffers
             | inbetween and what not, all of which makes timing less
             | predictable but also less important in emulation, giving
             | the emulation much more slack when it comes to
             | "synchronicity" (which ironically makes modern computer
             | systems "easier" to emulate than older systems - at least
             | when it comes to correct timing).
             | 
             | But 8-bit home computers (and also the early 16-bit systems
             | like the Amiga and Atari) were essentially a single 'mega-
             | chip' all running off the same clock and all chip timings
             | being deterministic, which was and is exploitet by
             | software.
        
               | bowsamic wrote:
               | Yes but they're so slow that it's trivial to emulate them
               | 
               | EDIT: That's why I point out PS2. The PS2 was the first
               | system that was fast enough while being dependent on
               | timing enough that there were huge issues with its
               | emulation
        
               | bitwize wrote:
               | Near / Byuu wrote a lot about their experience with
               | timing bugs on the SNES and how it takes a quite powerful
               | CPU to emulate it cycle-accurately.
               | 
               | https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2011/08/accuracy-takes-
               | power-...
        
               | wiz21c wrote:
               | Writing an Apple2e emulator, I wouldn't say it's trivial
               | :-/ Proper video decoding is not exactly easy and neither
               | is speaker emulation and neither is floppy disk
               | emulation.
               | 
               | It's easy if you're looking at 99% accuracy. But if you
               | aim at 99.9% it's a different story.
               | 
               | Plain and simple, there's no fully accurate Apple2e
               | emulator so far and it's not like nobody has given a try
               | in the last 20 years...
        
           | flohofwoe wrote:
           | For people interested in this topic: I converted my 8-bit
           | emulators to a complete 'cycle-stepped model' (the last
           | holdout were the CPU emulators), and wrote a couple of blog
           | posts in the process:
           | 
           | From newest to oldest:
           | 
           | - Cycle-stepped Z80 emulator:
           | https://floooh.github.io/2021/12/17/cycle-stepped-z80.html
           | 
           | - Z80 instruction timing details:
           | https://floooh.github.io/2021/12/06/z80-instruction-
           | timing.h...
           | 
           | - Cycle-stepped 6502 CPU emulator:
           | https://floooh.github.io/2019/12/13/cycle-stepped-6502.html
        
             | wiz21c wrote:
             | Hey Floh! I ported your 6502 emu to rust for my AccurApple
             | emulator. You saved me tons of time :-)
        
               | flohofwoe wrote:
               | Thanks! Glad to hear it's useful :)
        
           | amelius wrote:
           | I guess it would be a great hacker project to build a PCIe
           | card with an FPGA (or several) that can e.g. be used to
           | accelerate emulators.
           | 
           | Or would a GPU be more fit for this purpose, and a more cost-
           | effective and practical solution?
        
             | zdw wrote:
             | GPU are for data data parallel operations, which does not
             | help for emulators which are (for the most part) running
             | much slower traditional CPUs and a handful of support chips
             | all at the same time, which is not data parallel.
        
         | gchadwick wrote:
         | Whilst it's true FPGA doesn't inherently imply accuracy it does
         | make it simpler to recreate things in a more accurate way, in
         | particular around interactions between CPU,audio and video. It
         | also enables accurate input latency with respect to these
         | things.
        
         | rcxdude wrote:
         | The main advantage is it makes it possible to do more accurate
         | emulation without needing to sacrifice performance in the same
         | way as software emulators. But the very large gap between
         | affordable CPU performance and affordable FPGA performance
         | makes it not an obvious tradeoff.
        
         | deelowe wrote:
         | > Not bettero or worse than software emulators.
         | 
         | FPGAs and the associated dev tools allow for timing
         | analysis/timing constraints that cannot be done with software
         | based emulators.
        
       | bowsamic wrote:
       | That's a huge amount of marketing effort with very little actual
       | answers to basic questions such as "why is this the future of
       | video game preservation?" Seems like a hype-based product
        
         | sebastianconcpt wrote:
         | Why hype-based? Isn't an easy to use vintage experience device
         | a legitimate value proposition within itself?
        
           | bowsamic wrote:
           | It's a value proposition in the sense that it already exists
           | and people want it, but it's nothing new. Cheap handheld
           | emulator devices have existed for literally decades.
           | 
           | The "hype-based" aspect is that they're pretending like it's
           | something revolutionary, hence why they are leaning on this
           | Teenage Engineering-esque marketing style.
        
             | BrazeBeefNoodle wrote:
             | This isn't really new (it came out a couple of years ago),
             | but as far as I know it was the first handheld FPGA
             | emulator available.
             | 
             | There's debate in this thread about whether FPGA emulation
             | is better or more accurate. In my experience it is,
             | especially in recreation of sound as I remember it from
             | back when these games were new.
        
       | Someone wrote:
       | So, what happens if this particular FPGA no longer can be bought?
       | 
       | Isn't it more likely it will be possible to compile and run
       | current C code on 22nd century hardware (possibly on some
       | virtualization solution) than that it will be possible to compile
       | and run FPGA code on 22nd century hardware?
        
         | johnfernow wrote:
         | I agree. For me, one of the challenging long term parts of
         | video game preservation will be non-standard controllers and
         | other peripherals, such as the Wii remote, Wii balance board,
         | Guitar Hero/Rock Band guitars and drums, etc. Sure, technically
         | you can use a mouse and keyboard for some of those, but it's
         | fundamentally an entirely different experience from the
         | original.
         | 
         | The Wii came out over 17 years ago and third party companies
         | still make controllers for them. Maybe that will still be the
         | case 40 years after release, but eventually nearly all Wii
         | consoles will stop working. Will there always be a big enough
         | market of people playing Wii games on emulators to justify
         | making those controllers and peripherals? I hope so, but am not
         | sure. There near certainly won't be enough demand for 3rd party
         | Wii balance boards, which I can honestly live with, but I do
         | hope the main controllers themselves are still available for
         | purchase or possible to make out of other hardware available in
         | the future.
        
         | bogantech wrote:
         | > So, what happens if this particular FPGA no longer can be
         | bought?
         | 
         | The same code can be easily target another FPGA as long as you
         | don't use any vendor specific primitives or IP cores
        
         | cm2187 wrote:
         | I agree, this is tying the video game to a more recent
         | hardware, which will also disappear in its own time. Much
         | better to have a full software emulation that can be ported /
         | recompiled to newer CPUs and new OS.
        
         | markemer wrote:
         | Verilog is just a logic implementation. It should be pretty
         | portable. There are some issues, and certainly the bitstreams
         | won't be compatible, but if C still works, I imagine verilog
         | would too.
        
       | ageitgey wrote:
       | (2022) - I don't think there is anything new here since this was
       | announced two years ago.
       | 
       | FWIW, OpenFPGA on the Analogue Pocket works pretty well. Many of
       | the most popular MiSTer cores were ported over and there are some
       | nice desktop tools to make it easy to configure [1].
       | 
       | [1] https://github.com/neil-morrison44/pocket-sync
        
       | fayalalebrun wrote:
       | I am surprised no one has yet tried to make a portable shell for
       | the DE-10 Nano (Mister-FPGA's target platform). With a power
       | usage of 10 watts, I think it should be quite feasible even with
       | the addition of a small LCD panel. However, it would probably
       | require re-engineering some of the standard addon boards for the
       | form factor.
        
         | gchadwick wrote:
         | They have https://youtu.be/8eAgjgbZyPw?si=ZIBEFLOc_13hitGp
         | 
         | Though sadly it's remained a prototype. I think the issue they
         | had was you needed to mod the DE10 Nano (remove the pin headers
         | and I think the ethernet jack) to fit it into the portable form
         | factor. So they had concerns with either selling it in kit form
         | where people had to do the mods themselves to expensive boards
         | or doing it in house and effectively reselling modded DE10s.
         | 
         | A fully custom board would be the solution but then price is a
         | big issue. The DE10 Nano is very cheap vs its BOM cost at
         | catalogue prices.
        
       | CivBase wrote:
       | Even if this were the future of emulation, we need a lot more
       | than emulators for anything to really be considered the "future
       | of video game preservation".
       | 
       | Modern games so frequently require connections to servers - often
       | needlessly. For example, Ubisoft is shutting down the servers for
       | 2014's The Crew on March 31, 2024. That's less than 10 years
       | after release. When the servers are shut down, the entire game
       | will stop working - including the lengthy _single player_
       | campaign. No emulator will bring that game back from the dead.
       | 
       | In a similar story, Square Enix recently announced that they will
       | be shutting down Nier: Reincarnation's servers in April 2024,
       | less than just 3 years after its worldwide release in 2021. And
       | yes, it's a single player game. My wife is a fan of the Nier
       | franchise and has been playing Nier: Reincarnation since it's
       | release. In a couple months she'll never be able to play it
       | again. Square also pulled the plug on Babylon's Fall in 2023,
       | less than _just 1 year_ after it 's 2022 release.
       | 
       | If you're concerned about game preservation, be prepared for the
       | disaster coming soon. FPGAs won't be enough.
        
         | cybrox wrote:
         | While this is being done intentionally now, it has been an
         | issue for over a decade. - And it hasn't kept people from
         | preserving these games in the slightest.
         | 
         | Even now, there is a lot of work being put into reviving games
         | that required master servers etc. by means of reverse
         | engineering and essentially cracking. I do however agree with
         | you that this is not the way it should I be and I still think
         | developers and publishers should be legally bound to either
         | allow software that they sell to function indefinitely or
         | release the server code when they shut down the official
         | servers.
        
           | CivBase wrote:
           | I think "in the slightest" may be a bit of an exaggeration.
           | Not every game with a required server connection has been
           | resurrected. And as this problem continues to escalate, I'm
           | doubtful that hackers and preservationists will be able to
           | keep up.
        
             | jonhohle wrote:
             | I play Overwatch with my sons and not only can you not run
             | a personal server, the game frequently has fundamental
             | mechanic changes for certain characters (and all characters
             | in this Tuesday's update). The Overwatch of a year ago is a
             | very different game than is now or will be a year from now.
             | 
             | If someone was to provide an Open Overwatch server, I don't
             | even know what it would look like at this point since game
             | clients aren't available for particular versions (maybe on
             | PC, but not console). When Microsoft is done with Overwatch
             | it'll be gone.
        
         | nottorp wrote:
         | > Square Enix recently announced that they will be shutting
         | down Nier: Reincarnation's servers in April 2024, less than
         | just 3 years after its worldwide release in 2021. And yes, it's
         | a single player game.
         | 
         | Hmm? The Nier games are always online? I keep meaning to try
         | them (although by now i probably have to buy used discs).
         | You're saying there's no point any more?
        
           | CivBase wrote:
           | Nier: Reincarnation is a mobile game. If you're planning on
           | playing Nier: Automata or Nier: Replicant, those are still
           | available for the forseeable future.
        
             | nottorp wrote:
             | Ah okay, I can't afford free to play games anyway.
        
             | jonhohle wrote:
             | And amazing. I normally don't play games through multiple
             | times in a row, but I played Replicant through Al endings
             | and then finished the endings in Autamata immediately
             | after.
        
       | HtmlProgrammer wrote:
       | I purchased the Analogue Pocket and it's a great little device.
       | Got an archive of all GB and GBC games and can play them off an
       | SD card using some of the FPGA cores available. while expensive,
       | it's great to have that tactile feel just like an original
       | gameboy with modern quality of life features
        
         | nottorp wrote:
         | That's illegal isn't it? And it's Nintendo's intellectual
         | property so you shouldn't admit it in public :)
        
           | jonhohle wrote:
           | Im sure he owns properly licensed copies of all those games.
           | He's just format shifting /s
        
       | nottorp wrote:
       | So is this really "open"? Or as open as OpenAI?
       | 
       | The web site looks like your average ex-googler's SaaS startup so
       | I'm sceptic.
       | 
       | Hoping people who are more in the emulation scene will clear
       | things up.
        
       | snvzz wrote:
       | What exactly is "open" about this?
        
         | willis936 wrote:
         | The cores that are community contributed can be open source.
         | The hardware and tooling are not open, so it doesn't meet most
         | people's definition of open. On the spectrum it's much closer
         | to being open than closed source emulation products that first
         | parties distribute.
         | 
         | Is MiSTer considered open? It's dependent on a closed source
         | toolchain to generate the bytestream.
        
           | snvzz wrote:
           | So it is only open in the sense of commercially (for profit)
           | taking advantage of pre-existing open HDL written by third-
           | parties.
           | 
           | Disgusting.
        
             | willis936 wrote:
             | No. You need to explicitly request the tooling from the
             | for-profit company (Analogue, which wraps Intel/Altera) so
             | that the open source cores you write can run on their
             | closed source hardware. It sounds exactly like the
             | situation with MiSTer, except that there is a second for-
             | profit middleman. Afaik MiSTer cores can't run on open
             | source hardware or compile on open source toolchains.
             | 
             | It's really a matter of taste whether you like Intel more
             | than Intel+Analogue. It's wrong to call MiSTer an open
             | source project but openFPGA not just because the number of
             | for-profit companies needed is different.
        
               | markemer wrote:
               | Yeah. Open toolchains have come a long way, but they're
               | not there yet. The Lattice ICE family are the best
               | supported.
        
       | FPGAhacker wrote:
       | I think this is not a great name for a product that isn't
       | developing silicon.
        
       | WhereIsTheTruth wrote:
       | Lol, the audacity of a for profit company with a proprietary and
       | closed source stack
        
       | opisthenar84 wrote:
       | I fail to see how programmable logic patched together == "the
       | future of video game preservation". There's community, software,
       | testing, etc... involved as well.
        
       | indrora wrote:
       | Just a reminder that Analogue have made very little on their
       | promises to those they stole time from.
       | 
       | Analogue isn't even the only ones to do an FPGA rebuild of a
       | console; there's a near-perfect GB/GBC clone (with quirks
       | toggles) that fits into a traditional Gameboy shell:
       | https://funnyplaying.com/products/fpgbc-kit
        
       | dansalvato wrote:
       | I recently bought an Analogue Pocket and I think it's a great
       | piece of hardware, but I'm really not a fan of this company's
       | business model. This page has told me nothing I actually want to
       | know about OpenFPGA.
       | 
       | Here's my question: If I'm developing an FPGA core, why should I
       | develop for OpenFPGA instead of MiSTer? I want to know why it's
       | better for preservation that I develop for OpenFPGA. Is it a more
       | portable platform that has a more guaranteed future? I need to be
       | convinced that OpenFPGA solves problems that make it a more
       | likely choice than MiSTer 10+ years from now.
       | 
       | If someone with more experience than me in this space can answer
       | the above, I would be really grateful. I'm astounded that
       | Analogue's page on OpenFPGA is all marketing fluff without
       | actually answering this.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-02-12 23:00 UTC)