On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 12:47:49PM +0200, jumanji wrote: > Hello, > 3 things first, > #1: I pasted both James' & Byrons msg inhere because my reply on both would > have some overlap, > #2 I would like to make it clear that there was in no way any offense taken > (nor meant), I just found it a kind of bold & very generalising statement & > I couldn't resist replying with an equally bold phrase to defend my 'kind' > hehe (sorry :-) And none taken or meant from me either. > #3 this post has gotten very long, again sorry. I've been trimming furiously and will do so in this post. I only plan to tackle issues in #4... > & now #4: > > I'll try to give you an idea why this newbie is here, > My level of newbieness: I think the majority of ppl that are interested in > learning PICs have quite a bit more knowledge about electronics then myself. Now who's overgeneralizing? ;-) ;-) ;-) I think there's a pretty good mix of rank novices, experienced electronics and/or microcontroller developers, and software folks that are all interested. > In all honesty, if you would ask me to quote the formula of Ohm's law, I'd > fail. I started about some weeks ago & did alot of reading, I know a few > things, (very few). > > But I just would like to point out (I'm sure you have thought of us, but > want to make sure you guyz dont forget ;) the actual goal of many ppl like > me, I'm not learning PIC stuff because they are fun (they are, no doubt) nor > because I want to become a master PIC programmer & not even because someone > is forcing this upon me (teachers? LOL, j/k) I'm here because there are a > few things that I want to build with it. As do we all. But the danged thing is so cheap, fast, and versitile that it quickly becomes a solution looking for a problem. There used to be a time that project designers would pull out their TTL and CMOS chips, and their 555 timers, and get to work. Those days have passed us by. Use one 16F628, or 16F672, or a 12C509 if it's a really small project, program it up and get done relatively quickly. > I can only be proud that I'm > playing with stuff that can do I-don't-know-what, operate a tank. But at > first this is not what I want to do with it (I can't afford a tank anyway). BTW a robotic lawnmower and automatic sweeper/vacuum are high up on my list. > I think many ppl have some stuff to be controlled, & are looking for a way > to control it. It's not like someone wakes up in the morning & thinks 'I > gonna learn PICs', its more like one wakes up with: 'I wanna make a model > train' or 'I want fancy LEDs on my bike' or watever. It just happens to be > that PIC are so ideal for the job it seems & relatively cheap, easy, very > popular, & have great public support (my compliments to you all, ladies & > gentlemen) Plus there are so many nice things you can find to build on WWW > that uses a PIC to control it. Often it comes with a hexfile or with the > sourcecode. The first makes u stick to identically the same project ( I > really dont feel bothering someone to modify his program just for a silly > idea of mine that might not even be as functional as I intended) & the > second has for the ignorant newbie as much use as....watever heh. I'm so in tune with what you're saying that it's scaring me! ;-) 'I'm want to build X.' has several common elements for most values of X: * X will have a PIC ;-) * X will have some external I/O. probably some LCD, LED, or serial for output and some button, serial, or knob for input. * X will require some specialized hardware for whatever X does. * X will require some common software modules to drive some subset of the above items along with whatever software to do what X actually does. So wouldn't it be helpful if the common hardware (PIC, I/O, software modules) were all grouped together? Wouldn't it be really really helpful if those items were in a standard configuration? Because then the hex file that you're talking about above would be drop in? That's what I'm talking about. > So thatswhy I'm trying to learn it myself. > As a sidenote I would like to mention that mastering PIC programming > ofcourse can be one's goal, for professional reasons seems such a case to > me. I'm not sure that mastering programmer was really ever the true goal. It just so happens that if everything is right there to tinker with, it would facilitate such a process. > > But in my case, my actual hobby is synths & MIDI & stuff and I also fancy > LEDs very much :) My MIDI stuff has been languishing on my desk for 6 months now. I've obtained all the parts to do my monster MIDI sequencer featuring a CompactFlash storage system. But I get bogged down in all the mundane details of building a target board to start doing development. Maybe once the kids get back in school next week I'll actually spend a day or two hashing out the hardware and start developing. > Currently the available PIC development packages are, let's call it 'not > very cheap' if you want something decent to get going quickly. They probably > are all worth the money for wat they can do, but still, ppl like me already > spend alot on their main hobby. Agreed. That's why I think we have a unique opportunity here because you'll get a lot more than you pay for: A top of the line development package for a middle of the line price. > > Still I was Interested enough to invest. > > I already made a suggestion for the PBK, the modular approach, perhaps you > haven't read it, I don't blame you (I also haven't read each & every post, > so everything I'm babling here about also may have been said before :) I did. I think that we've all come to a consensus that whatever we end up with was going to have expansion capabilities: a breadboard onboard for quick expansion, a full I/O connector for more hefty I/O projects, and at minimum a ICSP programming port so that fully realized offboard targets can be programmed. I think the only difference is what makes up the base unit. > I > have no idea of the details of a good and flexible PBK circuitry nor of what > would be possible, I am aware that certain things might not be combineable. > But what would seem an ideal system to me would be something modular, in a > way that the PIC has its own PCB with its own required circuitry & pwr > supply (lets call it PICbase for now) & is as small as possible(!) (they > could be built for different types mebbe) this fits on a develop/exp/bread > board (selfmade or bought) OR a (bought then) educational board. The PICbase > also can be connected to a programmer. PICbase is self programmable. No other programmer is required for normal use. > Different ppl could perhaps design different educational boards that fit > into the system, be it for the sake of providing cheap educational stuff or > for commercial reasons. I can feel where you're coming from here. But taking this line is in variance with what you were arguing above. I can really feel where you're coming from in terms of novices users wanting to plug and play. But if you create a modular system where the PICbase is going to require additional components in order to be usable, you create a situation where it's more difficult to plug and play. I feel that you're on track with the idea but that the PICbase (hey! I LIKE THAT NAME!) need to offer a stronger, wider base for everyone to operate from. More standard equipment as it were. > > There exsists 1 similar product that I know of (I didn't have it in mind > when I was thinking about how a PBK should look like, it more likely was one > of my synths that inspired me :), the in another post mentioned FlashLab > (put all required TM's C's etc here :) but it seemingly has little or no > educational value/purpose. The company also sells educational material, of > which I aquired the experimenter board & the HW programmer. (I have > mentioned this in my suggestion-post) I didn't go for their software(BASIC). > I bought a PIC assembly tutor CD from a different company, and I find very > good and easy to follow, however its based on F84, & thatswhy I didn't buy > the accompanying board, but still, its very good to learn PIC imo. To have > the ideal PIC to learn to master it, I'd say the PIC with the most features > should be the one. But its all a matter of how far you wanna go, a sort of > modular system in my eyes is great for this, u don't buy the features you > don't have any need to know about (some parts are ofcourse a basic need, put > 'm on the level1 edu module :) , however you could get hooked, & extend it, > my current board has in a way this feature, additional spaces for other > components are provided. It also holds a F877 & it was already pricy (for > me), so with all the stuff on it, I guess it would have been unaffordable. Paragraphs, my man! PARAGRAPHS! I'm having a hard time parsing that passage, A lot like reading Steinbeck's "The Bear". Let's take this discussion through a quick synth detour. Say you're just getting started and you have the opportunity to purchase one and only one component for starters. Do you purchase a sound module or a keyboard? [ Aside for the uninitiated: a sound module is a MIDI interface only synth. So it requires being driven from some external MIDI source to produce sound. ] I would say the keyboard because it gives instant gratification and serves as a base to which you can further extend to other modules. In a modular system I find that a programmer only, or a simple board with limited I/O to be like the sound module: a very useful component but incomplete for really getting started. > > By the time I can build my own project, a system like Flashlab could do, but > its limited to 1 kind of PIC I think & it fits on a too big PCB (space can > be an issue (e.g. think of model & miniature stuff) for that one might even > choose a smaller PIC). > On my imagined ;) ideal system I'd plug the PICbase on my selfmade PCB & > hook it up to the programmer and/or computer. If the whole lot works I > disconnect the programmer & I mount the PICbase & the other PCB into my > project & wrap it up. This way you also could either update the PIC inside > the system, or you just swap the PICbase. That idea has some merit. It does contrast a bit from what I proposing for development with the Designer (Don'tcha just love all the cool names we've come up with over the last couple of weeks ;-): * The project gets laid out on the Designer using a combination of the onboard I/O, the breadboard, or if necessary due to insufficient breadboard space an external target board connected to the designer. Note that at this point even the external target board would only need the specific peripherals that are not onboard the Designer. * Plug it up and make the project work. * When complete and tested and working (all very valuable touchstones) transfer the entire project to its final target board. This can be any type of contruction you like: point to point, wirewrap (my favorite), homemade PCB, or I'm figuring some type of premade Designer PCB that one can purchase. Also you'll need another blank chip for the final target. One populates the board (with only the Designer I/O items actually used), plugs it into the ICSP programming port on the Designer and transfers the program to the target. Test and forget, releasing the Designer for the next project. > Maybe it even could be designed that the educational boards are of such form > that they could be used in your own projects afterwards. Absolutely. > > My idea about bootloaders, 'my momma told me TSR's are evil' :D , j/k, but > it did scare me off a bit tbh. It's just my opinion & I mean no bad towards > ppl that make them or support them, but I think price can be an issue here > depending on some numbers, it costs extra on every PIC, Money? Or Resources? There's no extra money involved because a bootloader can be dropped into an ordinary blank part. There is a resource cost because a bootloader does require program memory, I/O (minimum 1), and external interface real estate (usually a MAX232 or it's discrete equivalent). But as you see from the above design process that there's absolutely no requirement that the target be bootloaded. I was only hoping that the Designer's internal PIC would be bootloaded, there it's any requirement that the projects that roll off the Designer developement line have bootloaders in them. > while a HW > programmer is a one time investment. (ppl may wanna build more then 1 of > their project, e.g. like a fancy LED things for give-away :) The onboard > features make the production of small & ultrasmall series a little bit more > possible, coz components aren't exactly the cheapest things around. I find PIC prices absolutely unbelieveable! Nothing cost more than $10 USD in single quantities. One of the best values around. BTW again if you check my development process above, the Designer will also be an ordinary PIC programmer though I'm proposing an ICSP interface only. Anyone who wants to do assembly line programmer would need to build an programmer board that would attach to the Designer's ICSP port. > > Ofcourse to get somewhere one need to learn a certain amount of basics, but > this don't mean one has got to learn everything. That's not the perspective I'm trying to get accross. The interesting thing about a smorgasbord (yes I looked up the spelling ;-) or Dim Sum isn't the fact that you have to eat everything that's there. It's the fact that everything that you may want to eat is there. So you can pick and choose and experiment without having to get up and go different places. I'm only looking at common stuff. You'll be glad that they're there. > I'm currently in lesson 15 of my course and the more I learn, the more I get > fascinated & every ten minutes a new idea of an application pops up in my > mind, but I fear the big majority will never see daylight, I have a daytime > job, which has nothing todo with electronics btw. I'd be glad if I could get > to build few working things & then spend my freetime on using them. > > so, thanks for reading, I hope you all didn't fall asleep :) Absolutely not! Great posts. If you feel up to it why not start a separate off topic thread on your MIDI stuff. I know there are a bunch of latent muscians out here on the list. BAJ -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics