Thank you so much for your comments! I will review existing materials..
(Thinking out loud)
How about an object which contained a bunch of beginner "easier-to-understand" methods for handling some of the more strange looking, hard to understand commands? Something that one could start out with, then graduate from later as they become more comfortable with the code? For instance, instead of waitcnt, how about a suitable pause command that used waitcnt?
Caleb hit the nail square on the head in his Hackaday response...
So I made my usual Barnes and Noble trip last night.. Figured that I can't talk objectively about the article if I didn't have a copy. Here's my take on MAKE issue #25.
First of all.. There is a huge push (as expected) toward Ardunio. A comparison of various products leaves both BASIC stamp and Propeller cold. At the bottom of the BASIC stamp review, there is a recommendation to purchase a clone product. (Bad Make) At the bottom of the Propeller review there, you'll find information about the author. (I'll let you find and read it for yourself)
PICAXE also suffered, and I would have thought that the Propeller Platform should have made the list, but I digress... Once again, this issue leaves me wondering why Make would alienate part of their own customer base.
The projects that are posted are actually OK, and honestly ANY micro could be used with every single one of them. Heck, the Gumball machine could have used a BASIC STAMP, PICAXE, or Propeller. Make could have done a really cool issue by including four or five common micros in each product with a section on how to program each micro for the project at the end of each. Then the "reader' could decide which micro would best fit them.
I have mixed feelings about them receiving my money this month, but didn't think I could say more without having the issue in my hands..
Being a guy that never could understand C programming, I thought for sure I was trapped in the world of BASIC. When I started tinkering with micros, I had to find one that could be programmed in BASIC. That combination turned out to be BASCOM with ATMEL chips. I really love that combination of programming and chips. When I reached a performance limit with the ATMEL combination I looked at the Prop. The Spin programming looked horrid and I knew for certain if I couldn't understand C there was no way to grasp ASM. Turns out that I was wrong on both accounts. Spin is different but not all that different. PASM turned out to be a lot more enjoyable for me than spin, although I really can't do much of the complex stuff in PASM.
Being a BASIC guy and a newbie to electronics, I should have been one of the people attracted to Arduinos but never saw the need if it didn't solve any problem I was having. It looked to me like a pre-packaged micro that couldn't do anymore than I was already doing with BASCOM and the Atmel chips.
I read a lot of msgs on this forum where there is great concern about Arduino and the Prop. I know the Arduino stuff is getting all the press (magazine articles and such), but it almost seems to me that the concept is being presented completely different. From my perspective, the Prop is sold as a micro and the Arduino is sold as a "Single board computer" that has everything needed to solve a problem. You don't need to make a circuit board or even do the breadboard routine, it is all there to connect to something and make it work.
As for Make magazine publishing a whole issue on it, well, it is like anything else out there, use the buzz words everyone is talking about so that people will buy your product. Arduino is a cool buzz word that I think some people just like to say. It is "new" and different so there is curiosity about it. I don't really believe it is a "one technology is better than the other" issue, I think it is just really good marketing that has pushed the Arduino thing to where it is. An oddly enough, I don't believe there is any "Corporate marketing" behind the product.
I think it is just really good marketing that has pushed the Arduino thing to where it is.
Chris
It has to be the marketing...I just don't see the Arduino hardware as all that special.
Just think, it could have been some kind of Propeller platform in the spotlight instead
of a 20mips AVR. It would have been so much more fun for artistic types to have the
video and audio abilities of the prop to play with.
After thinking about this more, perhaps it is something along the lines of viral videos. There isn't anyone behind them marketing them, they just catch on like a flash fire in a frying pan. In any case, I agree Holly, the prop brings a lot more to the table than the Atmels.
I agree Holly, the prop brings a lot more to the table than the Atmels.
Chris
I really like the 8 bit AVR chips...they are just so easy to use. They are not all
that powerful but so many projects can still get by just fine with a 20mips 8 bit uc.
But when considering what uc to use as the heart of a platform targeted at artists
and not EE types the Prop is just magical! It is just so sad that those people are
stuck with an AVR instead of enjoying the power of a Prop :-(
The thing is, the Prop isn't really targeted at artistic types, it lacks the documentation/tutorials and has a odd ball language(SPIN) . Not to mention there really isn't a board standard for the Prop unlike the Arduino. As one poster put it, people are going a 100 different directions with boards.
Another thing, the Prop's strong points - video, keyboard and serial terminal. There are no tutorials on them. Obex routines are often of no help because they lack even the most rudimentary of documentation. People are often told basically figure this stuff out for themselves.
Like I said earlier to me the biggest problem that I see is that there is not documentation/tutorials for beginner
Second as some one point out it has a odd ball language(SPIN) which have a lot of commands/ indent line of code to do something versus not indent line
Third the object's are not comment well enough for the beginner to clearly understand fully real BIG problem
Fourth as some one point out there are going a 100 different directions with boards this the main reason that I bought a Propeller Professional Development Board to make it easier to the Propeller Kit Labs
localroger.........>>>> I agree with this hole hardly about this
I'd frankly welcome a good solid introduction that starts with the basics and shows how you spiral out to all the really cool stuff that is possible.
This go back to what i said earlier
One last thought
I would also like to see someone do a a good tutorial on
The most important parts of the video, keyboard, serial terminal, and other very useful object which to me are the best selling point of the Propeller
so that some one who has NEVER use a micro controller can understand AND ALL of good tutorial in ONE PLACE where you can find them easily
I want to thank Oldbitcollector and Nick McClick for taking the time writing documentation/tutorials for beginner this will help allot
"I just want to get started" ... started with what? What do you hope to end up with? What do you hope to learn? What kinds of things do you think you'd like to do in the future? There's nothing wrong with getting an Arduino, but, as is true with most tools, some things are easy to do with an Arduino and some things are hard to do. If an Arduino fits your needs, by all means use one. Many things that are hard to do with an Arduino are easy to do with a Propeller. Some tasks can be done just as easily with either. Other things are hard to do with either ... and maybe you need something else.
The "what do you want to do with it?" question is really important.
Freeduinos are available for as little as $10 in a breadboard version. That's cheap enough that you can pick one up for fiddling around (blink an led, move a servo, etc). But there's the BS2 OEM and Stamp Stack II for around $30-$35, not too bad either.
The Parallax sensors, pdfs, and sample code are a strong selling point of the Basic Stamp 2. It's great to download code, wire it up and just have things work. Even on the Arduino forum I've seen people suggest buying a BS2 if you want to use Parallax sensors.
Maybe it's because I've programmed in a few odd ball languages, but C and PBasic are close enough to switch back and forth without much difficulty. But I feel that way about any language in the Algol family. If it ain't Prolog I can deal with it.
I'm just getting into the Propeller chip and I can see that it's going to take some time to fully appreciate. Eight hardware threads are really be useful for robotics. There are a number of modestly priced boards ($25 for the protoboard), so it wouldn't break the bank either. The gadet gangster guys are working on helpful tutorials as mentioned earlier in this thread.
both have good points but this was more about the fact that they seem to focus more on the arduino, i just think they need to use different plat forms,
Like a lot SPIN code there is zero commentary, not surprising. Coder makes all sorts of assumptions about potential users. I certainly wouldn't use it.
I think that's really old code. The current Arduino release has a simple SPI library that lets you use the AVR's hardware SPI interface.
Hype aside, Arduino is simply a way to use the GCC compiler on AVRs with a minimum of fuss. It's popular because anyone can make their own, and you program it in C++. Regardless of its merits, using C++ gives you thousands of educational resources and a foundation for a lot of other languages.
The AVRs may not be the most powerful chips available, but if power were all that matters no one in their right mind would buy a BS2.
Nick and I are VERY motivated to change this problem.
Thanks
OBC
If you care, I too will give it a read and let you know what I think.
Background:
I started with the stamp (what is a micro controller and a BoEBot). Last year I jumped to the prop. I got a pro dev board and went to town. We had our first child so things came to a stop but now I'm back!
In my opinion, it was MUCH easier to get started with zero background with the stamp than it has been with the prop. Like Sam^3 says, there doesn't seem to be as many basic walkthroughs for the prop as there is the stamp. I'm not looking for existing code to do what I want to do. I don't want the answers, I want to write and build it myself. However IMO a simple "hey this is how it works" snippet of code and documentation goes very far in getting people to understand things and be able to take it to the next level on their own.
For example, look at the sample code included with most of the sensors and other things for purchase on the parallax site. Almost all of them come with a little bit of pbasic and an explanation of things. I'm not saying that's the solution to this, but I think the lack of similar documentation for the prop makes the learning curve unnecessarily difficult. That can turn a lot of people off of the product.
(for the record, I have never use an Arduino so I have no idea if this is more or less difficult)
OBC,
I look a quick peek at your turorial and like what I see. I need a new power adapter for my board then I'll dig in and go through your tutorial hands on with more detail. I love the idea you have a video section. I think that's a great hook to demonstrate the power of the prop. I really appreciate your efforts and will be glad to provide feedback if you are interested.
I do like the idea of some basic objects for the OBEX for beginners. They may be useless to more advanced users, but something that is highly documented would be a great tool as well as a useful intro to how objects work.
For example, look at the sample code included with most of the sensors and other things for purchase on the parallax site. Almost all of them come with a little bit of pbasic and an explanation of things.
In the past I have complained about the lack of example code for the Propeller. It seems entirely reasonable to me that every Parallax product should have not only PBASIC examples but SPIN examples as well. The responses that I got were that the Propeller was not a beginner processor and those that used it were expected to either know what they are doing or be willing to work harder to make it work.
A couple minutes browsing through the different sensors that Parallax offers reveals that about half either do not have SPIN demo code or the demo code is buried within a download. There appears to be no standard way of naming the downloaded support documents. Some say SPIN, some say Propeller and others you can infer that they contain SPIN code by the .spin extension.
If I were king of Parallax I would pull someone off their current project and put them onto fixing this. But I am not king of Parallax...
In the past I have complained about the lack of example code for the Propeller. It seems entirely reasonable to me that every Parallax product should have not only PBASIC examples but SPIN examples as well. The responses that I got were that the Propeller was not a beginner processor and those that used it were expected to either know what they are doing or be willing to work harder to make it work.
And I don't disagree with them. But if they want the prop to compete with the Arduino or "be the king", they should think about doing so IMO. Maybe they don't. And that's totally fine. I still love it. The prop is advanced from a capability standpoint but that doesn't mean it has to be when it comes to ease of use.
A couple minutes browsing through the different sensors that Parallax offers reveals that about half either do not have SPIN demo code or the demo code is buried within a download. There appears to be no standard way of naming the downloaded support documents. Some say SPIN, some say Propeller and others you can infer that they contain SPIN code by the .spin extension.
If I were king of Parallax I would pull someone off their current project and put them onto fixing this. But I am not king of Parallax...
Rich H
I think all they have to do is add the spin to the existing documentation. They have multiple versions of pbasic in many of them. Experimenting with the stamp taught me tons. When I "upgraded" to the prop, it was kind of frustrating to have to take a step back to re-learn how to code the thing. A little spin in the documentation like you discuss would go a long way to easing that transition. Maybe that would make more people interested in the prop and it's capabilities.
There are many good books and documentation our there on the prop and how it works. If we're talking about getting people to embrace the thing I think it helps to make it easy to use some of the "neato" sensors and things. For beginners it makes it much more satisfying when they can say "wow, I just used the ping to tell how far that was from me". The more of that, the better IMO.
I have to agree with the last three post there should Spin code for the product they sell if they want Propeller to sell real well
I think all they have to do is add the spin to the existing documentation. They have multiple versions of p basic in many of them. Experimenting with the stamp taught me tons. When I "upgraded" to the prop, it was kind of frustrating to have to take a step back to re-learn how to code the thing. A little spin in the documentation like you discuss would go a long way to easing that transition. Maybe that would make more people interested in the prop and it's capabilities.
I have to agree with this allot I seconds this motion
Spin and Propeller Assembly in the form of BST runs very nicely under Windows, Linux, and the MacOS. There's a command line version if you want to use something other than BST's IDE. PropBasic is a pre-compiler for BST that translates a form of Basic into Spin/Assembly source code. Catalina is a C compiler for the Propeller that also is cross platform and uses a 2nd third-party cross platform Spin/Assembly command line compiler/assembler (Homespun) to do the final steps for you.
I agree that Parallax is in a bind with Linux support for the BS2. Linux is popular with exactly the sort of people their products are popular with. If I had unlimited time I would reverse engineer that 32 bit Linux library and produce a portable version of it. But I don't, so I use the Windows and 32 bit Linux versions.
Things look much better with the Propeller with regards to cross platform.
Tbh atm 26k tricking in the new bh worlds is one of the best non member money making guides. Compromising with your target can assure u at least a 200k loot. If you don't have great combat stats look for afk epers. Goodluck
I am suddenly hungry.
I think I'll have a SPAM sandwich.
For what its worth I started my micro controller hobby with the Arduino because there were examples of everything I could think of that I wanted to try. I recently got the Propeller education kit so I could see what it was like. I'm really glad I did but when I get a new sensor I still try it out on the Arduino because its still easier for me. When I want to experiment with the Prop I come the these forms to get info on what I should do. I also like that MAKE gets people who otherwise would not buy electronics interested in my favorite hobby. I feel like it helps parallax because people like me will "graduate" the the Prop.
I personal would love to see more tutorial websites for Spin and I plan to contribute what I can from my experience. Don't get me wrong I have had a great time with my Prop and everything from Parallax.
Thank you to everyone who contributes these forms it really helps and motivates me!
Comments
Thank you so much for your comments! I will review existing materials..
(Thinking out loud)
How about an object which contained a bunch of beginner "easier-to-understand" methods for handling some of the more strange looking, hard to understand commands? Something that one could start out with, then graduate from later as they become more comfortable with the code? For instance, instead of waitcnt, how about a suitable pause command that used waitcnt?
OBC
I like to see your Idea
BTW I have a PPDB the one in the Attached in the Thumbnail
Do you think that we need to have another post to talk about this topic just an idea or add to the title of this post
So I made my usual Barnes and Noble trip last night.. Figured that I can't talk objectively about the article if I didn't have a copy. Here's my take on MAKE issue #25.
First of all.. There is a huge push (as expected) toward Ardunio. A comparison of various products leaves both BASIC stamp and Propeller cold. At the bottom of the BASIC stamp review, there is a recommendation to purchase a clone product. (Bad Make) At the bottom of the Propeller review there, you'll find information about the author. (I'll let you find and read it for yourself)
PICAXE also suffered, and I would have thought that the Propeller Platform should have made the list, but I digress... Once again, this issue leaves me wondering why Make would alienate part of their own customer base.
The projects that are posted are actually OK, and honestly ANY micro could be used with every single one of them. Heck, the Gumball machine could have used a BASIC STAMP, PICAXE, or Propeller. Make could have done a really cool issue by including four or five common micros in each product with a section on how to program each micro for the project at the end of each. Then the "reader' could decide which micro would best fit them.
I have mixed feelings about them receiving my money this month, but didn't think I could say more without having the issue in my hands..
OBC
Open a new topic under "Propeller", I've got some early material I'm happy to share.
OBC
Being a BASIC guy and a newbie to electronics, I should have been one of the people attracted to Arduinos but never saw the need if it didn't solve any problem I was having. It looked to me like a pre-packaged micro that couldn't do anymore than I was already doing with BASCOM and the Atmel chips.
I read a lot of msgs on this forum where there is great concern about Arduino and the Prop. I know the Arduino stuff is getting all the press (magazine articles and such), but it almost seems to me that the concept is being presented completely different. From my perspective, the Prop is sold as a micro and the Arduino is sold as a "Single board computer" that has everything needed to solve a problem. You don't need to make a circuit board or even do the breadboard routine, it is all there to connect to something and make it work.
As for Make magazine publishing a whole issue on it, well, it is like anything else out there, use the buzz words everyone is talking about so that people will buy your product. Arduino is a cool buzz word that I think some people just like to say. It is "new" and different so there is curiosity about it. I don't really believe it is a "one technology is better than the other" issue, I think it is just really good marketing that has pushed the Arduino thing to where it is. An oddly enough, I don't believe there is any "Corporate marketing" behind the product.
Chris
It has to be the marketing...I just don't see the Arduino hardware as all that special.
Just think, it could have been some kind of Propeller platform in the spotlight instead
of a 20mips AVR. It would have been so much more fun for artistic types to have the
video and audio abilities of the prop to play with.
Chris
I really like the 8 bit AVR chips...they are just so easy to use. They are not all
that powerful but so many projects can still get by just fine with a 20mips 8 bit uc.
But when considering what uc to use as the heart of a platform targeted at artists
and not EE types the Prop is just magical! It is just so sad that those people are
stuck with an AVR instead of enjoying the power of a Prop :-(
In practice the Prop isn't but could be.
The thing is, the Prop isn't really targeted at artistic types, it lacks the documentation/tutorials and has a odd ball language(SPIN) . Not to mention there really isn't a board standard for the Prop unlike the Arduino. As one poster put it, people are going a 100 different directions with boards.
Another thing, the Prop's strong points - video, keyboard and serial terminal. There are no tutorials on them. Obex routines are often of no help because they lack even the most rudimentary of documentation. People are often told basically figure this stuff out for themselves.
Second as some one point out it has a odd ball language(SPIN) which have a lot of commands/ indent line of code to do something versus not indent line
Third the object's are not comment well enough for the beginner to clearly understand fully real BIG problem
Fourth as some one point out there are going a 100 different directions with boards this the main reason that I bought a Propeller Professional Development Board to make it easier to the Propeller Kit Labs
localroger.........>>>> I agree with this hole hardly about this
I'd frankly welcome a good solid introduction that starts with the basics and shows how you spiral out to all the really cool stuff that is possible.
This go back to what i said earlier
One last thought
I would also like to see someone do a a good tutorial on
The most important parts of the video, keyboard, serial terminal, and other very useful object which to me are the best selling point of the Propeller
so that some one who has NEVER use a micro controller can understand AND ALL of good tutorial in ONE PLACE where you can find them easily
I want to thank Oldbitcollector and Nick McClick for taking the time writing documentation/tutorials for beginner this will help allot
I just want to get started so I just want to get an Arduino..
Freeduinos are available for as little as $10 in a breadboard version. That's cheap enough that you can pick one up for fiddling around (blink an led, move a servo, etc). But there's the BS2 OEM and Stamp Stack II for around $30-$35, not too bad either.
The Parallax sensors, pdfs, and sample code are a strong selling point of the Basic Stamp 2. It's great to download code, wire it up and just have things work. Even on the Arduino forum I've seen people suggest buying a BS2 if you want to use Parallax sensors.
Maybe it's because I've programmed in a few odd ball languages, but C and PBasic are close enough to switch back and forth without much difficulty. But I feel that way about any language in the Algol family. If it ain't Prolog I can deal with it.
I'm just getting into the Propeller chip and I can see that it's going to take some time to fully appreciate. Eight hardware threads are really be useful for robotics. There are a number of modestly priced boards ($25 for the protoboard), so it wouldn't break the bank either. The gadet gangster guys are working on helpful tutorials as mentioned earlier in this thread.
Really, I want to know... How on earth is the following easier for a beginner?
The C (Arduino) code for talking to the MCP3208:
#define SELPIN 10 //Selection Pin #define DATAOUT 11//MOSI #define DATAIN 12//MISO #define SPICLOCK 13//Clock int readvalue; void setup(){ //set pin modes pinMode(SELPIN, OUTPUT); pinMode(DATAOUT, OUTPUT); pinMode(DATAIN, INPUT); pinMode(SPICLOCK, OUTPUT); //disable device to start with digitalWrite(SELPIN,HIGH); digitalWrite(DATAOUT,LOW); digitalWrite(SPICLOCK,LOW); Serial.begin(9600); } int read_adc(int channel){ int adcvalue = 0; byte commandbits = B11000000; //command bits - start, mode, chn (3), dont care (3) //allow channel selection commandbits|=((channel-1)<<3); digitalWrite(SELPIN,LOW); //Select adc // setup bits to be written for (int i=7; i>=3; i--){ digitalWrite(DATAOUT,commandbits&1<<i); //cycle clock digitalWrite(SPICLOCK,HIGH); digitalWrite(SPICLOCK,LOW); } digitalWrite(SPICLOCK,HIGH); //ignores 2 null bits digitalWrite(SPICLOCK,LOW); digitalWrite(SPICLOCK,HIGH); digitalWrite(SPICLOCK,LOW); //read bits from adc for (int i=11; i>=0; i--){ adcvalue+=digitalRead(DATAIN)<<i; //cycle clock digitalWrite(SPICLOCK,HIGH); digitalWrite(SPICLOCK,LOW); } digitalWrite(SELPIN, HIGH); //turn off device return adcvalue; } void loop() { readvalue = read_adc(1); Serial.println(readvalue,DEC); readvalue = read_adc(2); Serial.println(readvalue,DEC); Serial.println(" "); delay(250); }Compared to Spin
CON _clkmode = xtal1 + pll16x _xinfreq = 5_000_000 cpin = 0 dpin = 1 spin = 2 OBJ adc : "MCP3208" pst : "Parallax Serial Terminal" VAR long value PUB main pst.Start(115200) adc.start(dpin,cpin,spin,%1111_1111) repeat value:=adc.average(0,200) pst.dec(value) pst.newlineI think that's really old code. The current Arduino release has a simple SPI library that lets you use the AVR's hardware SPI interface.
Hype aside, Arduino is simply a way to use the GCC compiler on AVRs with a minimum of fuss. It's popular because anyone can make their own, and you program it in C++. Regardless of its merits, using C++ gives you thousands of educational resources and a foundation for a lot of other languages.
The AVRs may not be the most powerful chips available, but if power were all that matters no one in their right mind would buy a BS2.
Background:
I started with the stamp (what is a micro controller and a BoEBot). Last year I jumped to the prop. I got a pro dev board and went to town. We had our first child so things came to a stop but now I'm back!
In my opinion, it was MUCH easier to get started with zero background with the stamp than it has been with the prop. Like Sam^3 says, there doesn't seem to be as many basic walkthroughs for the prop as there is the stamp. I'm not looking for existing code to do what I want to do. I don't want the answers, I want to write and build it myself. However IMO a simple "hey this is how it works" snippet of code and documentation goes very far in getting people to understand things and be able to take it to the next level on their own.
For example, look at the sample code included with most of the sensors and other things for purchase on the parallax site. Almost all of them come with a little bit of pbasic and an explanation of things. I'm not saying that's the solution to this, but I think the lack of similar documentation for the prop makes the learning curve unnecessarily difficult. That can turn a lot of people off of the product.
(for the record, I have never use an Arduino so I have no idea if this is more or less difficult)
OBC,
I look a quick peek at your turorial and like what I see. I need a new power adapter for my board then I'll dig in and go through your tutorial hands on with more detail. I love the idea you have a video section. I think that's a great hook to demonstrate the power of the prop. I really appreciate your efforts and will be glad to provide feedback if you are interested.
I do like the idea of some basic objects for the OBEX for beginners. They may be useless to more advanced users, but something that is highly documented would be a great tool as well as a useful intro to how objects work.
In the past I have complained about the lack of example code for the Propeller. It seems entirely reasonable to me that every Parallax product should have not only PBASIC examples but SPIN examples as well. The responses that I got were that the Propeller was not a beginner processor and those that used it were expected to either know what they are doing or be willing to work harder to make it work.
A couple minutes browsing through the different sensors that Parallax offers reveals that about half either do not have SPIN demo code or the demo code is buried within a download. There appears to be no standard way of naming the downloaded support documents. Some say SPIN, some say Propeller and others you can infer that they contain SPIN code by the .spin extension.
If I were king of Parallax I would pull someone off their current project and put them onto fixing this. But I am not king of Parallax...
Rich H
I think all they have to do is add the spin to the existing documentation. They have multiple versions of pbasic in many of them. Experimenting with the stamp taught me tons. When I "upgraded" to the prop, it was kind of frustrating to have to take a step back to re-learn how to code the thing. A little spin in the documentation like you discuss would go a long way to easing that transition. Maybe that would make more people interested in the prop and it's capabilities.
There are many good books and documentation our there on the prop and how it works. If we're talking about getting people to embrace the thing I think it helps to make it easy to use some of the "neato" sensors and things. For beginners it makes it much more satisfying when they can say "wow, I just used the ping to tell how far that was from me". The more of that, the better IMO.
I think all they have to do is add the spin to the existing documentation. They have multiple versions of p basic in many of them. Experimenting with the stamp taught me tons. When I "upgraded" to the prop, it was kind of frustrating to have to take a step back to re-learn how to code the thing. A little spin in the documentation like you discuss would go a long way to easing that transition. Maybe that would make more people interested in the prop and it's capabilities.
I have to agree with this allot I seconds this motion
I wonder where someone could get something like that?
Things look much better with the Propeller with regards to cross platform.
I think I'll have a SPAM sandwich.
I personal would love to see more tutorial websites for Spin and I plan to contribute what I can from my experience. Don't get me wrong I have had a great time with my Prop and everything from Parallax.
Thank you to everyone who contributes these forms it really helps and motivates me!
OBC