Interests in the CT60e still ?

[don_apple]

People have got around that problem by soldering a header on top.

Yes, I saw that. But I don't think my soldering skills are up to that level unfortunately

Found a lot of info about the CT60/63 at the following sites btw.:
https://github.com/mikrosk/ct60tos
https://mikrosk.github.io/ct60tos/

Looks like the expansion header of the CT60(e)/CT63 could also be used for the the CTPCI. So if you are considering to make a batch of CT60e's you could also think about making soem CTPCIs as well

[Steve]

I think the CTPCI isn't compatible with the ct60e variant, I can't remember why, or the details. I could be wrong.

[exxos]

Looks like the expansion header of the CT60(e)/CT63 could also be used for the the CTPCI. So if you are considering to make a batch of CT60e's you could also think about making soem CTPCIs as well

Anything can be considered if files are available easily. It's normally lack of demand which kills projects. I think Willy had given up due to endless problems with it all in one respect or another.

Though I'm not familiar with any of that stuff at all. I don't even know what people did with the DFB1X hacked headers as it doesn't fit the CT60 expansion header layout if there was enough demand i could get some made with the taller wirewrap type pins. But demand is never there. Plus there needs to be a source of whatever plugs into the things.

I hate to see projects like the CT60e die. But these projects generally cost thousands to produce, never mind the time involved. So It needs to make sense to see if there's even enough demand for the CT60e before anything else.

[coonsgm]

You can count me in

-Greg

[mikro]

Looks like the expansion header of the CT60(e)/CT63 could also be used for the the CTPCI.

SuperVidel, CTPCI, EtherNAT.

CTPCI and CT60e doesn't like each other purely for mechanical reasons, CTPCI's "IDE" connectors on the bottom side can't fit next to the CT60 PCB anymore.

Btw, the original expansion headers can be used along with CT60x using the CTEX (by R. Czuba) and a similar PCB made by the Nature when introducing the SuperVidel. I connected this way CT60 + ScreenEye, you can find a post about it on AF, even with some YT video.

Unfortunately, NOVA seems to have some hardware issue with CT60, there are posts about it, too.

[exxos]

CTPCI and CT60e doesn't like each other purely for mechanical reasons, CTPCI's "IDE" connectors on the bottom side can't fit next to the CT60 PCB anymore.

Do you have some images to illustrate the problem ?

I used to have a CT60 but sold it a while back when I got my CT60e. I never used anything else with it. So no idea how it all fits together. AFAIK it was the same expansion ports headers on both CT60 and CT60e..

EDIT:

Ok I see the problem. Be simple to extend ctpci if there PCB files exist.

[Swissfalcon]

here you go. On this pic I use some Pi headers to elevate the CT-PCI, works well.

Capture d’écran 2025-09-15 à 22.03.41.png (2.88 MiB) Viewed 141 times

[exxos]

here you go. On this pic I use some Pi headers to elevate the CT-PCI, works well.

Thanks. It's not much out really then.

BTW is your CT60e hand soldered on the bottom?

[Swissfalcon]

no, it is not:

IMG_0581.jpeg (522.16 KiB) Viewed 128 times

IMG_0583.jpeg (340.68 KiB) Viewed 128 times

[alexh]

I have a CT60e in one of my Falcon030s (with the CT6xPSU r2025 from Centuriontech) and I would consider buying another for my other Falcon030

BUT

(1) The original form factor was incompatible with the CTPCI, Super Videl & SvETHlana (not that you can buy any of them) but I would appreciate that this was addressed in any future re-design

(2) Some CT60e CT63 AFAIK used a different flash chip to others making the flash tools incompatible. Fortunately someone (Mikro?) hacked in support but finding the CT60e version of the flash tool isn't straight forward. Just bare that in mind before re-using "any compatible" flash parts.

(3) The CT60e TOS is not named the same as CT60/CT63 TOS and the revision number goes backwards. The timeline for CT6x TOS was something like 1.03c -> 1.04a -> 2.00/1.00 -> 2.01/2.01 -> 1.05 -> 1.03d -> updated 1.05. (And then you've got CTPCI TOS!) It would be good if all this was definitively cleared up.