Hello All,
while reading some recently written articles I have noticed a new trend of some articles which were "enhanced" with infomation, where the author didn't have all (any) of the facts. These usually resulted in...
I think it does this...... It probably does that...... It possibly....... Mabye......not sure....
I find such statements give a very bad impression of the information offered here. Changing it from a well written factual source to guess-work or as the Germans say "Glänzen mit Halbwissen". Could I make two possible suggestions to remedy this for future similar situations.
1) If you don't know, don't write about it.
Or....
2) If you are missing just a small piece of information, a simple "More information required" sounds a lot more professional than "I think it probably...."
What do you think?
Bryce.
I see your point, but I have found (especially with programming articles) that some information is better than none.
If someone says "It might...", "I think..." etc. at least it gives me somewhere to start my own thought process instead of just banging my head against the wall. 8)
Yes, but they then tend to get forgotten and the might/maybes become permanent. Would it not be better to then start a Forum discussion to investigate and collect this "missing" information and add it to the page when the complete information is available. Every page has an associated "Talk" page also, where these details could be discussed.
Bryce.
I admit I often do this probably.
Yet I think it's also a way to enhance some aspect of the subjet perhaps.
Maybe it indicates that such claim was seen on the net or somewhere, yet that it is not 100% sure.
Not sure about this, but we may not pretend the seriousness of an official wikipedia, which itself might be somewhat erratic too.
Also on some matters I have seen contradictory informations on the same thing, in different sites.
Yet if someone can actually puut a definite opinion/knowledge to clarify some details, that could be the advantage of a wiki.
Exemple with Tennis cup 2 :
QuoteThis games is pehaps the only one on Amstrad GX4000/Plus range to enable the use of an Analog Joystick, for the 2nd player.
That sound more "professionnal" than the "are there any game using analog joy ?" in the analog joy page.
Of course it doesn't sound quite sure about the fact "is Tennis cup the only game using analogjoy on Plus ?" or "which other game do support analog..."
Yet it remains clear that Tennis cup2 actually supports the analog joy.
And this is too an open hope that someone would maybe one day developp another game actually supporting analog too.
In those situations I can understand using such phrasing, but to give an example I found:
Analogue Jostick Port:
"Not sure if the POTs on the CPCs analog X/Y inputs are to be wired to 5V or GND (or to both)? And, how they are wired on PCs accordingly?"
This is something that can easily be found out, by measuring the Pins on a real device or opening an original CPC Joystick, but as such gives the reader absolutely zero new information. This is just one example, so if you are the person who wrote this (haven't checked who it was), then I'm not picking on you, it was just the first example I found.
Bryce.
Maybe a page for "Missing Information" or something similar would be good, where you could write a quick description of what's missing?
I don't remember having written this (perhaps it was me) but this also give us the information that proper research are still to be done, so if a Wikian have the time, the knowledge and the willpower to contribute on this...
yet in the furute i'll try to avoid tis by using cleared expression.
I still did, with thing such as "this has to be verified" or "can someone answer this" skike stuff.
Also the category:stub is here to tell the page is clearly uncomplete or is missing some important points.
It has to be used.
>> "Not sure if the POTs on the CPCs analog X/Y inputs are to be wired to
>> 5V or GND (or to both)? And, how they are wired on PCs accordingly?"
http://www.cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Connector:Analogue_joystick_(CPC_Plus_only)
That's been me writing that article. And I thinks it's been a good example where it is absolutely -necessary- to point out that there is missing information.
It isn't "Halbwissen". It's a FACT: The cpc+ is 20 years old, but still nobody has documented how the analog port works. I am just the first person who has "discovered" that there is no knowledge on that part.
> This is something that can easily be found out, by measuring the Pins
> on a real device
True. At least for people who do own a cpc+ or gx4000 (which I don't). But I was hoping that somebody sees the notice about missing information, and, like you said, does some measuring, draws a schematic, and so on.
NB, if somebody actually does, post analog joystick related stuff here:
http://cpcwiki.eu/forum/index.php/topic,546.0.html
> Maybe a page for "Missing Information" or something similar would
> be good, where you could write a quick description of what's missing?
Would do it, too. Though it should be pointed out in the articles, too. Otherwise people just see the joystick pinouts - think "hey, cool, the information is all there" - and never realize that it isn't complete. The result would be that nobody adds the missing info not in another 20 years. And THAT would be "Halbwissen" :-)
> Also the category:stub is here to tell the page is clearly
> uncomplete or is missing some important points. It has to be used.
Good thing, too. But are there many people checking that? And the stub is just a list of incomplete articles, without details on which parts missing.
Yes, it's good to point out the that information is missing, I'm just questioning how sensible it is to place it scattered throughout the Wiki. Say you happen to know this information and would be happy to share it, but you would only notice it is missing if you visit that particular page. That's why I was suggesting that we have a "Information being sought" page, where you could simply write:
Does anybody know which voltages were connected to the Analogue Joystick Pots - If so please add this information to "Page X" or let me (Forum Name) know so that I can add it.
This way, you could browse this page and realise which of your personal knowledge needs to be added to the Wiki, without having to read the entire site.
Or am I being over-organised?
Bryce.
Quote from: nocash on 02:03, 03 February 10
I am just the first person who has "discovered" that there is no knowledge on that part.
I disagree with this statement.
We all know there is little information about it and there has been little information for a long time. The only source being the official Amstrad document on the asic.
I started to look at some of this a long time ago.
http://www.kjthacker.f2s.com/docs/cpcplus.html
http://www.kjthacker.f2s.com/docs/cpcpdiff.html
I didn't know that Tennis Cup used analogue joystick and this is exactly the information we find out when having this great forum and wiki. Others can offer their help and we can build a better picture.
As we have discovered with the speech synthesiser thread.. by talking about it in the forum, lots of people can help to "join the dots" and "build the picture" and then we can really document some of this.
I agree with Bryce that we should stamp some docs with "More information is required." or "This information is incomplete".
But also I think that even when we think we have the full information there can often be something we did not check or something new to discover.
BTW, I plan to update the Aleste 520EX documentation soon. I have almost finished implementing it in Arnold, and have read the datasheets and looked at the rom contents a lot, so I will be happy to write up the information I read there.
(port decoding, clock frequencies, rom contents and what they are used for it). But as always please feel free to make corrections and add information I missed.
Long live the cpc, wiki and the forum!
EDIT: Please can we have a clean version of the Aleste schematics and then a document which describes the operation of the parts?
The aleste520.narod.ru has a document describing how the hardware works and describes the ICs used for that part.
One part of the annotated schematic describes the "Gate Array 3". This is actually the Aleste's "extport" located at #FABF (actual decoding is incomplete). This i/o port is used for:
bit 0 controls the addressing of the video ram and is used primarly in 32k mode.
bit 1 changes the frequencies inside the aleste (uses 13.333Mhz base clock) but also increases the clock to the crtc to approx 1.5Mhz.
Enabling the video hardware to clock pixels out faster and allow high resolution modes. (e.g. 320x200 16 colours).
bit 2 turns on the msx style mapper.
bit 3 forces the video hardware to output black
bit 4 is used to enable the 8253 timer. then any write to any port goes to the 8253 in addition to the hardware which decodes the port
bit 5 is used to enable either the AY or the real time clock, so that writes to 8255 port A and port C go to either the AY or the real time clock.
The hardware of the aleste is a beast because it performs lots of lookups through roms.
Quote from: Bryce on 09:30, 03 February 10
Yes, it's good to point out the that information is missing, I'm just questioning how sensible it is to place it scattered throughout the Wiki. Say you happen to know this information and would be happy to share it, but you would only notice it is missing if you visit that particular page. That's why I was suggesting that we have a "Information being sought" page, where you could simply write:
Maybe the middle ground here would be to have this as a section on each page, so that people know that this part of the information is being sought, worked on or is unconfirmed.
For example, if you have a wiki page about a subject, the bottom section could be 'Missing Information' (or maybe a better title) where the odd bits or stuff people aren't sure about can be added. If we agree on a format such as this, then editors can re-arrange current pages as they see them and we know what to do if we want to add information but aren't sure if it's correct or not.
Doing it on the actual Wiki page for the subject makes more sense because everyone can then see the information in the relevant place and also everyone can update it, including the casual browser who may not know about/be a member of the forums etc.
There's already a box at the bottom of the Main Page (Searching for autors) where badly needed (ie:missing) information is listed (currently only one item). I just thought expanding this to it's own editable page would mean that there would be a central place where a more detailed list of missing info could be compiled and browsed. This might ignite Forum discussions like the Speech-synth discussions of late.
Bryce.
> BTW, I plan to update the Aleste 520EX documentation soon.
Was planning that, too. Maybe we can discuss stuff here,
http://cpcwiki.eu/forum/index.php/topic,551.new.html
> There's already a box at the bottom of the Main Page
> (Searching for autors) where badly needed (ie:missing)
> information is listed (currently only one item).
Great. Another place :-)
So, the correct approach would be to list missing info as category=stub AND in search-for-authors AND as section entitled missing-information.
> (currently only one item)
Doesn't look as if it is popular then. There should be dozens of items, though it'd be terrible work to list all incomplete articles, not to mention to remove them from the list when they are completed.
> This might ignite Forum discussions like the Speech-synth discussions of late.
That's been great, especially gerald found out a lot of info.
It didn't worked for the MHT speech synthesizer though, apparently nobody in the forum owns one, so its cpcwiki article still contains a lot of things marked as "unknown", and even these nasty eye-catching "NoPicture" symbols. I admit that it doesn't look nice, but everybody should see what info is still missing/searched.
> There's already a box at the bottom of the Main Page (Searching for autors)
I think I have found what you meant,
Become an Author!
We are searching for authors of the following articles:
PDW (page does not exist)
Is that a joke? What the hell is a PDW? :-) Do you need an article about... a Public Domain Who-is list? Personal Digital Whatever things? Just say, maybe me or somebody else can write one :-)
I believe PDW was a German group of programmers who wrote CPC Demos. Not sure what the PDW stood for though.... Pretty Damn Wicked? Painstaking Demo Work? who knows....
Bryce.
I really must laugh out loudly when I read things like this in WIKI:
http://www.cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Digital_Joysticks
QuoteUsing the Keyboard as Joystick Replacement
Most games (should) also support keyboard controls for users who don't own joysticks. Most commonly used keys are:
Cursor keys & SPACE - This is not good for CPC 464 and 664 (which have uncomfortably arranged cursor keys) (only the 6128 and CPC+ do have modern cursor keys; as do emulators with PC keyboards)
Q,A,O,P,SPACE - This is a good solution, and it's sorts of standard (used by many games)
Best would be to implement both of the above solutions. Q-A-O-P is of course for english QWERTY keyboards, on french AZERTY it'd be A-Q-O-P (either way, the bits in the keyboard matrix are the same).
This means, I can always use my keyboard instead of joystick?
Then:
A) Why does the joystick return different keycodes than keyboard?
B) Why does my hag in Cauldron 1 deny to fly when I use this replacement?
Sorry, in my opinion this text is really on wrong place.
It "could" sound like:
"Some games also offer the keys Q,A,O,P and space as fire"
but as it's actually written, a reader will think he can use his keyboard as full replacement.
This is absolutely wrong!
Edit:
Of course most games offer this.
But the wiki page is about digital joysticks and not about replacements.
Hello? I said "most games should", not all games do.
"Most commonly used keys" means what it says.
As far as I know, Q-A-O-P was the closest to a standard convention, the text is there so programmers know which keys would be best to be used for CPC games.
> Edit: Of course most games offer this.
> But the wiki page is about digital joysticks and not about replacements.
Yeah, when implementing joystick support, one shouldn't forget to add keyboard, too. Just a reminder, suggesting that not all cpc-users have joysticks/joypads (as opposed to console owners).
Concerning the analog joy topic, as it is actually being searched at the moment (sort of), we know thing will soon change and we may get more proper responses if thing go well.
So as a hot-topic of this moment, we can afford some perhaps as the forum (hereby) is developing it.
Also, well...
Are there that many peoples surfing the CPC wiki ?
Most of those are CPC fanboys (me first), who have one or used too.
So let's say we will try to write more some kind of formulae such as "this is unknown and need a more proper/deep research..."
Quote from: nocash on 22:38, 04 February 10
Hello? I said "most games should", not all games do.
"Most commonly used keys" means what it says.
As far as I know, Q-A-O-P was the closest to a standard convention, the text is there so programmers know which keys would be best to be used for CPC games.
> Edit: Of course most games offer this.
> But the wiki page is about digital joysticks and not about replacements.
Yeah, when implementing joystick support, one shouldn't forget to add keyboard, too. Just a reminder, suggesting that not all cpc-users have joysticks/joypads (as opposed to console owners).
Ok I understand. I have re-worded the text to explain this better. Also I added it to the keyboard programming section.
Finally I added some info about the "keyboard" clash in the keyboard programming section too.
I added category:internal components because i felt the keyboard programming page included some internal hardware usefull informations.
Thanks for uploading the photos at http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Dk'tronics_memory_expansion they are great. Almost a bit too many :-) I've moved most of them to a separate gallery, is that okay? And kept only a selection on the 'main' page.
Now, that was about the dk'tronics memory expansion. But, what is the dk'tronics silicon disc?
http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Dk'tronics_Silicon_Disc
The "silicon disk OS version" probably contains an additional BIOS, aside from that, is there a difference between "memory expansion" and "silicon disk"?
I may be late, but I totally agree with the opening comment of this thread. I've changed a few articles myself, but there are so many these days it's impossible to catch them all...
The problem is, indeed it's better to have some not 100% verified info than not having it at all. But, it's also very important to watch the phrasing. The articles are NOT discussions, so there shouldn't be first-person sentences, questions etc.
Therefore:
"I think no games support 4096 colors simultaneously on the CPC" should become "It's not certain if any games supported 4096 colours".
Or, "Are there any known games taking advantage of the 64MB VRAM on the Plus2 models" would become "There are no games known that support....".
Very easy, very simple, still the same meaning, much more 'professional'.
Quote from: Bryce on 09:58, 04 February 10I believe PDW was a German group of programmers who wrote CPC Demos. Not sure what the PDW stood for though
Public Domain Wuppertal. It was the precursor to the infamous BEN
TG!.
Quote from: nocash on 02:03, 03 February 10
It isn't "Halbwissen". It's a FACT: The cpc+ is 20 years old, but still nobody has documented how the analog port works. I am just the first person who has "discovered" that there is no knowledge on that part.
Well following my agenda "Eigenlob stinkt ;-)" I have to say that there was an article of the CPC Plus in the CPC Amstrad International magazine 1992, where everything about the Plus is documented, but not the Sound-DMA (Couldn't find out how the copper code works in that time). Means the documentation is there, it was published, it seems to be lost. Thats fact ;-)
Quote from: nocash on 22:01, 05 February 10
The "silicon disk OS version" probably contains an additional BIOS, aside from that, is there a difference between "memory expansion" and "silicon disk"?
Yes, you're right literally. The Silicon Disc and the Memory expansion both contain one of two 256 KB RAM blocks. Together they provide 512 KB.
Q, A, O, P and SPACE should be banned. No human can seriously use their thumb sideways for FIRE!
Quote from: Executioner on 01:39, 10 March 10
Q, A, O, P and SPACE should be banned. No human can seriously use their thumb sideways for FIRE!
Where did that come from?
Anyhow, I think QAOP[SPACE] should be immortalised somehow. Maybe they should build a controller with just those keys. I can use my thumb sideways for fire with no trouble whatsoever, but then again maybe our generation mutated a bit because of it :)
QAOP+space was typicall of those 8 bit computers, Aamstrad's games of course, was it the same on other computers ?.
Main reason ?
well, first, those games used mostly only 1 fire button so it was suitable to use the space bar.
Also 464 and 664 had the arrow keys not well designed to be used in games (while 6128 and Plus keyboards are quite good).
And as we switched to PC, where the arrow keys are easier to use, or the wasd+ mouse + numerous other keys... We are no more used to the good old qaop.
Just too bad not that many games allowed a proper flaxible "redefine keys" option...
Also most consoles implyed the bad habit to to everything with thumbs...
When i play souldcalibur with friends, i'm completely ashamed to see those consoles despite so called ergonomic paddles, put a far to heavy empathy on thumbs...and it hurts badly.
While i'm used to keyboard+mouse on PC, a FPS with paddle is a pain in the ass to me...
The opposite is true to any consolefag.
that's simple : a mundane console paddle with triggers : you only use 4 fingers, your your thumbs to manage almost 6 button each...triggers are not that heavily used too.
Play station pads are not well designed so you use 2 fingers per hand for triggers...
And Xbox pads had one trigger per hand only if i remember well.
while a keyboard game would use almost every fingers...
Even a basic mouse would use 2 fingers+the wrist/fore-arm...
That's why the WIImote is so good : you don't get thumbpain and use almost you full upper body/arms...
That's also why I loved the SpeedKing.
It used a "natural" trigger for fire buttons (i had the 1 button model...) and direction with both wrist/armes in fact, not simply 1 thumb...with a natural position for the holding hand.
Yet it was a pain in the ass when you had games that needed an extra key :
Operation Wolf or R-Type...
also I played a lot too much (yound and fool) and the notorious lack of autofire on Amstrad, well...triggering could be quite intense too...
Also it is fun to see many girls using the modern Padds put on a table/surface, and used like a keyboard (some men do it too) yet not always good when triggers are needed in gameplay.
Also a difference between Computer games and console games...
Consoles were mostly used on family TV, in the living room... while computers were mostly on their own "workingdesk".
Consoles controllers were often designed to be used on a sofa with no support while computers joystiks where to be fixed on a table/desk.
Quote from: Executioner on 01:39, 10 March 10
Q, A, O, P and SPACE should be banned. No human can seriously use their thumb sideways for FIRE!
Hmmm.. So what is your preferred key combination then?
Seriously it would be interesting to know.
On the BBC my favourite used to be:
Z,X for left/right
:,. (or equivalent on BBC) for up down. and equivalent of @ for fire.
BTW I am looking at a PC keyboard when I am writing this.
Quote from: arnoldemu on 11:00, 10 March 10
Hmmm.. So what is your preferred key combination then?
Seriously it would be interesting to know.
On the BBC my favourite used to be:
Z,X for left/right
:,. (or equivalent on BBC) for up down. and equivalent of @ for fire.
Yes, many Amstrad games also had similar layouts as the BBC games. If not they had redefinable keys. A good compromise which works with all UK/US keyboards was Z,X,K,M and L. At least you've got a finger on the fire button :), and you can use left-hand SHIFT as secondary fire comfortably.
Q, A, O, P and space all the way baby, and the copy key on the right hand side for the second fire button. Although I've just tried Executioners key config and it works just as well.
+1 mate, +1.
Still curious about this:
http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Mainboard_Versions#CPC6128_version_1.5_.28does_it_exist....3F.29 (http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Mainboard_Versions#CPC6128_version_1.5_.28does_it_exist....3F.29)
Why adding a "not sure, maybe, probably" thing into Wiki?
Better leave this blank and wait until really such a thing has been discovered.
Or maybe there has also been a 5ghz CPC? I am not sure but I think I will create a Wiki page.
Probably without photos and sure without text...
I really can't see problem? I know it's best to stay with facts, but what do you do if the facts are unknown? And why do you guys are sending that complaints only concerning my pages? Look here, http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Game_Over. The developer is unknown! Do you suggest removing the developer entry?
The mainboard page is under construction.
The Z70250 is listed on cpctech.org.uk
There are no other webpages or photos confirming its existance.
Choices would be:
- Omit it from the list & silently ignoring the other list
- Add it to the list & blindly trusting the other list
- Or marking it as not confirmed
First two solutions seemed very bad to me, so I've choosen the third. To be double-sure, I've also posted it in the forum. If the board does show up then it's great. If nobody can find it, THEN it should be safe to remove it from the list.
> Or maybe there has also been a 5ghz CPC?
Sure thing.
Quote from: nocash on 15:21, 12 April 10
I really can't see problem? I know it's best to stay with facts, but what do you do if the facts are unknown? And why do you guys are sending that complaints only concerning my pages? Look here, http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Game_Over (http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Game_Over). The developer is unknown! Do you suggest removing the developer entry?
Well, it's "Unknown" and not "Maybe Palace Software but probably Ocean, not sure if was Activision"
Quote from: nocash on 15:21, 12 April 10
I really can't see problem? I know it's best to stay with facts, but what do you do if the facts are unknown? And why do you guys are sending that complaints only concerning my pages? Look here, http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Game_Over (http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Game_Over). The developer is unknown! Do you suggest removing the developer entry?
The mainboard page is under construction.
The Z70250 is listed on cpctech.org.uk
There are no other webpages or photos confirming its existance.
Choices would be:
- Omit it from the list & silently ignoring the other list
- Add it to the list & blindly trusting the other list
- Or marking it as not confirmed
First two solutions seemed very bad to me, so I've choosen the third. To be double-sure, I've also posted it in the forum. If the board does show up then it's great. If nobody can find it, THEN it should be safe to remove it from the list.
> Or maybe there has also been a 5ghz CPC?
Sure thing.
http://www.8bit-museum.de/pcb/index.htm?group=6&id=27#
I think I may have got this from this website.
It looks like 250, but really it is probably 290.
Now please take the fight outside before you break something ;)
Quote from: arnoldemu on 15:27, 12 April 10
http://www.8bit-museum.de/pcb/index.htm?group=6&id=27# (http://www.8bit-museum.de/pcb/index.htm?group=6&id=27#)
I think I may have got this from this website.
It looks like 250, but really it is probably 290.
Now please take the fight outside before you break something ;)
The first rule of CPCFight wiki, is we don't talk about fighting in or outside the wiki :)
Kick his head in Marcus... ;)
Great, thanks. That's why I marked it as not sure, hoping that somebody could help fixing that. And it worked, didn't it? Hmmmmm.... "It looks like 250, but really it is probably 290." now that wasn't me saying PROBABLY :-)
The "5" in 1985 on my board has a rectangular edge in upper right, unlike the round edge in the "9", which is missing its upper-right on my board, too. It's definetly a "9", but easy to misread it.
As you said, very good chance that that's been the reason for the Z70250 getting into the list.
Didn't fight. Only tried to explain why I think it's good to include "unclear" info in some cases...
> Well, it's "Unknown" and not "Maybe Palace Software but probably Ocean, not sure if was Activision"
Depends on. If there is conflicting info from different sources, I'd have no problem doing that.
Quote from: nocash on 15:54, 12 April 10
> Well, it's "Unknown" and not "Maybe Palace Software but probably Ocean, not sure if was Activision"
Depends on. If there is conflicting info from different sources, I'd have no problem doing that.
Right... you have no problem ;)
But as 'user' I'd find it very un-attractive and boring like "The author wanted to write it, but didn't know"
Look @ this picture:
http://cpcwiki.eu/imgs/c/ca/CPC464_270100_Grimware_crop.jpg
They forgot the T in COPYRIGHT is this now the blue mauritius for CPC motherboards???? ;)
> But as 'user' I'd find it very un-attractive and boring like
Un-attractive... yes.
Boring... I actually hoped that somebody would add the missing info. Seeing it in that way, incomplete articles can be more interesting, since you can add your own info to complete them :-)
> "The author wanted to write it, but didn't know"
That sounds unfair, does it really look like so?
> http://cpcwiki.eu/imgs/c/ca/CPC464_270100_Grimware_crop.jpg
> They forgot the T in COPYRIGHT is this now the blue mauritius
Did they? Oh yeah, cool! The "2" vs "Z" looks misspelled, too. Funny board... looks almost like a third-party clone.
Quote from: nocash on 17:42, 12 April 10
> "The author wanted to write it, but didn't know"
That sounds unfair, does it really look like so?
This shows only my opinion about "not sure, maybe, probably".
It doesnt mean your personal creation of a page.
IMO: Why don't you use a text like:
This board is actually unknown, and it is not proven whether it exists.
This is a clear message without "not sure, maybe, probably" ;)
Ah, okay. Then it's a known problem. For many years now, my father told me dozens of times:
Don't say "not sure".
But, didn't help, I can't get around doing that, sorry :-)
I'll try to learn... saying "not sure" is an unclear statement.
But if I say "I know that I don't know it for sure"
Would that be a clear statement?
I was a bit troubled all the way through until I read Marcus' last post. Yes, I think that 'rumoured' things *should* be mentioned, but clearly marked so, which was the case here. It's not bad, and it promotes searching around. But let's try and keep the 'personal' and first-person language out of the articles.
Btw, nice find about the missing 'T' in Copyrigh! I love the 1983 date... :)
Quote from: Devilmarkus on 14:28, 12 April 10
Or maybe there has also been a 5ghz CPC? I am not sure but I think I will create a Wiki page.
Probably without photos and sure without text...
Well, there is a 6 MHz CPC. It's in my parents house in munch. And I'm very sure about this ;-)