NeMesiS Posted July 27, 2023 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2023 10 hours ago, Incursion64 said: I’ve already redrawn the xenium logo on vector format, so I can do variations, including an extra skin for your Ice version is you wish. As far as design goes is there a certain color scheme you guys want? Do you want this to be open xenium or just xenium? Oh, I got a high quality versions of my logo's if that helps? Just "Xenium" as it should cover both XeniumICE and OpenXenium modchips. 1 hour ago, RMM said: Its not my project but since the name is Xenium Ice I'm guessing the color scheme would be blue with white accents Correct... primary color being blue with black and/or white accents. See how you go, feel free to use more colors if it works with your skin design. Really interested in what you come up with... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeMesiS Posted July 27, 2023 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2023 22 hours ago, trencherfield said: You said it works fine with the MM cable yeah, so surely you just need to continuity test comparatively each contact and track end to end to match up the same on your flex? Any disparity will be the prob if there. Vaguely remember Ryzee hadn't shown or done a 1.6 flex on his github page, but noticed a slight difference on the 1.0 to 1.4 compared to the MM one IIRC.... not looked at it still for ages, still too busy right now. Not really sure what's the problem is... I've triple checked everything I possibly could, nothing obvious stands out. I can only improve on the design as I was intending. I'm thinking maybe the pattern of the copper pour on the underside of the cable helps with RF interference? But this is a wild guess... The only other thing I see different compared to the MM cable is that I'm using angled and not curved corner traces. Either way, I've just about finished a revised design of the v1.6 flex cable for another proto batch. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COO-589 Posted July 28, 2023 Report Share Posted July 28, 2023 25 minutes ago, NeMesiS said: Not really sure what's the problem is... I've triple checked everything I possibly could, nothing obvious stands out. I can only improve on the design as I was intending. I'm thinking maybe the pattern of the copper pour on the underside of the cable helps with RF interference? But this is a wild guess... The only other thing I see different compared to the MM cable is that I'm using angled and not curved corner traces. Either way, I've just about finished a revised design of the v1.6 flex cable for another proto batch. Hey Nem, I'm a bit pressed for time right now but wanted to chime-in. Please excuse if you're all over this stuff already (I don't have the time at the moment to go back and review the thread properly right now)... Doesn't look like you've got any 90deg bends which is important but there are still some principles to consider with 45drg bends, spacings between lines and ground planes with high frequency signals. I'm not sure what kind of frequencies the flex cable will be carrying though so unsure of the relevance... Have a quick google search for something along the lines of "PCB traces for high frequency signals" and have a look at some of the pages. The one titled Sierra Circuits seemed informative from a quick skim... Hope that helps, and sorry again if you're all over this stuff already anyway! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeMesiS Posted July 28, 2023 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2023 3 hours ago, Bowlsnapper said: Thank you for getting rid of the fucking MakeMHZ type. In fact... Throw a "Nemesis" in there. I think you've already earned it. @Incursion64 long live the 64! LoL... I had to get rid of "teamxodus" too... Have a look why... www.teamxodus.com 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeMesiS Posted July 28, 2023 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2023 7 minutes ago, COO-589 said: PCB traces for high frequency signals" and have a look at some of the pages. The one titled Sierra Circuits seemed informative from a quick skim... Thanks mate, will do... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COO-589 Posted July 28, 2023 Report Share Posted July 28, 2023 7 minutes ago, NeMesiS said: Thanks mate, will do... No worries! There might be info out there about flex cables specifically but knew searching for PCBs would definitely bring info up... Impedance matching is very important as well (solid solder connections especially). Proximity of signal lines to ground lines can also induce capacitance which affects impedance, so something else to look out for as well. If you're confident you're meeting all of those guidelines, then grounding and shielding could be considered too... Maybe terminating ground lines only at one end of the cable (preferably the end that has a cleaner and higher capacity ground path) could prevent any potential ground loops that might be playing a part. A last resort could be a trial of that shielding on the bottom of the cable that came up in the thread if there does happen to be any interference from something on the board that the cable sits above... Sorry for the rush replies! Has been a bloody long time now since I've done all of my training but some of this stuff has stuck in the back of my head Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeMesiS Posted July 28, 2023 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2023 6 hours ago, COO-589 said: Doesn't look like you've got any 90deg bends which is important but there are still some principles to consider with 45drg bends, spacings between lines and ground planes with high frequency signals. I'm not sure what kind of frequencies the flex cable will be carrying though so unsure of the relevance... Have a quick google search for something along the lines of "PCB traces for high frequency signals" and have a look at some of the pages. The one titled Sierra Circuits seemed informative from a quick skim... Well, I made a bunch of small changes including reshaping the cable for a better alignment with the HDMI mod. Spaced out the resistor arrays a bit more, won't really know the results until I order another proto batch. Re-routed everything to make sure my spacings are as spot on as possible, having the FPC connector dictate the minimum spacing. Ended up doing two variants, one with 45 degree corners and the other curved. I had 2 traces running to a single via (not present on MM cable) which may have caused a ground loop. After some research it is recommended to have a spacing 3 times that of the trace. Above I'm using 10mil traces, which only lives about 1x spacing. I can reduce trace width to 8mil which should give us 2x spacing or I could further reduce to 6mil which should give us the 3x spacing (approx.) that is recommended. Thoughts? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeMesiS Posted July 28, 2023 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2023 Also changed up copper pour on bottom side.. 6 hours ago, COO-589 said: If you're confident you're meeting all of those guidelines, then grounding and shielding could be considered too... Maybe terminating ground lines only at one end of the cable (preferably the end that has a cleaner and higher capacity ground path) could prevent any potential ground loops that might be playing a part. Would it be worth removing all those GND traces leading to the vias completely? 6 hours ago, COO-589 said: A last resort could be a trial of that shielding on the bottom of the cable that came up in the thread if there does happen to be any interference from something on the board that the cable sits above... Trying to get away with having to do so for the sake of keeping prototype batches cheaper. But would definitely like to use the EMI shield on the final design... Not sure if increasing the copper on the traces would be of any benefit? Thanks for your input... Cheers, Nem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeMesiS Posted July 28, 2023 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2023 On 7/24/2023 at 8:18 PM, NeMesiS said: Well, I did this blue hued version of the original skin. Just got to figure out a way to embed it to the OS. Having a skin is one thing, embedding it into the OS will be another challenge. Initially I figured since the "xenium-fw-update" by MM was OpenSource that I could modify that to embed the skin. The OpenSource-ness of this project is only skin deep. It would seem to be based on Ryzee119's "XeniumTools" ? But the majority of the code is in binary and the sourcecode for this was not included. However, we may have another way around this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeMesiS Posted July 28, 2023 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2023 There's "Xenium-Repacker" python script by TeamUIX which can un-pack and pack key components of XeniumOS: OfficialTeamUIX/Xenium-Repacker: XeniumOS Repacker (github.com) Cromwell.bin (bootloader) Recovery.bin XeniumOS.bin EEPROM_Backup_OS_Settings.bin XeniumOS_Additional_Data.bin (skin in here) I've been told that someone was able to un-pack both v2.3.1 and v2.3.5 XeniumOS's then repacked the v2.3.5 OS using the "XeniumOS_Additional_Data.bin" from the v2.3.1 OS This gave him v2.3.5 OS with the Original Skin back. (I think external skins were also returned.) Now to isolate the skin within the "XeniumOS_Additional_Data.bin" image... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeMesiS Posted July 28, 2023 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2023 Using linux terminal I did a quick hexdump of the "add_data.bin" from both v2.3.1 and v2.3.6 OS's. hexdump -Cv add_data.bin >> output.txt Next I used "Visual Studio Code" to compare these text files. Left Side (red) = v2.3.1_add_data.bin Right Side (green) = v2.3.5_add_data.bin By comparing these two hexdumps I can see where the changes were made between these two versions. On the far right of the screenshot you can see a bar graph that represent the changed code, which is halfway down the bar graph with a section covering roughly 25% of the total binary code. Within this section of code I was able to locate a signature for a bitmap image "42 4d" (within v.2.3.1 only) along with the "BM" tag within the ASCII column. It would be nice to extract that bitmap image to confirm that it is in fact the skin. This is where I'm a little stuck until we come up with something... Pretty sure I'm on the right path... But any ideas and suggestions would be much appreciated. Cheers, Nem 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COO-589 Posted July 28, 2023 Report Share Posted July 28, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, NeMesiS said: Well, I made a bunch of small changes including reshaping the cable for a better alignment with the HDMI mod. Spaced out the resistor arrays a bit more, won't really know the results until I order another proto batch. Re-routed everything to make sure my spacings are as spot on as possible, having the FPC connector dictate the minimum spacing. Ended up doing two variants, one with 45 degree corners and the other curved. I had 2 traces running to a single via (not present on MM cable) which may have caused a ground loop. After some research it is recommended to have a spacing 3 times that of the trace. Above I'm using 10mil traces, which only lives about 1x spacing. I can reduce trace width to 8mil which should give us 2x spacing or I could further reduce to 6mil which should give us the 3x spacing (approx.) that is recommended. Thoughts? Good stuff, mate! Keen to see if there's any difference between those with the 45deg and curves to see if that plays any part. If they don't work out, maybe there is something in the trace widths and spacings... How does the MM flex cable fit in with those recommendations? I'm not an engineer or anything so don't know how strictly all of that needs to apply or exactly what signals we're dealing with but it might just be a tipping point for it... It's not my money to spend on prototypes but I'm damn curious as to whether or not just changing the trace widths and spacing would have any impact, it would be very interesting to see how significant that is (could do nothing either way if the issue is completely unrelated though of course). I would've had the same approach of using the existing spacings as minimums regardless of those guidelines anyway so I reckon you've made a good call on that so far! 3 hours ago, NeMesiS said: Also changed up copper pour on bottom side.. Would it be worth removing all those GND traces leading to the vias completely? Trying to get away with having to do so for the sake of keeping prototype batches cheaper. But would definitely like to use the EMI shield on the final design... Not sure if increasing the copper on the traces would be of any benefit? Thanks for your input... Cheers, Nem I honestly have no idea, unfortunately. I haven't even seen a HDMI mod or its components first-hand so am not really familiar with the flex cable or any of these requirements for the mod... I have a feeling that it's not related to grounding or ground-loops, so I also don't want to lead you down any rabbit holes or anything like that either. Sorry I just dumped all of those thoughts up here in such a rush earlier! I definitely understand not wanting to just jump on that shielding option for cost, and it may only be a band-aid solution (if it would even have any effect on the issue) rather than figuring out the root cause and addressing that... Yeah, I agree and also wouldn't worry too much about adding any extra copper or shielding to prototypes until it's a last resort if you've tried everything else. Loving your work, Nem. Thanks for all that you're investing to make this happen! Also thanks to everyone else that's contributing as well! Cheers! Edited July 28, 2023 by COO-589 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeMesiS Posted July 29, 2023 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2023 13 hours ago, COO-589 said: Good stuff, mate! Keen to see if there's any difference between those with the 45deg and curves to see if that plays any part. If they don't work out, maybe there is something in the trace widths and spacings... I'm starting to think it might be the trace width and spacings... 13 hours ago, COO-589 said: How does the MM flex cable fit in with those recommendations? I'm not an engineer or anything so don't know how strictly all of that needs to apply or exactly what signals we're dealing with but it might just be a tipping point for it... Agree... It's hard to tell exactly what the specs of the MM cable are at these scales. I did a quick comparison of a variety of trace widths: The previous cables I got made up were using 10mil trace widths. With the next order I might do the curved variant in 8mil and the 45degree variant in 6mil. The MM cable kinda looks like it might be 8mil? 6mil seems a bit too small... 13 hours ago, COO-589 said: It's not my money to spend on prototypes but I'm damn curious as to whether or not just changing the trace widths and spacing would have any impact, it would be very interesting to see how significant that is Yea I'm pretty curious as to what's going on too... 13 hours ago, COO-589 said: I have a feeling that it's not related to grounding or ground-loops, so I also don't want to lead you down any rabbit holes or anything like that either. Sorry I just dumped all of those thoughts up here in such a rush earlier! All good.... It did point me in the direction of the trace width and spacing thing. 13 hours ago, COO-589 said: I definitely understand not wanting to just jump on that shielding option for cost, and it may only be a band-aid solution (if it would even have any effect on the issue) rather than figuring out the root cause and addressing that... For a larger batch I think it would be more cost effective. Even if the EMI shield is superficial, I think it gives the cable a more premium feel to it. 13 hours ago, COO-589 said: Loving your work, Nem. Thanks for all that you're investing to make this happen! Also thanks to everyone else that's contributing as well! Cheers! Thanks mate... ...and for everyone's input thus far, definitely been making some progress. Cheers, Nem 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COO-589 Posted July 29, 2023 Report Share Posted July 29, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, NeMesiS said: I'm starting to think it might be the trace width and spacings... Agree... It's hard to tell exactly what the specs of the MM cable are at these scales. Yeah, agree it's hard to tell but it does look like the MM appears to have a spacing of maybe even 2x track width. 1 hour ago, NeMesiS said: I did a quick comparison of a variety of trace widths: The previous cables I got made up were using 10mil trace widths. With the next order I might do the curved variant in 8mil and the 45degree variant in 6mil. The MM cable kinda looks like it might be 8mil? 6mil seems a bit too small... Sounds great, keen to see the results! The 6mil does appear small but maybe only after looking at 10mil and 8mil first... Definitely keen to see what you think when you've got them and would be nice to have side-by-side real world comparisons with the 10mil and the MM. 1 hour ago, NeMesiS said: For a larger batch I think it would be more cost effective. Even if the EMI shield is superficial, I think it gives the cable a more premium feel to it. For sure, totally makes sense. Edited July 29, 2023 by COO-589 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeMesiS Posted July 29, 2023 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2023 28 minutes ago, COO-589 said: Definitely keen to see what you think when you've got them and would be nice to have side-by-side real world comparisons with the 10mil and the MM. Great idea, here you go... I think the MM cable is closer to 8mil trace width. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeMesiS Posted July 29, 2023 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2023 On 7/27/2023 at 9:26 AM, NeMesiS said: After a quick test the QSB is working as intended but it is just a voltage regulator. To be thorough I would like to test the QSB on a motherboard without the HDMI mod installed. I read somewhere that it is possible to do, so long as the ferrite bead has been removed... Can anyone confirm this? Confirmed... I installed the QSB module onto a working v1.4 motherboard that still had the original video connector this time around and removed the ferrite bead. The console booted as per usual, QSB module design is now final. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeMesiS Posted July 29, 2023 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2023 While I was preparing to test the flex cables, etc. I decided to do a fresh patch of the M8plus bios for a v1.6 motherboard to help eliminate any potential issues. As I was trying to confirm the patched bios using MM XboxHD+ app an error message stating the above appeared. This was strange as I already had converted my PAL motherboard to NTSC using XeniumOS's EEPROM tools. My first idea was to return the motherboard to PAL and then back to NTSC again using "Enigma". Sure enough this resolved the problem... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeMesiS Posted July 30, 2023 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2023 v1.0 to 1.5 flex cable is working for the most part... Excluding the artifacts from taking a photo of a display there was some blue hazing. That could just be my soldering as I haven't bothered to go over my work as yet. Might just leave that for the next proto batch of cables unless I find some spare time. I've finished making final changes to the next set of prototype cables and will be ordering them shortly, we should expect to see them in around 2 weeks time... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeMesiS Posted August 1, 2023 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2023 Overall, I think it would just be better to have solder pads instead of a connector for the SPD module. Not having any components will save on assembly costs, we'll be soldering everything else around it anyways. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeMesiS Posted August 1, 2023 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2023 The full-sized SPD module was original meant for the underside of the motherboard. I did a cutdown version for the topside so that it wouldn't impede with the mounting bracket. Not sure how I feel about it being so small, kinda like the look of the full-sized variant. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeMesiS Posted August 9, 2023 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2023 Unsuccessful attempt... I've been taking a bit of a break as I've hurt my neck and was getting burnout again working on these projects. Plus, there was a bunch of things were piling up for me to do around home and this gave me a chance to catch up on the most important things. When I first hurt my neck, I decided to push through and assemble the HDMI mod, unfortunately it was unsuccessful. Either I made a mistake on the schematic or during assembly which is more likely since I was in fair bit pain at the time. But I'm starting to suspect the ADV7522 ic's I ordered as I had to get them from AliExpress due to DigiKey (or alike) not having them in stock when I needed them. Either way I'm, going to make some changes to the PCB design, including increasing the 0402 sized components to 0603 (I found 0402 very difficult to handle) and get another prototype PCB ordered for further testing. I'm just about on top of all the other modules except the flex cables, of which the next batch of prototype cables should be arriving withing the next 4-5 days. I'm going to see if I can get someone to test these cables out for me while I focus on the HDMI mod. I can feel that I'm really close to having a working design... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeMesiS Posted August 9, 2023 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2023 In the meantime... How are the testers going with the dual 80mm fan caddy? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trencherfield Posted August 9, 2023 Report Share Posted August 9, 2023 1 hour ago, NeMesiS said: But I'm starting to suspect the ADV7522 ic's I ordered as I had to get them from AliExpress due to DigiKey (or alike) not having them in stock when I needed them. Hmm yeah, does look a bit suss that ADV chip compared to the ones I have IIRC. Think they have 4 top dots, one in each corner, though might be a batch difference. But looking at the top of yours it appears to be a re-grind and re-mark as the top has lost its curved edge and the other 3 spots probably. Chinese twerps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeMesiS Posted August 9, 2023 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2023 53 minutes ago, trencherfield said: Hmm yeah, does look a bit suss that ADV chip compared to the ones I have IIRC. Think they have 4 top dots, one in each corner, though might be a batch difference. Yea... Pretty much what I was thinking... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trencherfield Posted August 9, 2023 Report Share Posted August 9, 2023 4 hours ago, NeMesiS said: Yea... Pretty much what I was thinking... Confirmed, had a look in a drawer, found some, dunno where the others are. Should have 4 spots. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.