The same is true for objects creation. There are some that will lock IO pins in the object code which is just plain ridiculous in the context of "re-usable."
In the context of re-usable yes. But the truth is P0..7 have big advantages for speed because of wrbyte/rdbyte instructions when it comes to dealing with external data. Prop2 makes this less of an issue because of the number of instructions that can execute "in the window".
While hobbyists are important, far greater sales volume will be achieved with Parallax Semiconductor. EE or CS professional beginners won't need as much hand-holding as hobbyists and would probably appreciate the strength of Propeller pin flexibility.
The reality here is that no one is really inovating here...
I see the same things rehashed over and over again... let's make a servo board... let's make an LED board... let's make another platform for the Prop and then make expansion boards for it.
At some point this needs to stop. I will be so much better to work on pushing what can be done with the propeller. I am working on doing that now with the CMUcam4.
Mostly agreed. It doesn't add a lot of value to think up a hundred different pin header / mounting hole combinations. The interesting stuff is the circuit on the expansion module and the software itself.
on the other hand... many folks on the forum use the Prop for fun. If their fun is designing propeller boards, nothing wrong with that.
The reality here is that no one is really inovating here...
I see the same things rehashed over and over again... let's make a servo board... let's make an LED board... let's make another platform for the Prop and then make expansion boards for it.
At some point this needs to stop. I will be so much better to work on pushing what can be done with the propeller. I am working on doing that now with the CMUcam4.
<sarcasm>
So "we" just elect someone to be "the decider" and they pick some boards as standard and anyone that comes to the prop after that is just out of luck if they have an idea for something different.
</sarcasm>
There is a disturbing trend, but it isn't too many boards...
Seems to me there are two core types involved with this stuff. Maybe three.
One is the user / programmer. They are interested in mostly ready to go hardware, maybe with some light assembly required.
Another is the builder, who is interested in bits 'n pieces, looking to make "things" that they and hopefully, users would both make use of.
The third is the pro, or maybe just dedicated person, who has a niche and requirements to meet, and or is using this stuff to accomplish specific goals on timelines.
When I compare this community to others, I see a lot of builders, some users, and some pros. A great deal of the commentary here is enabling type stuff, common to builders and to a degree users, or programmers.
Given how the prop is, shouldn't that be expected? Maybe, over time, some solutions will evolve and catch on with more user types, focusing things to a degree. I don't know that has happened yet --or where it has, it's not yet to the degree OBC is looking for.
I'll toss myself into the user/programmer group. I've written a number of getting started guides directed toward beginners, and a few programs here and there. In attracting other user/programmers to the Propeller, having a "standard" of sorts is beneficial because it nearly eliminates the requirements of a new user to understand the hardware to get started. It's very easy to "set the hook" with a copy of the graphics demo, theTurbulence demo, or maybe something Baggers has done if the first steps are plug-and-play.
Imagine this scenario: Let's just say for argument that the "commonly accepted" I/O configuration of the SD card is 16,17,18,19. By defining a PINS configuration file, we wouldn't need to worry about instructing beginners on I/O changes. We could simply look for the file at the expected location and read the data from it.
There are ways to implement "standards" which are freeing, instead of binding. The idea of MIGS provides a method by which any program which uses the MIGS control object is immediately compatible with other MIGS devices. MIGS is NOT perfect, but if several experts pounded out a revision 2, it would be.
For this group of hobbyists a few very open standards would go a long way to increasing their numbers. There is zero reason for other board designers to be threatened by this, and certainly reference designs would not be affected.
There are people who want to join us in the Propeller world, but we continue to keep the bar raised as high as possible expecting them to be programmers, engineers. They are intimidated by some of the tones taken in these threads, and overwhelmed by it all. I meet these people at expos, and talk with them. They could be a valuable part of the Parallax (not Parallax Semiconductor) customer base, and be contributing neat ideas to this community.
I think Kye's observation is spot on. If you go over to the Basic Stamp forum, you don't see a bunch of people coming up with new versions of the Stamp. Same with the Arduino, or other similar products.
For many, the Propeller has become the goal itself, instead of a tool to reach the goal. Which is fine, if that's your thing. Just don't mistake that mentality for the way the rest of the world looks at things.
I think Kye's observation is spot on. If you go over to the Basic Stamp forum, you don't see a bunch of people coming up with new versions of the Stamp.
That isn't really a valid analogy, there are as many or more CARRIER boards for the Basic Stamp as there are propeller boards.
I do like the diversity of the Propeller boards available.
That having been said; we probably should have a good reference board that can bring in new users with a fairly low entry bar. We should probably have many things targeted to this reference board.
I would recommend something with an interface similar to the Proto Boards 10 pin times 4 for a standard header, with VGA and PS/2 built on to the main board, and 1 or 2 Sigma Delta ADCs. of course the user would lose on board functions if an add on board required the pins used by them, no biggie.
>>> That isn't really a valid analogy, there are as many or more CARRIER boards for the Basic Stamp as there are propeller boards.
And there are a bunch of companies producing Arduino clones. That's not the point.
Look, it's fine to be excited about the technology in the Propeller. But people rave about how much better the Propeller is than other technology, and meanwhile pretty much all of the relevant technology today is built with that crappy tech that the Propeller supposedly pwns.
Go visit some Arduino forums (or similar) and you'll find people asking how to use the Arduino to send SMS messages when the toilet seat gets left up. Come here, and people are re-debating the same subjects over and over. Maybe it's because the average experience level here is higher, or maybe people just remember to put the toilet seat down. I don't know.
Kye made the statement that there's a lack of innovation here wrt the Propeller, and I agree with him. 400 different carrier boards don't accomplish anything. Seriously. You can mount a voltage regulator on a board with some pins and sell it to somebody. What has that gotten you? A chip on a board, that's all.
I guess I was a day late and a dolor short in my last post. It would appear that Gadget Gangster is getting the official backing of Parallax Semiconductor.
...Kye made the statement that there's a lack of innovation here wrt the Propeller, and I agree with him. 400 different carrier boards don't accomplish anything. Seriously...
I'm having trouble understanding this. I have 2 custom propeller-based boards here at work, designed from scratch to provide features the projects need...I did not use a standard board and build on top of that. Does that mean no innovation? Either on the board level, or in my software? (I would argue that it has more opportunity for the opposite, but hey, that's me [8^)
To my mind, if every board released to the wild has one tiny optimization, or radical improvement, or anywhere in-between, then it's a step forward. And an improvement can be measured with many different criteria: some like it small, some like it convenient to solder with thru-holes only, etc. I guess I'm saying that I see plenty of innovation, both on the hardware front, and the software front, and in some cases both at the same time. Kye's got some great code, but his 'innovations' aren't ex-nihilo either. I'll take incremental innovations wherever I can find them.
There are people who want to join us in the Propeller world, but we continue to keep the bar raised as high as possible expecting them to be programmers, engineers.
The expectation problem is on the other end: those wanting to have everything dished up on a plate with no effort required on their part. What we do is embedded programming, and to one degree or another we are doing engineering.
For those that don't want to learn they can hire one of those that do!
@Lonesock - I'm making a statement that post about making another hardware platform and rehasing old ideas have become all to common here. I'm not including the "let's make something old better" post. I like those, that's what I do.
Like... how many times has the "Propeller is good, let's fight about it and try to figure out why people don't use it dicussion has come up?" I guess I'm just being a downer. But, I would prefer to see more post about people pushing the propeller todo more.
I like see post were people have put the propeller in some application and made some magic happen. Or are looking do to something new - I guess I just haven't seen many recently...or made my eyes have just blured over... IDK.
Let's keep in mind that the real world does not tend to live on the bleeding edge of technology. For example, we (EFX-TEK) have a client for a lighting controller. The hardware design took less than a day (including client change requests), the code less than two (to be fair, I had previously coded and tested the DMX and PWM objects). There is nothing magic about this design except that, with just a little bit of code, we cause a 100W LED (that puts out the equivalent 500W of light) to have the behavior of an incandescent bulb (i.e., thermal inertial). And that code was done in Spin. Nothing magic inside, but on the outside the customer is thrilled, will likely order several thousand units this year, and the industry he serves has called it one of the best products to come along in some time.
Don't forget practical. That's were most of the world -- hence your possible customer base -- exists.
I may be very naive but I always thought that standards were created in only two ways.
#1. Large gigantic efforts by organizations like ANSI etc ... Not for mere mortals
#2. You look up one day and realize that so many people are doing things the same way that it has become a standard.
I think it's a lack of a Parallax supported BASIC,C###, Compiler for the Propeller.
'
The other guys don't have to write in SPIN, But in something familiar.
Thanks, Kye. That clears it up. I understand that sentiment (in fact I have always wished there were 3 propeller forums: Hardware, Software, and Miscellaneous/Other).
In terms of actual PCB design and innovation, I think it would be a fun experiment to have something like a WikiPCBdia, where you could have the members of this forum (and some have some awesome mad PCB skillz ;-) all collaborate on a design.
Maybe have monthly challenges (e.g.: design a prop board to communicate with *LCD module X* : limitations: 5 components, 2-layer, less than 2 square inches). We could have a request submission queue, and a monthly poll to vote on the most useful/fun challenge for the month. To cover the cost of actually building the board maybe there would be like a $5 buy-in to be a developer, or maybe Parallax might want to contribute a little...who knows, I'm just blue-skying it here! [8^)
We could even have a monthly software challenge, with a 1 month lag, where we all collaborate on the driver software for the board that was designed the previous month. Of course, with all of this comes the opportunity for more arguing, frustration, etc., but I think with some structure in place, everyone on this board is capable of contributing.
In terms of actual PCB design and innovation, I think it would be a fun experiment to have something like a WikiPCBdia, where you could have the members of this forum (and some have some awesome mad PCB skillz ;-) all collaborate on a design.
Maybe have monthly challenges (e.g.: design a prop board to communicate with *LCD module X* : limitations: 5 components, 2-layer, less than 2 square inches). We could have a request submission queue, and a monthly poll to vote on the most useful/fun challenge for the month. To cover the cost of actually building the board maybe there would be like a $5 buy-in to be a developer, or maybe Parallax might want to contribute a little...who knows, I'm just blue-skying it here! [8^)
We could even have a monthly software challenge, with a 1 month lag, where we all collaborate on the driver software for the board that was designed the previous month. Of course, with all of this comes the opportunity for more arguing, frustration, etc., but I think with some structure in place, everyone on this board is capable of contributing.
Interesting idea, I have been looking for a contest idea for un-assembled Penguin and an infamous EMIC TTS module as prizes. Maybe a GG Platform Design contest is in order........
I do like that we now have a standard platform (GG). I will start including compatible headers on my boards. I am also going to begin selling some of my boards online after UPEW. I really do like that the Prop finally has this kind of support for a board, as it is likely to boost the sale of the Propeller in the Hobby and Education markets significantly.
Maybe this thread has taken a toll on people as well, I have noticed 0 suggestions on the thread about My first Hobby board (the thread I started earlier today), where in I request suggestions ('what do you want in a 2 Prop Board with 48 external IOs available?').
Interesting idea, I have been looking for a contest idea for un-assembled Penguin and an infamous EMIC TTS module as prizes. Maybe a GG Platform Design contest is in order........
You couldn't be more right... We haven't had an Unofficial contest in a while.. We're overdue..
I do like that we now have a standard platform (GG). I will start including compatible headers on my boards. I am also going to begin selling some of my boards online after UPEW. I really do like that the Prop finally has this kind of support for a board, as it is likely to boost the sale of the Propeller in the Hobby and Education markets significantly.
@David,
Lack of response on your other thread may be because you've raised a little ire from a few here by suggesting that the existing product costs too much. There is a lot of investment from Nick which isn't obvious on the surface to bring us this product. If I see him driving a '11 vette to UPEW, then we'll have something we might agree on.
If you are simply looking to replicate a cheaper clone of the Propeller Platform, you are well within your right to do so, and I certainly wish you success. All is good for the Propeller. However, if that is your only goal, then you've missed the point of the thread. Let's work together to innovate a make the existing designs and hardware do things that they are not doing now.
Ok I wish only to help the community, I do agree that working together to improve on that available for the GG is a good thing. It appears that I will not be doing a Clone any way, as Nick has not got back to me saying if he will accept my money or not. This is OK I guess, it may be that the price ends up coming down in direct response to the increase in sales, thus the reduced production cost in volume. I really like the GG even though at present I have to bread board it (do to limited money). I have nothing other than the best wishes for Nick or GG he is a great engineer and it is a well thought out platform.
And to any that may think that I am being competitive, NO. I want to see Nick continue to succeed (why else would I offer him half of all profit for a clone).
i am a dogged and determined individual unfortunatly i have been on a few sinking ship forums and notice two trends.
one the
1: the "I know you are not trying so dont ask for help because you aint paying me, and you cant get free rides" syndrome.
this is silly in OPEN SOURCE as they forgot they are in a free forum there is like 100,000 (aqn approximate estamation) collage/high school kids getting As on their projects cause they copied something from a premade kit or posted project and bought the parts. how do i know? i loned a mom a basic stamp bot i made and when it was returned i started hearing about her sons amazing robot and how hes going to be the next bill gates
2: no place for completed works or lack of competed works there of.
you guys have made many great progs like DEEPfry the video player an amasing demo to say the least. or the retrostyle games. all of those are lost or hard to find or the links are gone away wooosh. then a scary shift occurred a movement to mostly emulation. the prop is good but mathamaticly speaking it will be hard pressed to emulate much hardware. yet it could be further polished to a glossy shine in what it can do on its own. Xracer is by far the best game grapics demo in my opinion for the PROP, thats only in the fact the color is good and the detail is good. non-electronics geeks like me are not pulled in by pure tech demos but rather polish shiney thing they are not dumb just used to thinking like the "normal" folk. so while i go super nerd on these demos like sprite demos, most people dont. and like the prop GFX ............ so long so long..... lets face it even if you posted all the code for it most people will still buy it from you. i built a demo board but most people dont like to plug wires and solder they just want to slap some cables up and turn it on first. the people who spends big money are guys like my buddy who has programmers for every pic AVR and brand of FPGA know (kidding but only a little he is sick overstocked) but all he does is troll around for programs to load on the things and run the programs he has not written one bit of code, but he has paid in like eh 18,000 dollars in his stuff and the moment he sees a propGFX he may buy 20 of them.
so a super basic board with a univeral layout a SD card PS2 connectors and TV out maybe a game port, and a library of converted software to get the user going. presto.
i think this forum is great and in no way sinking but it does have some echos i have seen in others. i have been reading posts in this forum for years and never posted cause i felt no need but the first time i thought i needed wanted help so i thought nice guys here they may help or something good and i got a 'i think you want free work dont expect something for nothing type answers' the prop is great i think it has a drive to go further. all id like to see: a faster prop no more just faster no memory just more speed thats all. localy i know 17 people who propel as we say. none of us have posted untill i did, and while i dont think they want to now i think i will continue cause hey im stubborn.
PS. dont comment on my puctuation i know what i typed im on a cell phone.
PS. dont comment on my puctuation i know what i typed im on a cell phone.
Heroic effort! I wouldn't have such patience.
I'm sorry you've run into some attitude. Often BasicStamp students have come to the forums hoping to find a last minute free ride (it is very sad they could not have learned or been taught better planning). Some members do not want to reward students by facilitating cheats. Maybe some of that has become a little too routine. I'm not being critical, just stating what I've seen over the years.
Someday PropBOE will be in a curriculum too. It is hard to walk a tight rope of being cheerfully helpful (Ice) and helping someone cheat (Fire). Hopefully we can be judged for trying to do the right thing instead of just "the top hat on my head is all you see." Tight Rope - Leon Russell
Comments
While hobbyists are important, far greater sales volume will be achieved with Parallax Semiconductor. EE or CS professional beginners won't need as much hand-holding as hobbyists and would probably appreciate the strength of Propeller pin flexibility.
Mostly agreed. It doesn't add a lot of value to think up a hundred different pin header / mounting hole combinations. The interesting stuff is the circuit on the expansion module and the software itself.
on the other hand... many folks on the forum use the Prop for fun. If their fun is designing propeller boards, nothing wrong with that.
<sarcasm>
So "we" just elect someone to be "the decider" and they pick some boards as standard and anyone that comes to the prop after that is just out of luck if they have an idea for something different.
</sarcasm>
There is a disturbing trend, but it isn't too many boards...
C.W.
Agreed. The greater evil is the plethora of "I just wrote the coolest object ever and you're stupid if you refuse to use it!" tone of so many posts.
The great thing about the Propeller is that is the default behavior.
Seems to me there are two core types involved with this stuff. Maybe three.
One is the user / programmer. They are interested in mostly ready to go hardware, maybe with some light assembly required.
Another is the builder, who is interested in bits 'n pieces, looking to make "things" that they and hopefully, users would both make use of.
The third is the pro, or maybe just dedicated person, who has a niche and requirements to meet, and or is using this stuff to accomplish specific goals on timelines.
When I compare this community to others, I see a lot of builders, some users, and some pros. A great deal of the commentary here is enabling type stuff, common to builders and to a degree users, or programmers.
Given how the prop is, shouldn't that be expected? Maybe, over time, some solutions will evolve and catch on with more user types, focusing things to a degree. I don't know that has happened yet --or where it has, it's not yet to the degree OBC is looking for.
@Potatohead
I'll toss myself into the user/programmer group. I've written a number of getting started guides directed toward beginners, and a few programs here and there. In attracting other user/programmers to the Propeller, having a "standard" of sorts is beneficial because it nearly eliminates the requirements of a new user to understand the hardware to get started. It's very easy to "set the hook" with a copy of the graphics demo, theTurbulence demo, or maybe something Baggers has done if the first steps are plug-and-play.
Imagine this scenario: Let's just say for argument that the "commonly accepted" I/O configuration of the SD card is 16,17,18,19. By defining a PINS configuration file, we wouldn't need to worry about instructing beginners on I/O changes. We could simply look for the file at the expected location and read the data from it.
There are ways to implement "standards" which are freeing, instead of binding. The idea of MIGS provides a method by which any program which uses the MIGS control object is immediately compatible with other MIGS devices. MIGS is NOT perfect, but if several experts pounded out a revision 2, it would be.
For this group of hobbyists a few very open standards would go a long way to increasing their numbers. There is zero reason for other board designers to be threatened by this, and certainly reference designs would not be affected.
There are people who want to join us in the Propeller world, but we continue to keep the bar raised as high as possible expecting them to be programmers, engineers. They are intimidated by some of the tones taken in these threads, and overwhelmed by it all. I meet these people at expos, and talk with them. They could be a valuable part of the Parallax (not Parallax Semiconductor) customer base, and be contributing neat ideas to this community.
OBC
For many, the Propeller has become the goal itself, instead of a tool to reach the goal. Which is fine, if that's your thing. Just don't mistake that mentality for the way the rest of the world looks at things.
That isn't really a valid analogy, there are as many or more CARRIER boards for the Basic Stamp as there are propeller boards.
C.W.
That having been said; we probably should have a good reference board that can bring in new users with a fairly low entry bar. We should probably have many things targeted to this reference board.
I would recommend something with an interface similar to the Proto Boards 10 pin times 4 for a standard header, with VGA and PS/2 built on to the main board, and 1 or 2 Sigma Delta ADCs. of course the user would lose on board functions if an add on board required the pins used by them, no biggie.
And there are a bunch of companies producing Arduino clones. That's not the point.
Look, it's fine to be excited about the technology in the Propeller. But people rave about how much better the Propeller is than other technology, and meanwhile pretty much all of the relevant technology today is built with that crappy tech that the Propeller supposedly pwns.
Go visit some Arduino forums (or similar) and you'll find people asking how to use the Arduino to send SMS messages when the toilet seat gets left up. Come here, and people are re-debating the same subjects over and over. Maybe it's because the average experience level here is higher, or maybe people just remember to put the toilet seat down. I don't know.
Kye made the statement that there's a lack of innovation here wrt the Propeller, and I agree with him. 400 different carrier boards don't accomplish anything. Seriously. You can mount a voltage regulator on a board with some pins and sell it to somebody. What has that gotten you? A chip on a board, that's all.
It is a good Open, complete platform.
To my mind, if every board released to the wild has one tiny optimization, or radical improvement, or anywhere in-between, then it's a step forward. And an improvement can be measured with many different criteria: some like it small, some like it convenient to solder with thru-holes only, etc. I guess I'm saying that I see plenty of innovation, both on the hardware front, and the software front, and in some cases both at the same time. Kye's got some great code, but his 'innovations' aren't ex-nihilo either. I'll take incremental innovations wherever I can find them.
Jonathan
The expectation problem is on the other end: those wanting to have everything dished up on a plate with no effort required on their part. What we do is embedded programming, and to one degree or another we are doing engineering.
For those that don't want to learn they can hire one of those that do!
Like... how many times has the "Propeller is good, let's fight about it and try to figure out why people don't use it dicussion has come up?" I guess I'm just being a downer. But, I would prefer to see more post about people pushing the propeller todo more.
I like see post were people have put the propeller in some application and made some magic happen. Or are looking do to something new - I guess I just haven't seen many recently...or made my eyes have just blured over... IDK.
Don't forget practical. That's were most of the world -- hence your possible customer base -- exists.
Interesting.
#1. Large gigantic efforts by organizations like ANSI etc ... Not for mere mortals
#2. You look up one day and realize that so many people are doing things the same way that it has become a standard.
we might just need to be a bit more patient.
'
The other guys don't have to write in SPIN, But in something familiar.
In terms of actual PCB design and innovation, I think it would be a fun experiment to have something like a WikiPCBdia, where you could have the members of this forum (and some have some awesome mad PCB skillz ;-) all collaborate on a design.
Maybe have monthly challenges (e.g.: design a prop board to communicate with *LCD module X* : limitations: 5 components, 2-layer, less than 2 square inches). We could have a request submission queue, and a monthly poll to vote on the most useful/fun challenge for the month. To cover the cost of actually building the board maybe there would be like a $5 buy-in to be a developer, or maybe Parallax might want to contribute a little...who knows, I'm just blue-skying it here! [8^)
We could even have a monthly software challenge, with a 1 month lag, where we all collaborate on the driver software for the board that was designed the previous month. Of course, with all of this comes the opportunity for more arguing, frustration, etc., but I think with some structure in place, everyone on this board is capable of contributing.
Sorry for the rambling.... [8^)
Jonathan
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist/pcbcontest.htm
Other people may purchase the boards.
I've won it three times, which isn't difficult as there usually aren't very many entries. Here is one of my boards with the software for using it:
http://www.leonheller.com/usb/index.html
It's a little USB prototyping board using a PIC18F2455.
Perhaps something like that could be instituted, in conjunction with a PCB manufacturer like Olimex.
I think this is a fantastic idea! We have all the tools in place now.
Maybe this thread has taken a toll on people as well, I have noticed 0 suggestions on the thread about My first Hobby board (the thread I started earlier today), where in I request suggestions ('what do you want in a 2 Prop Board with 48 external IOs available?').
You couldn't be more right... We haven't had an Unofficial contest in a while.. We're overdue..
http://forums.parallax.com/showthread.php?131542-Unofficial-GG-Platform-Design-contest-Let-s-put-it-together.
OBC
@David,
Lack of response on your other thread may be because you've raised a little ire from a few here by suggesting that the existing product costs too much. There is a lot of investment from Nick which isn't obvious on the surface to bring us this product. If I see him driving a '11 vette to UPEW, then we'll have something we might agree on.
If you are simply looking to replicate a cheaper clone of the Propeller Platform, you are well within your right to do so, and I certainly wish you success. All is good for the Propeller. However, if that is your only goal, then you've missed the point of the thread. Let's work together to innovate a make the existing designs and hardware do things that they are not doing now.
OBC
And to any that may think that I am being competitive, NO. I want to see Nick continue to succeed (why else would I offer him half of all profit for a clone).
one the
1: the "I know you are not trying so dont ask for help because you aint paying me, and you cant get free rides" syndrome.
this is silly in OPEN SOURCE as they forgot they are in a free forum there is like 100,000 (aqn approximate estamation) collage/high school kids getting As on their projects cause they copied something from a premade kit or posted project and bought the parts. how do i know? i loned a mom a basic stamp bot i made and when it was returned i started hearing about her sons amazing robot and how hes going to be the next bill gates
2: no place for completed works or lack of competed works there of.
you guys have made many great progs like DEEPfry the video player an amasing demo to say the least. or the retrostyle games. all of those are lost or hard to find or the links are gone away wooosh. then a scary shift occurred a movement to mostly emulation. the prop is good but mathamaticly speaking it will be hard pressed to emulate much hardware. yet it could be further polished to a glossy shine in what it can do on its own. Xracer is by far the best game grapics demo in my opinion for the PROP, thats only in the fact the color is good and the detail is good. non-electronics geeks like me are not pulled in by pure tech demos but rather polish shiney thing they are not dumb just used to thinking like the "normal" folk. so while i go super nerd on these demos like sprite demos, most people dont. and like the prop GFX ............ so long so long..... lets face it even if you posted all the code for it most people will still buy it from you. i built a demo board but most people dont like to plug wires and solder they just want to slap some cables up and turn it on first. the people who spends big money are guys like my buddy who has programmers for every pic AVR and brand of FPGA know (kidding but only a little he is sick overstocked) but all he does is troll around for programs to load on the things and run the programs he has not written one bit of code, but he has paid in like eh 18,000 dollars in his stuff and the moment he sees a propGFX he may buy 20 of them.
so a super basic board with a univeral layout a SD card PS2 connectors and TV out maybe a game port, and a library of converted software to get the user going. presto.
i think this forum is great and in no way sinking but it does have some echos i have seen in others. i have been reading posts in this forum for years and never posted cause i felt no need but the first time i thought i needed wanted help so i thought nice guys here they may help or something good and i got a 'i think you want free work dont expect something for nothing type answers' the prop is great i think it has a drive to go further. all id like to see: a faster prop no more just faster no memory just more speed thats all. localy i know 17 people who propel as we say. none of us have posted untill i did, and while i dont think they want to now i think i will continue cause hey im stubborn.
PS. dont comment on my puctuation i know what i typed im on a cell phone.
Heroic effort! I wouldn't have such patience.
I'm sorry you've run into some attitude. Often BasicStamp students have come to the forums hoping to find a last minute free ride (it is very sad they could not have learned or been taught better planning). Some members do not want to reward students by facilitating cheats. Maybe some of that has become a little too routine. I'm not being critical, just stating what I've seen over the years.
Someday PropBOE will be in a curriculum too. It is hard to walk a tight rope of being cheerfully helpful (Ice) and helping someone cheat (Fire). Hopefully we can be judged for trying to do the right thing instead of just "the top hat on my head is all you see." Tight Rope - Leon Russell