Being able to use an off the shelf shield-like board to meet a product to market deadline is a deal maker to many designers.
One can always roll a cost reduction PC board later...making that product rollout deadline is everything in the marketplace.
That is the promise...and the threat of the ever increasing popularity of Arduino based shields..Parallax and other competitors ignore this at their own risk.
Is there a Parallax to Arduino shield adapter for the Parallax product line? If not, there should be.
I'd prefer not to think that the Propeller has to be without sheild-like boards.
We have Gadget Gangster that provides a line of good boards to add to a Propeller mother board. And the Propeller QuickStart board has a set of daughter board options as well. There are times that modularity is very appealing. You just have to know what you are doing with it and why.
There are ways to have it not be a complete straight jacket if one is creative. But in generally locks in who you buy from... so you better like your suppliers prices, supporting info, quality control, and design ability. A lot of them fall short in one or more of those ares.
The Propeller even comes in motherboards with 2 or more Propellers on one board for more ambitious projects.
Being able to use an off the shelf shield-like board to meet a product to market deadline is a deal maker to many designers....Is there a Parallax to Arduino shield adapter for the Parallax product line? If not, there should be.
Lately one of the board at the top of my tinker toys is the Prop ASC+ and a smattering of different shields. So far I have mixed results, but that doesn't mean much more than I probably haven't tinkered enough with these combinations yet.
"Is there a Parallax to Arduino shield adapter for the Parallax product line?"
There's an Arduino shield compatible Propeller board (ASC+) made and sold by a 3rd party. It's not perfect, mostly because the Propeller has 3.3V I/O pins while the Arduino has 5V tolerant I/O pins and there may be some shields that won't work right with the 3.3V logic levels (and input resistors). This is not unusual ... some Basic Stamp peripherals won't work with the Propeller or other non-5V microcontrollers without a more sophisticated voltage translation interface.
I don't think there's a big enough market for a Basic Stamp to Arduino shield adapter, but it would be easy enough to make one using something like the BS2px.
Voltage conversion would be a typical adapter issue...and should totally transparent to the user if done right.
You are right about it being a market issue...but the apparent popularity of the Arduino shield concept makes it a "not if but when" an appropriate adapter is available to designers.
At this moment there are designers choosing Arduino over Parallax because an appropriate shield is available for the final product that only fits the Arduino...becasue a product delivery deadline will not allow for a application specific board for Parallax to be produced in time. Off the shelf solutions win every time when deadlines loom.
"Is there a Parallax to Arduino shield adapter for the Parallax product line?"
There's an Arduino shield compatible Propeller board (ASC+) made and sold by a 3rd party. It's not perfect, mostly because the Propeller has 3.3V I/O pins while the Arduino has 5V tolerant I/O pins and there may be some shields that won't work right with the 3.3V logic levels (and input resistors). This is not unusual ... some Basic Stamp peripherals won't work with the Propeller or other non-5V microcontrollers without a more sophisticated voltage translation interface.
I don't think there's a big enough market for a Basic Stamp to Arduino shield adapter, but it would be easy enough to make one using something like the BS2px.
Please re-read my previous post. There is a Propeller board available (ASC+) that is designed for use with Arduino shields. It's not 100% compatible with the Arduino, but it's nearly so. I don't know if you could get 100% hardware compatibility without making the cost too high. It might be useful for Martin (the ASC+'s developer) to come up with an application note that focuses on the use of Arduino shields with the ASC+. I know he has some documentation on this, but more would be useful. Keep in mind that the Arduino and the Propeller ASC+ are very different microcontrollers. Even though there is some early work on getting Arduino sketches running in C on the ASC+, this is far from a drop-in replacement.
Using a Basic Stamp with an adapter board is not really cost effective and I don't think it could be made cheap enough to compete with the Arduino.
I did read your original post...while well written the underlying problem still remains
"Not 100% compatible" is the kiss of death to a designer under a pressing delivery deadline.
When time is the priority...no one wants to decipher the "Not 100% compatible" puzzle...they want a drop in solution.
From what I have seen there are many 3rd party Arduino shield suppliers..more than Parallax 3rd party daughterboard suppliers?...and without a path to their usage it limits the range of boards (features and prices) that a designer would have to choose from when choosing a Parallax MCU. Limiting design choices is not the way to sell your product.
Please re-read my previous post. There is a Propeller board available (ASC+) that is designed for use with Arduino shields. It's not 100% compatible with the Arduino, but it's nearly so. I don't know if you could get 100% hardware compatibility without making the cost too high. It might be useful for Martin (the ASC+'s developer) to come up with an application note that focuses on the use of Arduino shields with the ASC+. I know he has some documentation on this, but more would be useful. Keep in mind that the Arduino and the Propeller ASC+ are very different microcontrollers. Even though there is some early work on getting Arduino sketches running in C on the ASC+, this is far from a drop-in replacement.
Using a Basic Stamp with an adapter board is not really cost effective and I don't think it could be made cheap enough to compete with the Arduino.
Voltage conversion would be a typical adapter issue...and should totally transparent to the user if done right.
You are right about it being a market issue...but the apparent popularity of the Arduino shield concept makes it a "not if but when" an appropriate adapter is available to designers.
At this moment there are designers choosing Arduino over Parallax because an appropriate shield is available for the final product that only fits the Arduino...becasue a product delivery deadline will not allow for a application specific board for Parallax to be produced in time. Off the shelf solutions win every time when deadlines loom.
From what I have read in this and other forums I have to conclude that shields, while a very good idea for many things, are not the universal panacea that some people seem believe they are. For one thing, if you want to use multiple shields in your project you have to be careful to select shields that will work together. Another issue that comes up is the potential difficulty of connecting to the shields when several of them are stacked to perform the function your project requires.
Like any technology the idea of shields has it's own advantages and disadvantages.
I did read your original post...while well written the underlying problem still remains
"Not 100% compatible" is the kiss of death to a designer under a pressing delivery deadline.
When time is the priority...no one wants to decipher the "Not 100% compatible" puzzle...they want a drop in solution.
From what I have seen there are many 3rd party Arduino shield suppliers..more than Parallax 3rd party daughterboard suppliers?...and without a path to their usage it limits the range of boards (features and prices) that a designer would have to choose from when choosing a Parallax MCU. Limiting design choices is not the way to sell your product.
@TMT: You just gotta appreciate the variety of helpful, objective replies pouring in. Were there different answers you wanted to hear?
From what I have read in this and other forums I have to conclude that “shields”, while a very good idea for many things, are not the universal panacea that some people seem believe they are. For one thing, if you want to use multiple shields in your project you have to be careful to select shields that will work together. Another issue that comes up is the potential difficulty of connecting to the shields when several of them are stacked to perform the function your project requires.
Like any technology the idea of “shields” has it's own advantages and disadvantages.
Yes...I do greatly appreciate the info in this discussion.
I expect a difference of info/opinion/experiences...that is the way of the industry.
As I said, I have been out of the loop for a period of time so this concept of "shields" was new to me...while the idea of daughterboards for adding functions is an old one...different naming for similar functionality....as I said before...some times not much changes while your back is turned.
Your typical designer under deadline pressure would be ill served even with an Arduino shield board. It would not be far-fetched for such a board to not work with certain Arduino models or for the provided Arduino library to not work . For that matter, the board may not work at all or the design may be problematic or there may be production problems and so on and so on. Parallax used bidirectional level converters for a Propeller board that looked good for the primary application of the board, but didn't work very well in another application that was perfectly reasonable. Your scenario of a poor beleaguered designer counting on using an Arduino board with an Arduino shield board and having it "just work" is probably too idealistic. On top of that, it remains to be seen whether the availability of a "100% compatible" shield adapter (whatever that is) would result in any significant amount of sales for Parallax given that coding for the Propeller isn't really just a matter of recompiling an Arduino sketch. Sure, there's some work done on Arduino compatible libraries for the Propeller, but there would have to be a lot more library work to cover a wide range of shields, particularly to take advantage of the Propeller's unique features, otherwise ... why use a Propeller?
I'm trying to inject some practicality into the issue here. There's nothing wrong with your suggestion, but a lot of details can make the difference between something nice and something nice that can financially justify itself. Your suggestion is begging for some passionate 3rd party to try, make a short run of boards and see how they sell. Parallax sometimes carries other peoples' products when there's a financial or demonstrated market advantage to doing so. Similarly, they have manufactured products jointly designed with someone, but there needs to be a well thought out financial plan.
Sounds like you have " been there, done that...got the scars to prove it" from previous product development.
So have I.
As to whether a shield for an Arduino or a daughterboard for a Parallax works or not is the responsibility of the manufacturer of that product...the fewer problems, the better the product. It is not new news that companies often use the buyer as the unpaid tester for their hardware or software. With today's Internet and the ability to discuss product problems, companies that do this are walking a fine line since bad news travels fast.
Its one of the reasons why I posted the original question...The Shield Concept....how successful is it?
The concept is an old one...the implementation of "shields" seems to be a recent implementation.
In the past the PC-104 standard was drafted for computer systems...the early boards were questionable in whether they would work or not...driving designers crazy.
I assume that as that particular market has matured, the standardization has improved the workability of the boards...anyone know for sure?
I would expect to see the same happen to shields/daughter boards in the microcontroller market as it matures.
In respect to Parallax are there any charts that show what daughterboards work with each other in respect to the Parallax product line? It would be helpful to have when I work with Parallax processors.
Also your comments about Propeller's libraries are the not the first I have seen. What is the status on libraries for the Propeller product in regard to daughter boards meant for the Propeller? Are they readily available or is it "write your own"?
Your typical designer under deadline pressure would be ill served even with an Arduino shield board. It would not be far-fetched for such a board to not work with certain Arduino models or for the provided Arduino library to not work . For that matter, the board may not work at all or the design may be problematic or there may be production problems and so on and so on. Parallax used bidirectional level converters for a Propeller board that looked good for the primary application of the board, but didn't work very well in another application that was perfectly reasonable. Your scenario of a poor beleaguered designer counting on using an Arduino board with an Arduino shield board and having it "just work" is probably too idealistic. On top of that, it remains to be seen whether the availability of a "100% compatible" shield adapter (whatever that is) would result in any significant amount of sales for Parallax given that coding for the Propeller isn't really just a matter of recompiling an Arduino sketch. Sure, there's some work done on Arduino compatible libraries for the Propeller, but there would have to be a lot more library work to cover a wide range of shields, particularly to take advantage of the Propeller's unique features, otherwise ... why use a Propeller?
I'm trying to inject some practicality into the issue here. There's nothing wrong with your suggestion, but a lot of details can make the difference between something nice and something nice that can financially justify itself. Your suggestion is begging for some passionate 3rd party to try, make a short run of boards and see how they sell. Parallax sometimes carries other peoples' products when there's a financial or demonstrated market advantage to doing so. Similarly, they have manufactured products jointly designed with someone, but there needs to be a well thought out financial plan.
See this thread for a discussion on the experimental Arduino libraries and their status. Note that the GCC C/C++ compiler for the Propeller is still in beta ... under development, but already quite sophisticated. There is another C compiler for the Propeller (Catalina), also free and quite good, but it's not for C++, so it won't handle the Arduino libraries. Here's a link to Martin's webstore page for the ASC+.
The problem with a "100% compatible" label is that there's no standard other than a direct comparison with a genuine Arduino and probably a specific Arduino design like the Uno. It's not like there's a specification for the electrical characteristics of the I/O pins except by using, say, the ATmega328's datasheet as a reference. The Propeller is, from an I/O pin standpoint, more like the Arduino Due in that it has 3.3V I/O. Is an Arduino shield only compatible with the Uno design? If the Propeller is not "100% compatible" with some shields that expect certain behavior from the I/O pins, how do we discuss the Arduino Due? Is the Propeller more or less Arduino shield compatible than the Due?
I think it will be some time before the Arduino shield market matures enough to where there's an electrical standard for the interface. There's still a shift going on from 5V logic to 3.3V logic and there's not enough competition yet between the 5V ATmega328 versions of the Arduino and the 3.3V ATmega and non-ATmega Arduino-like boards. 5V logic is on the way out. Some devices manage by having 5V tolerant inputs, but that's slowly going too. The Propeller II, for example, will have either 3.3V or 1.8V I/O pins selectable (I believe) on an 8-bit group basis.
As I noted earlier, if you do not have a standard to go by then everyone does their thing..and the marketplace is chaos.
In ice cream vanilla may be boring but there is a reason why it is the #1 favor..because it is a known quantity.
Whether it is the Arduino shield market or the Parallax daughterboard market....standards count and the deviation from them only hinders product sales. Maturation of the market is really the marketplace voting with their wallets to reward those who produce a known and repeatiable product while punishing those who offer product that is unreliable.
Does Parallax have a spec for any daughterboards 3rd parties produce for their product lines?
See this thread for a discussion on the experimental Arduino libraries and their status. Note that the GCC C/C++ compiler for the Propeller is still in beta ... under development, but already quite sophisticated. There is another C compiler for the Propeller (Catalina), also free and quite good, but it's not for C++, so it won't handle the Arduino libraries. Here's a link to Martin's webstore page for the ASC+.
The problem with a "100% compatible" label is that there's no standard other than a direct comparison with a genuine Arduino and probably a specific Arduino design like the Uno. It's not like there's a specification for the electrical characteristics of the I/O pins except by using, say, the ATmega328's datasheet as a reference. The Propeller is, from an I/O pin standpoint, more like the Arduino Due in that it has 3.3V I/O. Is an Arduino shield only compatible with the Uno design? If the Propeller is not "100% compatible" with some shields that expect certain behavior from the I/O pins, how do we discuss the Arduino Due? Is the Propeller more or less Arduino shield compatible than the Due?
I think it will be some time before the Arduino shield market matures enough to where there's an electrical standard for the interface. There's still a shift going on from 5V logic to 3.3V logic and there's not enough competition yet between the 5V ATmega328 versions of the Arduino and the 3.3V ATmega and non-ATmega Arduino-like boards. 5V logic is on the way out. Some devices manage by having 5V tolerant inputs, but that's slowly going too. The Propeller II, for example, will have either 3.3V or 1.8V I/O pins selectable (I believe) on an 8-bit group basis.
I've bought a number of NOS and used pre-amp tubes from the Sarge for my 18 Watt guitar amps. It's too bad, you'd have to pay postage to get them shipped back over to you :frown:
Every Parallax product has a webstore page and, except for the most trivial of products, they all have links to documentation for the product and sample code for the Basic Stamps and/or the Propeller. The documentation defines the pin-out and the signal levels used (whether analog or 3.3V or 5V digital).
Most new products from Parallax are open-sourced, so the CAD files are available if someone wants to make stackable daughterboards like for the QuickStart board. The electrical specs are either defined in the product documentation or in the datasheet for the Propeller (for Propeller I/O pins). The Basic Stamp I/O pins are documented in the datasheets for the processor used.
I only use "shields" (aka add-on boards, platform modules, stackers, etc, etc) during development. I don't like using them in the end products as they are too costly and take up unnecessary space. It appalls me to see these clever Arduino based projects done with a stack of 3+ shields on top of the main board, especially when each of the shields are for a single purpose.
:frown:
:frown:
Below is a picture of a Quickstart proto board from my latest project which is a bed of nails style functional test fixture for a breakout board that mates with the ARM based Cubie board. (still working on writing it up). It provides uSD for WAV files (using my own adapter), VGA output circuit, and audio out. I could have done the same with some minor modifications to a Quickstart HIB board, but that would add cost and leave wasted circuits.
Comments
One can always roll a cost reduction PC board later...making that product rollout deadline is everything in the marketplace.
That is the promise...and the threat of the ever increasing popularity of Arduino based shields..Parallax and other competitors ignore this at their own risk.
Is there a Parallax to Arduino shield adapter for the Parallax product line? If not, there should be.
You're a stone's throw from Russia, are you sure?
Lately one of the board at the top of my tinker toys is the Prop ASC+ and a smattering of different shields. So far I have mixed results, but that doesn't mean much more than I probably haven't tinkered enough with these combinations yet.
There's an Arduino shield compatible Propeller board (ASC+) made and sold by a 3rd party. It's not perfect, mostly because the Propeller has 3.3V I/O pins while the Arduino has 5V tolerant I/O pins and there may be some shields that won't work right with the 3.3V logic levels (and input resistors). This is not unusual ... some Basic Stamp peripherals won't work with the Propeller or other non-5V microcontrollers without a more sophisticated voltage translation interface.
I don't think there's a big enough market for a Basic Stamp to Arduino shield adapter, but it would be easy enough to make one using something like the BS2px.
You are right about it being a market issue...but the apparent popularity of the Arduino shield concept makes it a "not if but when" an appropriate adapter is available to designers.
At this moment there are designers choosing Arduino over Parallax because an appropriate shield is available for the final product that only fits the Arduino...becasue a product delivery deadline will not allow for a application specific board for Parallax to be produced in time. Off the shelf solutions win every time when deadlines loom.
Using a Basic Stamp with an adapter board is not really cost effective and I don't think it could be made cheap enough to compete with the Arduino.
"Not 100% compatible" is the kiss of death to a designer under a pressing delivery deadline.
When time is the priority...no one wants to decipher the "Not 100% compatible" puzzle...they want a drop in solution.
From what I have seen there are many 3rd party Arduino shield suppliers..more than Parallax 3rd party daughterboard suppliers?...and without a path to their usage it limits the range of boards (features and prices) that a designer would have to choose from when choosing a Parallax MCU. Limiting design choices is not the way to sell your product.
From what I have read in this and other forums I have to conclude that shields, while a very good idea for many things, are not the universal panacea that some people seem believe they are. For one thing, if you want to use multiple shields in your project you have to be careful to select shields that will work together. Another issue that comes up is the potential difficulty of connecting to the shields when several of them are stacked to perform the function your project requires.
Like any technology the idea of shields has it's own advantages and disadvantages.
@TMT: You just gotta appreciate the variety of helpful, objective replies pouring in. Were there different answers you wanted to hear?
Imagine what it would be like if EVERY chip was different (voltages, pin spacing, etc) so you could not just populate a board and ship.
It's the same concept in boards...follow the standard and everyone plays well together..don't and anarchy rules.
One assumption is that you have a well written standard...which is another story in itself.
I expect a difference of info/opinion/experiences...that is the way of the industry.
As I said, I have been out of the loop for a period of time so this concept of "shields" was new to me...while the idea of daughterboards for adding functions is an old one...different naming for similar functionality....as I said before...some times not much changes while your back is turned.
I'm trying to inject some practicality into the issue here. There's nothing wrong with your suggestion, but a lot of details can make the difference between something nice and something nice that can financially justify itself. Your suggestion is begging for some passionate 3rd party to try, make a short run of boards and see how they sell. Parallax sometimes carries other peoples' products when there's a financial or demonstrated market advantage to doing so. Similarly, they have manufactured products jointly designed with someone, but there needs to be a well thought out financial plan.
Sounds like you have " been there, done that...got the scars to prove it" from previous product development.
So have I.
As to whether a shield for an Arduino or a daughterboard for a Parallax works or not is the responsibility of the manufacturer of that product...the fewer problems, the better the product. It is not new news that companies often use the buyer as the unpaid tester for their hardware or software. With today's Internet and the ability to discuss product problems, companies that do this are walking a fine line since bad news travels fast.
Its one of the reasons why I posted the original question...The Shield Concept....how successful is it?
The concept is an old one...the implementation of "shields" seems to be a recent implementation.
In the past the PC-104 standard was drafted for computer systems...the early boards were questionable in whether they would work or not...driving designers crazy.
I assume that as that particular market has matured, the standardization has improved the workability of the boards...anyone know for sure?
I would expect to see the same happen to shields/daughter boards in the microcontroller market as it matures.
In respect to Parallax are there any charts that show what daughterboards work with each other in respect to the Parallax product line? It would be helpful to have when I work with Parallax processors.
Also your comments about Propeller's libraries are the not the first I have seen. What is the status on libraries for the Propeller product in regard to daughter boards meant for the Propeller? Are they readily available or is it "write your own"?
The problem with a "100% compatible" label is that there's no standard other than a direct comparison with a genuine Arduino and probably a specific Arduino design like the Uno. It's not like there's a specification for the electrical characteristics of the I/O pins except by using, say, the ATmega328's datasheet as a reference. The Propeller is, from an I/O pin standpoint, more like the Arduino Due in that it has 3.3V I/O. Is an Arduino shield only compatible with the Uno design? If the Propeller is not "100% compatible" with some shields that expect certain behavior from the I/O pins, how do we discuss the Arduino Due? Is the Propeller more or less Arduino shield compatible than the Due?
I think it will be some time before the Arduino shield market matures enough to where there's an electrical standard for the interface. There's still a shift going on from 5V logic to 3.3V logic and there's not enough competition yet between the 5V ATmega328 versions of the Arduino and the 3.3V ATmega and non-ATmega Arduino-like boards. 5V logic is on the way out. Some devices manage by having 5V tolerant inputs, but that's slowly going too. The Propeller II, for example, will have either 3.3V or 1.8V I/O pins selectable (I believe) on an 8-bit group basis.
As I noted earlier, if you do not have a standard to go by then everyone does their thing..and the marketplace is chaos.
In ice cream vanilla may be boring but there is a reason why it is the #1 favor..because it is a known quantity.
Whether it is the Arduino shield market or the Parallax daughterboard market....standards count and the deviation from them only hinders product sales. Maturation of the market is really the marketplace voting with their wallets to reward those who produce a known and repeatiable product while punishing those who offer product that is unreliable.
Does Parallax have a spec for any daughterboards 3rd parties produce for their product lines?
Sgt. Overdrive gets many of his tubes from Europe... Surprised you can't get them easier than we do in the U.S.
http://mhuss.com/sgtoverdrive/ <== This is how I get them from him...
I've bought a number of NOS and used pre-amp tubes from the Sarge for my 18 Watt guitar amps. It's too bad, you'd have to pay postage to get them shipped back over to you :frown:
dgately
Most new products from Parallax are open-sourced, so the CAD files are available if someone wants to make stackable daughterboards like for the QuickStart board. The electrical specs are either defined in the product documentation or in the datasheet for the Propeller (for Propeller I/O pins). The Basic Stamp I/O pins are documented in the datasheets for the processor used.
:frown:
Below is a picture of a Quickstart proto board from my latest project which is a bed of nails style functional test fixture for a breakout board that mates with the ARM based Cubie board. (still working on writing it up). It provides uSD for WAV files (using my own adapter), VGA output circuit, and audio out. I could have done the same with some minor modifications to a Quickstart HIB board, but that would add cost and leave wasted circuits.