Propeller powered C3, Arduino and the new "shield" standard
Ravenkallen
Posts: 1,057
I am sure that many of us see the new C3 as a great new addition to the Propeller family of products, but i see it as something even greater... This module has 64 Kilobytes of ram, a megabyte of flash, sd support, video and keyboard support...Heck it seems like it can do anything. We could all work on a new standard propeller OS and we could find a standard output device(Perhaps a VGA display or a OLED with a touchscreen)....This brings me to my main point...
The Arduino has gained a reputation as a easy to use device(even though the Prop is easier to use in my opinion) and also for its use of a standard programming language, but i think one of it's greatest strengths lies in its modular
"shields".. These shields can be stacked many times upon one another and each one can be used independently of one another... Even critics of the Arduino can not deny this great asset...SO here is my big proposal!!!
Why not take the best of both worlds... The speed and flexibility of the Prop C3, combined with the modular stack-able shield ability of the Arduino. We wouldn't have to call them shields if we wanted. We could call them modules or platforms or something. The C3 is practically MADE for this.
I know a lot of the forum members also do a little small scale manufacturing(We have Gadget Gangster, Bill Henning, Cluso99, Rayman, Dr_Acula and a few others i can't think of right now), We could tap these small scale manufacturers and create a community "Marvel team up" of sorts. I can not pledge to make huge complicated modules, but i could probably manufacture a few small modules using my homemade PCB technique. My main usefulness would be on the software end... I can whip up test programs really fast, plus i know a little PASM so i can code moderately well in it...Imagine having a C3 made exponentially more useful by a bunch of cool addons... I think our main first objective would be to create a standard OS(Perhaps even a graphic one) that can launch other Prop programs(which could include stuff like custom languages and APPS)...We could all be singing off the same song sheet for once. Even though the Prop 2 is coming out soon, and even though i know you guys are busy right now, i really think this idea could work...AND even though my main inspiration for coming up with this idea was a open source community project, there could actually be some money to be made(for hardware addons)
I am not sure what Parallax will think of my plan, but i think it is a good idea and it will help them because more people will buy the actual C3 base from them directly... We could even create a separate website devoted to getting the new C3 standard to work(Perhaps we could even sell some of the modules on there to)
I can pledge some of my time/ Money to get this thing rolling( it might be kinda hard for me in the next few weeks because i am moving, but i will still try my best)...What do you guys think of this plan? Is there any legal issues to worry about? Any plans of your own for the C3 that could fit into this project?
We are a community that has the power of diversity, and with this power we can do really neat things...Is this dream a little far-fetched?
The Arduino has gained a reputation as a easy to use device(even though the Prop is easier to use in my opinion) and also for its use of a standard programming language, but i think one of it's greatest strengths lies in its modular
"shields".. These shields can be stacked many times upon one another and each one can be used independently of one another... Even critics of the Arduino can not deny this great asset...SO here is my big proposal!!!
Why not take the best of both worlds... The speed and flexibility of the Prop C3, combined with the modular stack-able shield ability of the Arduino. We wouldn't have to call them shields if we wanted. We could call them modules or platforms or something. The C3 is practically MADE for this.
I know a lot of the forum members also do a little small scale manufacturing(We have Gadget Gangster, Bill Henning, Cluso99, Rayman, Dr_Acula and a few others i can't think of right now), We could tap these small scale manufacturers and create a community "Marvel team up" of sorts. I can not pledge to make huge complicated modules, but i could probably manufacture a few small modules using my homemade PCB technique. My main usefulness would be on the software end... I can whip up test programs really fast, plus i know a little PASM so i can code moderately well in it...Imagine having a C3 made exponentially more useful by a bunch of cool addons... I think our main first objective would be to create a standard OS(Perhaps even a graphic one) that can launch other Prop programs(which could include stuff like custom languages and APPS)...We could all be singing off the same song sheet for once. Even though the Prop 2 is coming out soon, and even though i know you guys are busy right now, i really think this idea could work...AND even though my main inspiration for coming up with this idea was a open source community project, there could actually be some money to be made(for hardware addons)
I am not sure what Parallax will think of my plan, but i think it is a good idea and it will help them because more people will buy the actual C3 base from them directly... We could even create a separate website devoted to getting the new C3 standard to work(Perhaps we could even sell some of the modules on there to)
I can pledge some of my time/ Money to get this thing rolling( it might be kinda hard for me in the next few weeks because i am moving, but i will still try my best)...What do you guys think of this plan? Is there any legal issues to worry about? Any plans of your own for the C3 that could fit into this project?
We are a community that has the power of diversity, and with this power we can do really neat things...Is this dream a little far-fetched?
Comments
http://forums.parallax.com/showthread.php?t=126116&highlight=Propeller
The latter is already being done.
Please elaborate on your plan because your first post said a lot without actually saying anything.
Yes, it sounds like fun. I'm not sure why I never noticed it before.
Looks like a winner to me!
My intent of the first post was not to lay out explicit rules, but to ask for commentary/ constructive criticism from the other members so together we could create a new standard. Did you have any other thoughts?
@ElectricAye...Yep, the C3 seems to be a venerable device... I can't wait to start playing with one.
I guess I just don't see the point.
As for a point, i really don't know what you getting at...This new standard would be more robust than the Arduino format and it would enable the end user to access better base hardware and software.. Plus the C3 board has a lot of features already built in... Imagine this.
You buy the C3 computer and you instantly download a whole library of pre-written programs onto the SD card. Some can do things like read various sensors and others can do things like access oleds or lcds. But to complete your setup you can buy a PS/2 keyboard and vga screen or a oled module(for portability). The system would ship with a main "OS" type program loaded so you can access every file of the SD card easily... Say you just bought a ping sensor, simply boot up the OS and find the file that contains a pre written demo that will display Ping distances on the screen... You can literally do all of this without even plugging the C3 into another computer....
John Abshier
I had an idea of splitting the shields in two parts. One for communication or displays, the second for I/Os (Motors, Sensors..). So they can be combined as you need it, and you must not have the same parts on several shields, or stack theme higher and higher (a problem of the Arduino).
Andy
I wish we could have our cake and eat it too, but as fast as the Propeller moves, I just don't see it being any other way.
OBC
Sphinx already runs on the C3 and this includes a minimal editor and Spin compiler/assembler/linker. I have an Axion 7" TV with a video/mono-audio input that runs off batteries for a couple of hours and I can run the C3 off a 6V battery pack for way longer. With that and the Parallax PS/2 keyboard, I have a standalone Propeller development system. I wouldn't recommend developing large programs this way because of the small display, but writing small programs or debugging small to medium sized programs is not completely unreasonable.
It would be easy to develop an Arduino "shield" adapter for the C3 that plugs into the C3's headers and physically mounts over the C3 allowing stacking of "shields" if that's what you want. It would be similarly easy to develop adapters for other expansion boards.
I agree with the others (Oldbitcollector, Ariba, and John) that we don't need to further standardize what the C3 provides. There are too many possibilities for what might be useful at this time. Good standards are always developed late in the game, after the user community gets experience with a product as is. It's very dangerous to produce too many standards too early in a product's lifetime. It tends to stifle innovation.
Yes, it would be wise to wait and see, but I do wish that we could get the entire team to pull in a single direction some times, so I completely understand your thinking.
OBC
I wasn't trying to be pessimistic simply realistic. To me personally it just sounded like this "idea" was half baked and simply needed a bit more time in the oven.
The main reason I came to the propeller to learn micro controllers is because of how hard the arduino pushes obfuscation on its end users. I want to get my hands dirty.
Keep in mind this is only the perspective of a single gnubee.
Keep in mind that the promise of a Propeller based Commodore 64 emulator is what got me over here.
I suspect Propeller2 may finally bring me the power required.
(and maybe a couple of them tied together. )
In the meantime, the C3 looks like it will be small enough to stuff in some very interesting places.
OBC
One option is to create a specification for the standard as the first step. The advantage is this option minimizes output wasted on "dead ends". It also somewhat levels the playing field as there is no incumbent prior to the standard being agreed upon. The big disadvantages are any problems have to be anticipated, there has to be a consensus, and sub-optimal solutions can get "locked-in".
The other option is to allow free-for-all development to occur then later decree one of the solutions to be the "standard". This can result in a better solution than the first option, but means there will be numerous "dead ends" and wasted/duplicated effort. (The developer of the standardized solution may also have certain advantages, including IP rights.) However, the standard has the advantage of being field tested and proven.
There's also hybrids of these two extremes.
Doug
A lot of you have interesting points about defining standards. Ericball brings up the far extremes and shows each ones pros and cons.. I think my plan was kinda in the middle. It it a standard created by experimentation and by the voting power of the community. I am not saying that we should just slap something together and call it a standard. No, we need time to figure out the best way to go about doing it, but we could lay down a few guidelines beforehand. About standards as a whole, i would say that they are there for ease of use. Think of the metric system and why us Americans will not adopt it? It is true the Metric system does make more mathematical sense than the method that most Americans use, BUT WE will not adopt it because we already have a standard and converting to another would waste time/ resources in the short run. That standard is easy to us..
Arguing the merits of other standards has nothing to do with this. What EXACTLY would you like to see standardized. Please spell it out for me because after your last post I'm even more lost.
At least if you had been arguing in favour of copying the arduino pin scheme it would have enabled people to use many already built modules.
You appear to have a case of needtoberightis.
(That's a joke don't let your cool hair get twisted hahaha)
What does needtoberightus mean? I am not trying to be right about anything. That is why i consulted the community first for ideas... I do have pretty good hair though, haha
1) Manufacturer provides something, a bus, a protocol, an interconnect whatever.
2) Lots of customers use it.
3) Other designers/manufacturers work to that spec. because it's common. Which motivates more of 2) and hence 3)
4) Someone make it into a standard (At which point it can be pretty much obsolete:))
Arduino has achieved this, so far the Prop has not.
I look forward to the C3 being yet another standard we can choose from:)
If I think there is a large enough market for C3 add-ons, I will make some.
If I don't think I can make enough money to recoup the investment in making module(s) for it I won't.
As far as standards go:
- PropCade runs SphinxOS, FemtoBasic and more already; it is also 99% demo board compatible
- Morpheus runs Catalina and FemtoBasic, SphinxOS soon
- Morpheus, Propteus, Proteus and my modules all use the 10 pin standard introduced by the serial and USB Propeller Proto boards, which also fits ucontroller.com's 20 pin socket
The C3 is a GREAT little board for embedding into gear, but it is not the only solution - different problems need different solutions.
Bill
Now, as I skimmed the posts, if anyone is serious about manufacturing, let me know as long as you can pre-pay for 100 units, I can have your shields done in china for a fraction of the cost here in the states, PCB, parts, assembly and test. No one is going to get rich, but if you shield costs $15 to make, and you sell for $50, its $1500 to manufacture 100 units, you net $3500 once you sell thru them all, so not bad. My manufacturing can go from gerbers to shrink wrap in about 3 weeks, 4 worst case. Anyway, the resource is here if anyone needs it.
Andre'
On the other hand you can do something really cheap for fun, maybe that only costs $5-7 a unit at 100 units, then its only $1000 to get it done at most for 100 units, and sell them for $20 each. Anyway, design has to be driven by what people want when it comes to this stuff, since the market for embedded stuff is tiny, you really can't just make random stuff like you used to in the 70's and 80's. You really have to see if you can at least sell the first batch.
And remember this isn't a "get rich" business, this stuff is probably the least financially rewarding of any type of business. Selling bikinis or making iPhone apps is 1000x more profitable
Andre'
Andre'