Is the Propeller ASC by Martin Hodge an open design? I've recognized the thread Arduino presents and see the ASC as a great solution for competing with it.
Aside:
It's curious that the Arduino is so popular, given the 8bit processor and relatively less power than the Propeller. However, I do see that the Arduino has a few things going for it:
Standardized board footprint
Standardized IDE and a basic builtin API to talk to the hardware
Large 3rd party support base
The things I see that the Propeller is lacking to compete readily with the Arduino:
While the Prop has a ton of software peripherals, they are not library items of the IDE, it can be very difficult to find the "correct" OBJ for doing something.
The Prop IDE is very basic and lacks version control and a proper OBJ library
The Prop seems to have a bunch of different layouts, and the Quickstart board has introduced yet another
While Eclipse will solve some, or a good many, software issues with the Prop 2, that chip really raises the bar, and demand, of the developer. The Prop 1 really needs a bulletproof IDE that integrates a lot of this to make it run head to head with the Arduino.
The hardware layout issue could be resolved by Parallax endorsing a specific "standard" layout. They seem to be all over the place when you look at the online store. Sure, they are all great designs, but the fragmentation makes it very difficult for new users to get started.
While the Quickstart is neat, I feel it was designed more for price than development. The DIL header is not very friendly for getting I/O off the card.
The Gadget Gangster Propeller Platform seems to be a leader in the board layout choices, but it ignores the wealth of Arduino shields and compatible boards that already exist.
While the Arduino and Propeller may be the Chevy vs Ford debate, it's a lot easier to co-opt the Arduino's strengths and offer a superior, perhaps easier to develop for, silicon.
The things I see that the Propeller is lacking to compete readily with the Arduino:
While the Prop has a ton of software peripherals, they are not library items of the IDE, it can be very difficult to find the "correct" OBJ for doing something.
The Prop IDE is very basic and lacks version control and a proper OBJ library
The Prop seems to have a bunch of different layouts, and the Quickstart board has introduced yet another
While I can't do anything about the different layouts except contribute given an opportunity ... I do have some influence with software. I have discussed the IDE library items problem you mention with Parallax in some meetings, and we have infrastructure in Propeller GCC to make it possible.
I'm curious about source control. Obviously an "enterprise" solution like Eclipse or NetBeans offers integrated source control, so that's relatively easy. However, do you see a need for source control in a "simple" hobbyist IDE? To keep from polluting this thread, could you answer that in a private message? Thanks.
For real? $12.00 bucks per panel?? Sheesh, even the poor peoples can get one of these,
Just gotta figure out how to populate the thing with all the parts...
In the theater of my mind, I walked thru cutting up (depanelized) most of your latest version of the layout,
I think the lower right corner is the only trouble spot,
Could you reorintate the "puppy board" and switch it places with the "spare spot" just to its right?
It looked like it would fit, and then a band saw could do all the cuts with no backing up...
Anyway, two thumbs up for the whole SmorgasBoard project..:thumb::thumb:
Jazzed, that space is yours. Look forward to another neat design!
Perry, many of us are putting our efforts behind the Propeller Platform header format, as Parallax has requested. The QuickStart is a great introduction for the prop, but I don't think it's intended for everyone to build a sprawling platform on top of. As time goes on there will be more and more propeller platform plug in boards, QuickStart can remain Parallax Semiconductor's evaluation platform without being too polluted by our rampant designing.
Having said that I for one would still really like to see a smaller standard for the Propeller platform - something perhaps 1.2~1.35" wide. Max72's design on the Smorgasboard fits this category, and I look forward to having a good look at it once it comes back from the fab. One advantage of the PP format being wider is that arduino shields can be 'encapsulated' within the PP headers. I have a design that does this but have my hands full getting this panel away first. We might do a second panel for PP modules and plugins when we have enough open source content.
As for the software, its not as bad as it first appears, and there's plenty that can (and is) be done to consolidate the software nicely.
That was awkward. I shouldn't post when I'm tired. what I mean was...
On the one hand it sounds exciting and I want to join up. On the other hand the business, bottom-line, gimmie-gimmie side is clenching. Need to sleep on it.
For real? $12.00 bucks per panel?? Sheesh, even the poor peoples can get one of these,
Just gotta figure out how to populate the thing with all the parts...
In the theater of my mind, I walked thru cutting up (depanelized) most of your latest version of the layout,
I think the lower right corner is the only trouble spot,
Could you reorintate the "puppy board" and switch it places with the "spare spot" just to its right?
It looked like it would fit, and then a band saw could do all the cuts with no backing up...
Anyway, two thumbs up for the whole SmorgasBoard project..:thumb::thumb:
-Tommy
Thanks Tommy
The type of "tab routing" we are using means you don't need a saw. There is a 2mm "moat" around the panels, except for small (~4mm) "bridges" every inch so to tie the boards together. The bridges even have ~ 8 little holes in them, and this makes it easy to simply snap the boards apart. I'll try and find a photo of what I mean, but you don't need a bandsaw, just a file or sanding block at most. Here's one example, kinda close to what I mean... though every pcb company does it slightly differently.
Martin, don't feel pressured into doing something. I was merely asking because I didn't see anything pointing one way or another.
Tubular's comments about the Arduino form factor fitting within the PP footprint are valid and having a dual set of populated headers would be a fine way to coax those firmly entrenched Arduinites out of the crowd.
tubular: Do you intend to include the other 2 pcbs I sent. In particular, the FT232 would make an excellent addition and it should fit somewhere.
Agreed,Cluso. Leaving it til later because it's not hard to place. I'm giving priority to designs with a P8x32A on them but a couple of accessory boards should squeeze on towards the end. Still waiting to hear about a couple of designs, then we'll see what space is left over.
Just an FYI to all, I sent Tubular my design files for my M44D40+ module to be considering for the panel. It can be used with a QFN or DIP40 prop chip to give you the complete basic Propeller circuit in a DIP-40 form factor.
I wonder if it would make sense to not just copy the open layouts, but make some changes / improvements to the designs (this is the main purpose of open source layouts).
For example:
- The Quickstart Board misses a pullup on the P30 line which causes some trouble with serial communication. This resistor really should be added. Other ideas: On/Off switch, capacitive sensors.
- The GG PropellerPlatform USB has the SD card on P0..P3 which conflicts with fast external memory designs. I would moving it to P8..P11 or just bring the SD card pins to 4 holes which can be wired to the pins you want.
I like that idea, at least run any suggested changes by the original designers for approval. My only concerns about this are:
1) feature creep - we can do this, this and this and wow, then it will really be something.
2) something gets broken and we end up with a bunch of dysfunctional cards on the "Smorgasboard"
3) it turns into an on-going, never ending debate of what should get added
As the designs exist now, I do believe tehy are all functional and have been through at least one "PRODUCTION" run.
I send 2 of my projects and both are prototype tested. And have some mods that was needed for good production versions.
I don't know if both will be on "Smorgasboard" but that is not my decision.
I like that idea, at least run any suggested changes by the original designers for approval. My only concerns about this are:
1) feature creep - we can do this, this and this and wow, then it will really be something.
2) something gets broken and we end up with a bunch of dysfunctional cards on the "Smorgasboard"
3) it turns into an on-going, never ending debate of what should get added
As the designs exist now, I do believe tehy are all functional and have been through at least one "PRODUCTION" run.
I wonder if it would make sense to not just copy the open layouts, but make some changes / improvements to the designs (this is the main purpose of open source layouts).
For example:
- The Quickstart Board misses a pullup on the P30 line which causes some trouble with serial communication. This resistor really should be added. Other ideas: On/Off switch, capacitive sensors.
- The GG PropellerPlatform USB has the SD card on P0..P3 which conflicts with fast external memory designs. I would moving it to P8..P11 or just bring the SD card pins to 4 holes which can be wired to the pins you want.
Andy
Hi Andy,
I know it's tempting, but this panel is celebrating the diversity of open source propeller designs, warts and all.
The benefit of open source means end users can grab the most suitable design, make the changes that suit them, and have something they are really happy with, despite minimal effort. The mods you mention are part of a huge spectrum of possible improvements, eg reserving P0 and P1 for USB, P0-8 for fast bus, having mounting holes or not (then PP holes vs GG holes vs other holes), socketed crystal or not, QFN vs QFP. In the end only the end user can specify what they really need, and its going to be easier than ever to get exactly what they want.
I also think changing pins, while having benefits from a bus point of view, would confuse lots of end users searching the forum.
Now Andy, surely you must have something to contribute (complete with p30 pullup!) - what about those puzzle boards you did?
...
Now Andy, surely you must have something to contribute (complete with p30 pullup!) - what about those puzzle boards you did?
The Prop-Puzzle baseboard has not much value without the many accessory boards that belong to it, and it's a really old (single sided) design.
I have more interesting newer designs. A prototype PCB of the newest comes next Friday, this would be a good candidate It has basically Arduino, PropellerPlatform and 10pin-standard headers together with some Extras. But I need to test it first - When is the deadline ?
My boards usually have no pullup at P30, but they also not have this tri-state buffer that makes the pullup necessary. A good example of how adding a lot of components to make a circuit better also adds more possibility for mistakes.
Presume it fits in, then there may be space for another 1 or 2 of this size pcb - even if they had to be hacksawn. If so, are there any little modules that anyone thinks would be useful?
Comments
Aside:
It's curious that the Arduino is so popular, given the 8bit processor and relatively less power than the Propeller. However, I do see that the Arduino has a few things going for it:
The things I see that the Propeller is lacking to compete readily with the Arduino:
While Eclipse will solve some, or a good many, software issues with the Prop 2, that chip really raises the bar, and demand, of the developer. The Prop 1 really needs a bulletproof IDE that integrates a lot of this to make it run head to head with the Arduino.
The hardware layout issue could be resolved by Parallax endorsing a specific "standard" layout. They seem to be all over the place when you look at the online store. Sure, they are all great designs, but the fragmentation makes it very difficult for new users to get started.
While the Quickstart is neat, I feel it was designed more for price than development. The DIL header is not very friendly for getting I/O off the card.
The Gadget Gangster Propeller Platform seems to be a leader in the board layout choices, but it ignores the wealth of Arduino shields and compatible boards that already exist.
While the Arduino and Propeller may be the Chevy vs Ford debate, it's a lot easier to co-opt the Arduino's strengths and offer a superior, perhaps easier to develop for, silicon.
BTW, the name is Perry.
While I can't do anything about the different layouts except contribute given an opportunity ... I do have some influence with software. I have discussed the IDE library items problem you mention with Parallax in some meetings, and we have infrastructure in Propeller GCC to make it possible.
I'm curious about source control. Obviously an "enterprise" solution like Eclipse or NetBeans offers integrated source control, so that's relatively easy. However, do you see a need for source control in a "simple" hobbyist IDE? To keep from polluting this thread, could you answer that in a private message? Thanks.
Just gotta figure out how to populate the thing with all the parts...
In the theater of my mind, I walked thru cutting up (depanelized) most of your latest version of the layout,
I think the lower right corner is the only trouble spot,
Could you reorintate the "puppy board" and switch it places with the "spare spot" just to its right?
It looked like it would fit, and then a band saw could do all the cuts with no backing up...
Anyway, two thumbs up for the whole SmorgasBoard project..:thumb::thumb:
-Tommy
Not officially. But I could be talked into it.
Perry, many of us are putting our efforts behind the Propeller Platform header format, as Parallax has requested. The QuickStart is a great introduction for the prop, but I don't think it's intended for everyone to build a sprawling platform on top of. As time goes on there will be more and more propeller platform plug in boards, QuickStart can remain Parallax Semiconductor's evaluation platform without being too polluted by our rampant designing.
Having said that I for one would still really like to see a smaller standard for the Propeller platform - something perhaps 1.2~1.35" wide. Max72's design on the Smorgasboard fits this category, and I look forward to having a good look at it once it comes back from the fab. One advantage of the PP format being wider is that arduino shields can be 'encapsulated' within the PP headers. I have a design that does this but have my hands full getting this panel away first. We might do a second panel for PP modules and plugins when we have enough open source content.
As for the software, its not as bad as it first appears, and there's plenty that can (and is) be done to consolidate the software nicely.
That was awkward. I shouldn't post when I'm tired. what I mean was...
On the one hand it sounds exciting and I want to join up. On the other hand the business, bottom-line, gimmie-gimmie side is clenching. Need to sleep on it.
Thanks Tommy
The type of "tab routing" we are using means you don't need a saw. There is a 2mm "moat" around the panels, except for small (~4mm) "bridges" every inch so to tie the boards together. The bridges even have ~ 8 little holes in them, and this makes it easy to simply snap the boards apart. I'll try and find a photo of what I mean, but you don't need a bandsaw, just a file or sanding block at most. Here's one example, kinda close to what I mean... though every pcb company does it slightly differently.
Tubular's comments about the Arduino form factor fitting within the PP footprint are valid and having a dual set of populated headers would be a fine way to coax those firmly entrenched Arduinites out of the crowd.
The design is finished, just haven't had the $$ to order a run of boards.
Well, now I can sell my bandsaw, and buy some extra SmorgasBoards.
-Tommy
That would be totally cool!
Agreed,Cluso. Leaving it til later because it's not hard to place. I'm giving priority to designs with a P8x32A on them but a couple of accessory boards should squeeze on towards the end. Still waiting to hear about a couple of designs, then we'll see what space is left over.
For example:
- The Quickstart Board misses a pullup on the P30 line which causes some trouble with serial communication. This resistor really should be added. Other ideas: On/Off switch, capacitive sensors.
- The GG PropellerPlatform USB has the SD card on P0..P3 which conflicts with fast external memory designs. I would moving it to P8..P11 or just bring the SD card pins to 4 holes which can be wired to the pins you want.
Andy
I like that idea, at least run any suggested changes by the original designers for approval. My only concerns about this are:
1) feature creep - we can do this, this and this and wow, then it will really be something.
2) something gets broken and we end up with a bunch of dysfunctional cards on the "Smorgasboard"
3) it turns into an on-going, never ending debate of what should get added
As the designs exist now, I do believe tehy are all functional and have been through at least one "PRODUCTION" run.
Just my 2 bits.
I send 2 of my projects and both are prototype tested. And have some mods that was needed for good production versions.
I don't know if both will be on "Smorgasboard" but that is not my decision.
Hi Andy,
I know it's tempting, but this panel is celebrating the diversity of open source propeller designs, warts and all.
The benefit of open source means end users can grab the most suitable design, make the changes that suit them, and have something they are really happy with, despite minimal effort. The mods you mention are part of a huge spectrum of possible improvements, eg reserving P0 and P1 for USB, P0-8 for fast bus, having mounting holes or not (then PP holes vs GG holes vs other holes), socketed crystal or not, QFN vs QFP. In the end only the end user can specify what they really need, and its going to be easier than ever to get exactly what they want.
I also think changing pins, while having benefits from a bus point of view, would confuse lots of end users searching the forum.
Now Andy, surely you must have something to contribute (complete with p30 pullup!) - what about those puzzle boards you did?
cheers
tubular
The Prop-Puzzle baseboard has not much value without the many accessory boards that belong to it, and it's a really old (single sided) design.
I have more interesting newer designs. A prototype PCB of the newest comes next Friday, this would be a good candidate It has basically Arduino, PropellerPlatform and 10pin-standard headers together with some Extras. But I need to test it first - When is the deadline ?
My boards usually have no pullup at P30, but they also not have this tri-state buffer that makes the pullup necessary. A good example of how adding a lot of components to make a circuit better also adds more possibility for mistakes.
Andy
How big is it? As space is fast running out
Schematic here http://forums.parallax.com/showthread.php?134219-Cluso-s-cheap-and-tiny-modular-pcbs...&highlight=stackable+pluggable
Presume it fits in, then there may be space for another 1 or 2 of this size pcb - even if they had to be hacksawn. If so, are there any little modules that anyone thinks would be useful?
Who's making the panels for you?
After much wrestling I have layout Rev E which is "US letter" sized, minus .015" spare space!
Final layout is attached to the first post.
Off to the fab today or Monday for the first run.
Landed cost looks like being around $14 per panel (70c per board!) , some localized shipping and handling on top of that.
OBC
Do you love it enough to distribute it in the US?
There are a lot of interesting boards on the panel. Should make for a lot of interesting projects.
FWIW I note the top post does not include all boards on the panel.
Yeah, I think somebody ought to distribute it. And, it'd do good as a testimony of Prop1 too
OBC