Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
Gadget Gangster Propeller Platform USB - Going Away? - Page 2 — Parallax Forums

Gadget Gangster Propeller Platform USB - Going Away?

245

Comments

  • 4x5n4x5n Posts: 745
    edited 2012-03-24 14:03
    I'm sorry to hear that the propeller platform is effectively dead. I hope someone is working on a replacement! The quickstart but I find that it leaves a lot to be desired and the propboe is expensive! Oh well.
  • Dr_AculaDr_Acula Posts: 5,484
    edited 2012-03-24 15:30
    The Propeller GG USB platform is brilliant as a prebuilt module. I used it to build my own stack of boards. But if it is not profitable...

    Along the way I found a few things myself along the way:

    1) Surface mount parts are great - if someone else solders them. Getting someone else to solder them costs money, and that can be where the profit margin can go.
    2) If you want DIP parts, then not many chips fit on each board, and so you end up with a tall stack like in the photo.
    3) The board in the photo uses a FT232 USB D9 adapter. Essentially a propplug but with a stronger mechanical connection. If the USB part is the bit that people want, that may be part of the problem, because the FT232 is only available in surface mount. You can get adapter boards where someone else has done the soldering but they are very expensive for what they are. So this leads to a dilemma - all options that use a USB connection end up expensive - either because someone has to solder a surface mount part or because the adapters are more expensive.
    4) There are some tweaks I made to the design - the through hole headers don't mount end to end so it helps to stagger them as seen in the photo. This also gives boards a 'polarity' and having zapped a few non polarised ones, I think that is useful.
    5) The small footprint can be a problem in that plugs can only fit at each end and you can only fit a couple of plugs. Hence in that photo the mouse and keyboard are on different boards to the VGA and TV.
    6) I think there is a solution to the cost of the FT232 and that is to use super cheap ordinary USB to D9 adapter plugs that are available on ebay for $2. But the proptool would need to be modified as the software in the proptool stopped working with these plugs about 2 years ago. It possibly is just one line of code that needs to go back to how it was before, but as yet, messages to parallax about this have gone unanswered :(

    Overall, I've found the GG propeller platform to be brilliant. I've pondered selling boards like the ones in the photo but there are limitations too. The main one is the board size which means you need to stock more boards and hence higher inventory costs and higher PCB setup costs (eg $60 fixed setup fee, $2 per board). So I've taken the GG board concept and simply made it bigger. I'm now using 160x100mm boards, with 4 groups of 8 stackable headers, one on each corner, and a single 4 pin stackable header for power. I've got a motherboard that has this new format plus the GG USB footprint, so this could even be used unpopulated as an adapter board.

    If it works, maybe GG might be interested in selling this?
    1024 x 768 - 142K
    936 x 591 - 238K
  • 4x5n4x5n Posts: 745
    edited 2012-03-24 17:32
    Dr_Acula wrote: »
    The Propeller GG USB platform is brilliant as a prebuilt module. I used it to build my own stack of boards. But if it is not profitable...

    Along the way I found a few things myself along the way:

    1) Surface mount parts are great - if someone else solders them. Getting someone else to solder them costs money, and that can be where the profit margin can go.
    2) If you want DIP parts, then not many chips fit on each board, and so you end up with a tall stack like in the photo.
    3) The board in the photo uses a FT232 USB D9 adapter. Essentially a propplug but with a stronger mechanical connection. If the USB part is the bit that people want, that may be part of the problem, because the FT232 is only available in surface mount. You can get adapter boards where someone else has done the soldering but they are very expensive for what they are. So this leads to a dilemma - all options that use a USB connection end up expensive - either because someone has to solder a surface mount part or because the adapters are more expensive.
    4) There are some tweaks I made to the design - the through hole headers don't mount end to end so it helps to stagger them as seen in the photo. This also gives boards a 'polarity' and having zapped a few non polarised ones, I think that is useful.
    5) The small footprint can be a problem in that plugs can only fit at each end and you can only fit a couple of plugs. Hence in that photo the mouse and keyboard are on different boards to the VGA and TV.
    6) I think there is a solution to the cost of the FT232 and that is to use super cheap ordinary USB to D9 adapter plugs that are available on ebay for $2. But the proptool would need to be modified as the software in the proptool stopped working with these plugs about 2 years ago. It possibly is just one line of code that needs to go back to how it was before, but as yet, messages to parallax about this have gone unanswered :(

    Overall, I've found the GG propeller platform to be brilliant. I've pondered selling boards like the ones in the photo but there are limitations too. The main one is the board size which means you need to stock more boards and hence higher inventory costs and higher PCB setup costs (eg $60 fixed setup fee, $2 per board). So I've taken the GG board concept and simply made it bigger. I'm now using 160x100mm boards, with 4 groups of 8 stackable headers, one on each corner, and a single 4 pin stackable header for power. I've got a motherboard that has this new format plus the GG USB footprint, so this could even be used unpopulated as an adapter board.

    If it works, maybe GG might be interested in selling this?

    Your boards look interesting! How much do you think it would cost to make them in production qtys? For the record I don't have any hard or bad feelings towards the folks at gadget gangsters. They can't be expected to sell the boards at a loss. I just think it's a shame and wish there was a way to keep the platform alive.
  • WBA ConsultingWBA Consulting Posts: 2,935
    edited 2012-03-24 22:57
    How about a morphing of the Propeller Platform and the PPUSB to create a lower cost, SMT preloaded kit? Load SMT parts where it makes sense (cost and size) and then have the rest of the through-hole parts be part of a kit that goes with the SMT populated board. People like soldering their own through-hole to save money, right? I am sure some of the cheaper parts from the Propeller Platform board could be easily migrated to the PPUSB to reduce overall cost. Should be able to knock close to $10 off the price of the board (well, I mean price of the kit).
  • RaymanRayman Posts: 14,839
    edited 2012-03-25 13:15
    If I were making it, I'd do like you're saying... Make it all SMT with throughhole options...

    Problem with a board like this though, is that you also need to provide support for a lot of newbies...

    Nick and OBC do a great job with this, but I'm sure it's a lot of work...
  • Dr_AculaDr_Acula Posts: 5,484
    edited 2012-03-25 15:01
    Your boards look interesting! How much do you think it would cost to make them in production qtys?

    Usually around $5 each, some of the smaller ones are only $3. But large setup costs so you have to make a lot, and also the board design needs to have no mistakes. You always find the mistakes just after the PCB fab house tells you they have started making the board. Shipping can cost more than the board - I've posted $5 boards and the post office has charged $15 postage to some parts of the world. Invariably there are parts that are hard to get and if the person buying the board wants to make a kit they will find it cheaper to get those parts from one place at the same time, so you end up needing to stock parts too. And then the shipping goes up. And if you sell a board that people can't solder that isn't very helpful. So the costs add up. But yes, a board, sitting on my desk and unshipped, is only $5.

    Having sold boards and kits in the past (and I might again in the future), I can say that what GG provide is very good value. In the future I'm keen to sell through GG rather than doing it myself.
  • RaymanRayman Posts: 14,839
    edited 2012-03-27 14:26
    I said I don't want to make one, and it's true, but I can't help but ponder the idea anyway...

    Instead of offering unpopulated thru-hole stuff, I now think I'd do unpopulated SMT stuff... The Quickstart does this a bit with it's sigma-delta ADC part pads....

    I wonder which board size would be better... the "short" version, like the USB, or the original "long" version...

    This is probably a money losing proposition though... Especially if Nick had trouble even after all his work getting it sold everywhere...
    Maybe I'll wait to see what Martin has in mind...
  • Martin HodgeMartin Hodge Posts: 1,246
    edited 2012-03-27 16:41
    I'm committed to continuing the PPUSB. I'm in the unique position of being able to manufacture small batches in short notice.

    The only changes I was planning to make would be minor, mostly to take advantage of existing stock. Switching to SMT electrolytics for example. As for adding new features. Some things that came to mind were LEDs for USB activity, additional pin to the header arrangement for external reset, a 64K or 128K EEPROM. Things like replacing the FT232RL with an Atmel device I'm less enthusiastic about.

    Now would be a great time to throw out ideas!
  • RaymanRayman Posts: 14,839
    edited 2012-03-27 17:03
    Well, I'd use the new FX201, if you can to save $2.
    I'd also make it USB powered, like I did with PSB.
    Having USB 5V around, could give a competitive advantage over Quickstart...
    I'd also like to bring back the "spare eeprom" socket that was on the original Prop Platform...

    LEDs for USB activity are very nice too.

    I'm not sure what to do about the SD on P0...P3.
    One the one hand that makes it simple and consistent.
    On the other hand, it interferes with the idea of using a byte bus on P0...P7, which gives 2X better performance than anywhere else...
  • RaymanRayman Posts: 14,839
    edited 2012-03-28 07:44
    I suppose another option is to copy the Quickstart USB circuit, just replacing the FTD232R with the FX201.
    I'm not sold on their logic buffer design, I think just resistors work.
    But, it's maybe a lot simpler for everybody just to copy their circuit.
    That way, if there are questions about it, you can just direct them to Parallax...
  • Oldbitcollector (Jeff)Oldbitcollector (Jeff) Posts: 8,091
    edited 2012-03-28 08:06
    Whatever happens guys...

    Please, please, please... Let's keep the connector standards..
    Propeller Platform and Quickstart layouts are out in the wild in mass and work fine as they are.

    OBC
  • Martin HodgeMartin Hodge Posts: 1,246
    edited 2012-03-28 10:02
    Whatever happens guys...

    Please, please, please... Let's keep the connector standards..
    Propeller Platform and Quickstart layouts are out in the wild in mass and work fine as they are.

    OBC

    Absolutely. All plugs, switches and sockets remain set in stone.

    @Rayman, I bought a bulk quantity of FT232RL chips at a great price, so I'll definitely be using those for the first batch.
  • Nick McClickNick McClick Posts: 1,003
    edited 2012-03-28 10:22
    On my wish list;
    1 - USB power
    2 - spare 8-pin DIP EEPROM socket

    A common request is an RTC, too, although that can add a lot to the cost.
  • RobotWorkshopRobotWorkshop Posts: 2,307
    edited 2012-03-28 10:41
    additional pin to the header arrangement for external reset

    Thank You!!! I've been asking to see a 2-pin reset header (or at least the pads) added to boards for a long time. Just connect one pad to ground and the other to the reset line. That is much more useful to me then adding an actual reset switch on the boards. Having both is nice but if there is only one I'd rather see the pads for a 2-pin header connector.

    The value in that is if the board is embedded inside a case where you can't access the reset button. In my case there are times I've needed a 'Master Reset' to initialize ALL of the boards used in a system to ensure they all come up at once. For those I have to add my own header and then run a wire to the reset switch on existing boards.

    It is great to see someone else planning on adding this feature.

    Robert
  • RaymanRayman Posts: 14,839
    edited 2012-03-28 12:33
    What's the situation with enclosures for Prop Platform? I'm guessing Parallax is going to stop making those, right?
  • TubularTubular Posts: 4,706
    edited 2012-03-28 13:09
    Thank You!!! I've been asking to see a 2-pin reset header (or at least the pads) added to boards for a long time. Just connect one pad to ground and the other to the reset line. That is much more useful to me then adding an actual reset switch on the boards. Having both is nice but if there is only one I'd rather see the pads for a 2-pin header connector.

    The value in that is if the board is embedded inside a case where you can't access the reset button. In my case there are times I've needed a 'Master Reset' to initialize ALL of the boards used in a system to ensure they all come up at once. For those I have to add my own header and then run a wire to the reset switch on existing boards.
    Robert

    On my board I add a RESET pin in between P31 and the VSS pin on the top headers.

    The advantages are
    - RESET is available to all boards in the stack (important for communications boards)
    - You can plug a standard Prop Plug to the top of the stack using a 4 pin male header
    - When the reset button is obscured by other boards in the stack, you can still reset at the top of the stack.
    - The RESET pin is right next to VSS so its easy to short out or jumper to perform a reset.
    635 x 195 - 13K
    rst.png 12.6K
  • RaymanRayman Posts: 14,839
    edited 2012-03-28 13:20
    Can you really plug in a Prop Plug there that way? That's pretty neat. I like that idea...

    On the other hand, maybe a seperate Prop Plug header would do the same thing...
  • Martin HodgeMartin Hodge Posts: 1,246
    edited 2012-03-28 13:38
    @Tubular, that's the best idea so far for reset! Consider it done.

    @ctwardell, I don't think Parallax has changed their position re. supporting the format. Just that G.G. can't justify ordering another large batch (500+ boards) in this economy.
  • jazzedjazzed Posts: 11,803
    edited 2012-03-28 22:49
    Tubular wrote: »
    On my board I add a RESET pin in between P31 and the VSS pin on the top headers.

    I use this pin order for making PropPlug USB powered devices: +5V, VSS, RST, P31, P30
    A 5 pin stacking header and a jumper to the PropPlug LED anodes for +5V does the trick.

    BeanieBadge LCD and SpinSocket boards have this.

    I'm annoyed by the dual-row headers on PropellerPlatform. Single row stacking headers are much better.

    As far as the topic goes, you can only go so many years without making some profit before the IRS declares your business a hobby and takes away your business-vacation deduction. Interestingly there are certain exceptions for horse breeders.

    http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=169490,00.html
  • schillschill Posts: 741
    edited 2012-03-29 05:24
    jazzed wrote: »
    I'm annoyed by the dual-row headers on PropellerPlatform. Single row stacking headers are much better.

    Except for a few boards that I know will never be stacked (in "final" products, for example), I try to always use single row stacking headers with these. It's a lot more versatile than alternating rows for connections above and below.
  • RaymanRayman Posts: 14,839
    edited 2012-03-29 06:22
    It's an interesting idea... Just having a single row. Presumably the outer row. Would that break anything? I mean, not allow some breakouts to be used?
    It would be nice to have a bit more room for other things...
  • schillschill Posts: 741
    edited 2012-03-29 07:04
    Rayman wrote: »
    It's an interesting idea... Just having a single row. Presumably the outer row. Would that break anything? I mean, not allow some breakouts to be used?
    It would be nice to have a bit more room for other things...

    For the most part, I expect that it would only affect people who have been stacking more than one board above the platform - which is probably the minority. If we could standardize on stacking headers, then in the future it would probably be ok to move to a single row. You would still want two rows or some other way to make connections for generic protoboards or for boards with prototyping areas.

    When I designed my protoboard, I ended up with three rows for each pin because I wanted to remain compatible with the dual row configuration (which I normally don't use) and still be able to make additional connections. The three rows have come in handy several times, but they definitely use up a lot of space on the board.

    http://forums.parallax.com/showthread.php?126903-A-protoboard-for-the-Gadget-Gangster-Propeller-Platform

    If it is easy enough for people to get stacking headers and/or they start to be included with kits, then people can probably move to a single row. There will be some legacy boards that will have problems (but only if the headers have already been installed) but otherwise it shouldn't have too much of an impact. You can make a conversion layer if necessary using available boards.

    I think my vote is that it is ok to have a single row - and it should be the outside row.
  • ctwardellctwardell Posts: 1,716
    edited 2012-03-29 07:12
    I would suggest keeping the two rows to maintain complete GG compatability.

    I would like to see reset added as suggested by Tubular in post #48, ideally as an official change to the GG standard.

    C.W.
  • RaymanRayman Posts: 14,839
    edited 2012-03-29 09:50
    What about moving the SD somewhere else? Ideally, I'd like to have P0...P7 free...
    Maybe P8..P11? or P12...P15 or P24..P27?
  • jazzedjazzed Posts: 11,803
    edited 2012-03-29 11:17
    Rayman, I would vote for 16-19.

    sdspi-do: 16
    sdspi-clk: 17
    sdspi-di: 18
    sdspi-cs: 19

    16-19 lets P0-15 and P20-27 be free.

    24-27 lets P0-23 be free, but 24-27 are used by Keyboard/Mouse interfaces.
  • Roy ElthamRoy Eltham Posts: 3,000
    edited 2012-03-29 11:21
    I vote for 16-19 on the SD card also.
  • RaymanRayman Posts: 14,839
    edited 2012-03-29 11:36
    Ok, P16..P19 might make sense...

    I suppose another idea is to keep the SD where it is, but not use any pullup resistors...
    I think we decided in another thread that the pullup resistors weren't required.
    If so, then just pulling out the SD card leaves P0..P3 not connected to anything.
  • jazzedjazzed Posts: 11,803
    edited 2012-03-29 11:55
    I'm not convinced that leaving off the pull-ups entirely is a good idea.
    You could always use a SIP resistor pack socket.

    The GG Ethernet board has an option for the SPI to be on either P0..3 or P16..19.
  • Martin HodgeMartin Hodge Posts: 1,246
    edited 2012-03-29 15:06
    Would there be any objections to an SMT power switch?
    http://search.digikey.com/us/en/products/JS102011SAQN/401-1999-1-ND/1640114
Sign In or Register to comment.