 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
raymondj(at)frontiernet.n
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 3:23 pm Post subject: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft |
 |
|
Greetings,
Now that all the software folks are listening, I'll ask a question that
I'm sure others are wondering. After a person finishes learning a
particular kit, Parallax in my case, what's the next step up in
capability and versatility. Is there something that is generic or does
each chip manufacturer have a separate track for using their product.
Not trying to start a conflict, just wondering what the world looks like
out there.
do not archive
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
On 04/12/2012 05:43 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
| Quote: |
<nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
At 10:07 AM 4/11/2012, you wrote:
Bob and all,
I am planning to code the wig-wag function using the standard Microchip
development tools using C. I ordered the PICkit 1 Flash Starter Kit
directly from Microchip on Monday for $36 plus shipping and it is
scheduled to arrive today. See Part Number: DV164101 at
http://www.microchip.com/.
Okay. I I'll get the FAT fets laid onto the artwork, modify
the do-lots schematic to agree, and get some boards
ordered.
I checked on the SWORDFISH Basic compiler and it appears to only
support the 18F family, 12F does not seem to be supported.
Hmmm . . . fooey. Keep us up to date on future recommendations/
discoveries. I used to write a lot of 6800/6502 assembler for
embedded applications. I use Turbo Basic for test systems. I'd
like to get salty with the RSC controllers but after one had
the 150+ constellation of instructions in the legacy chips,
it takes a whole new outlook on programming to get 'er done
with less than 40!
Any single software development solution would not target a wide
enough user base to make these types of modules viable for anything
but limited use.
agreed
I am very pleased to see that there are more responses coming in
from software folks, I was afraid I was stuck in a sea of hardware folks.
I won't start with the war stories on embedded software development.
Here is a Dilbert that shows how the war story saga ends...
Anyway, welcome software folks and let's here lot's of ideas on
what you would like to see happen with this project...
Had to put new tires on the car today so didn't get to
'play' . . . I'll have some time in the morning.
Bob . . .
|
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
enginerdy(at)gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 4:09 pm Post subject: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft |
|
|
Straight C will get you the most mileage on the most platforms. Everyone has a C compiler, and for the most part they're all C99 (a standardized C) compatible. Once you're comfortable with C, moving to a new platform is just a matter of reading the reference manual to find where all the useful peripheral registers are.*
That being said, it's nice to have at least one assembly language under your belt, because that will give you an idea of what your code is turning into when it compiles. When writing embedded C, it can be critical to understand what is going on under the hood, and Microchip with its 31 instructions and uncomplicated addressing modes is a great place to start.
Again, Arduino is a good place to get running quickly for embedded C. It is relatively uncomplicated to get the IDE working and the programmer programming -- just getting the tools working can be a major sticking point on some platforms, PIC included. The key is not to get stuck there. It's great to get up and running with because it takes a lot of the difficulty out of getting set up, but it is near the same capability level as Parallax. The next step up is the ARM7 or higher, but the programmer and tools become much more of a setup hassle. Just remember that if you're having trouble, if your device refuses to program, or your programmer refuses to talk to your computer.... that kind of thing happens to everyone. You just have to keep prodding it. heh
Check out some of the development kits at Sparkfun.com. They have great support, and the comments, forums, and IRC channel are much better informational quality than your average electronics site.
This board (out of stock, currently) is probably going to be a big step-up performance wise from a Parallax processor:
http://www.sparkfun.com/products/10664
I haven't personally tried it, but it looks like a decent dev board to check out if you're looking for more juice.
*Unless you're dealing with interrupts, which tend to be compiler-dependent.
Hope that helps,
Daniel
On Apr 12, 2012, at 6:22 PM, rayj wrote:
| Quote: |
Greetings,
Now that all the software folks are listening, I'll ask a question that I'm sure others are wondering. After a person finishes learning a particular kit, Parallax in my case, what's the next step up in capability and versatility. Is there something that is generic or does each chip manufacturer have a separate track for using their product.
Not trying to start a conflict, just wondering what the world looks like out there.
do not archive
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
|
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gregmchugh
Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 42
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 6:06 am Post subject: Re: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft |
|
|
Raymond,
I second what Daniel says.
I agree that C should be your next step if you have gotten your
feet wet with BASIC on Stamp or PICAXE. C is pretty much
the language used for most embedded software.
From a software engineering point of view it would have been
nice if another language had come out as the leader. It is
easy to get in a lot of trouble with C but most of the examples
you see in tutorials for beginners keep you away from the
problems by keeping the code well structured and avoiding
the parts of C that are error prone. But don' be surprised when
your get some unexpected behavior. It only takes a small typing
error to get some amazing results in C.
I also agree that learning at least one assembly language
is useful for embedded software developers. In addition
to improving your understanding of what is really going on
with the processor, there are times when assembly language is useful
(e.g., low level device drivers, high speed signal processing) even
when the majority of the code is in C. But for the vast majority
of applications C will get your job done quickly and it will
generate fast enough code to get the job done.
I also agree on the recommendation for Arduino. It provides the most
widespread infrastructure support. The development environment for
C on Arduino is easy install, easy to use, and well proven for the
novice.
There aren't too many applications that I can think of that
haven't been covered by an Arduino example already in
existence. Sparkfun and Adafruit are reliable suppliers in the US
and the prices are reasonable. Arduino compatible shields
(daughterboards) are available to interface with everything
you can think of and ARM based motherboards that are
compatible with the shields are available when you want
to give that a try for even more processing power. There
is nothing that has the infrastructure in place like Arduino.
If am surprised that no one seems to have adapted
one of the Arduino autopilots for hobby drones to use in an
experimental aircraft. Maybe someone has but I have
not heard of it as yet. I worked on the software for the
navigation, guidance, and control systems on the original
Tomahawk cruise missile and the capability most of the Arduino
autopilots goes way beyond any of what was done there.
They are called "experimental" aircraft but this is something
not recommended for beginners. Kids, don't try this
at home...
But, it is hard to beat Arduino for developing embedded
control of just about anything...
Greg McHugh
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
