I must admit that I used the wrong wording in my recent post. Instead of writing "in time", I should have written "as soon as it became aware to Parallax".
I'm not on the Parallax payroll, so I can not, and will not make any statements on the behalf of Parallax. Due to his post in the "Sandbox" we know that Ken recently visited China, and I assume one reason for this trip was finding a packaging house for the SXes (he also mentioned this in his initial post here). It must have hit him to learn that placing the SX48/52 die into a 10 by 10 mil PQFP package is that problematic.
So I'm pretty sure that Ken published this news as soon as he finally noticed that there was no acceptable solution available for this problem, so it - maybe - was not in time but as soon as possible.
I further assume that Ubicom "forgot" to make Parallax aware of this problem when they made the recent "die-deal" with Parallax. Besides this, Ken has made the offer to put the SX52 in a larger 14 by 14 mil package but I can understand that this would require reliable customer commitments to put Parallax into a position investing in such a venture. As an alternative, I'm thinking of an SX52 placed into a PLCC, or similar, package. This would allow to put the device into a socket which would be great for non-SMT designs, small series and hobby use.
Besides such "start-up" problems that might be hard to some of us SX users, I'm really happy that Parallax has taken over control. IMO, this makes sure that the SX will be viable for a long period of time in the future.
I was not complaining, merely saying that I was worried which is just the truth.
I also did not complain about prices, I only asked why the SMTs are more expensive that the DIPs, and whether there will be a price review when the new Parallax chips arrive.
Besides the problem with 4 less pins, the SX48 is too small for us to handle with manual soldering.
Ken, can I request that Parallax also sell the solder paste as well.
Ok, for the list of SX projects our engineers have designed and commercialized, ok let me see,
1. Door Access Reader ( SX28)
2. Intelligent Serial LCD ( SX18)
3. USB LCD Interface (SX20SS and FTDI )
4. MiniCallShop System ( SX28 and SX18 )
5. IR Remote Controller (SX18)
6. Alarm System ( SX28 )
7. SX Keyphone ( SX52, in progress )
8. iCar Immobilizer ( SX18 )
9. Fixed Line SMS Box ( SX28 and SX18)
10. LED Display Board Controller ( SX28 )
11. Simple Home Automation System ( SX18 )
12. TinyDialer ( SX18)
13. DTMF Detector and Viewer ( SX28 )
14. Coil Gun ( SX28 )
15. ChatGate SMS Gateway System ( SX 28 )
Plus many more projects that got stuck at prototype stage.
Guenther mentioned that Parallax informed us early, I am not complaining, but I wish to point out that Ken gave us about 5 days warning before the SX52 stock ran out.
Lets not allow emotions get the better of us. I feel no anger or sadness at the moment.
Ken you mentioned about the SX20...., is the SX20 DIP coming back?
Dear William,
maybe, I was a bit too emotional when I wrote my last post. On the other hand, I think that Parallax is doing a great job supporting their customers, and there are also many forum members around; spending a remarkable part of their time helping others in the forum without asking getting paid for this. I think the "magic word" making people behave like this is "Motivation". I have extracted some of your former forum posts, and I leave it up to you to judge if these posts do really generate motivation:
When is Parallax planning to sell the IP3000 processors and development kits on its website? The SX cannot last forever you know.... Even Stamp I had to give way to Stamp II.
I think it's time to reduce prices for the SMT SX chips. Currently the SX18DP and SX28DP are the lowest priced chips, and it doesn't make sense that DIP chips should cost less than the SMT chips....
Why is the SXkey being sold cheaper at xgamestation.com than Parallax.com?
Parallax should price it the same to keep things simple. I can't just buy 1 SXKey from there, the freight would be too high....
When the new Parallax SX chips arrive, will there be a price review?
When was that? Which chip's price was reduced? I didn't see any announcement or changes in pricing....
You know I have been having "SX-Key not found on COM1" problems with my SX-Key rev. E for a long time with nobody being able to help. So, I finally decided to do something about it once and for all....
Only last year some guys were saying the SX is not going away. Then the SX18 died. Now the SX52. I should be getting scared....
I think that you should reconsider your worries about the sx48 chip going away. I decided to do a little investigating just to clear up some facts for myself. If you were to go and see how many Basic Stamps contain the sx48, you would·see that Parallax itself would be a different company if the sx48 were to disapear.
As for the sx52, all that you were gaining was the four extra i/o pins on the ra port. I guess if your design was built around that then I guess you would be in deep do-do. I may be missing something here, but the thing that I can't figure out is why a company would offer the chips that were four i/o pins in difference. I can't imagine an engineer sitting there looking at an sx52 and thinking that, if only this came in a 48 pin version. Maybe I am missing some secrets here.
If I have any disapointments, it would be, why SX/B is not becomming as robust as pbasic, and why it does not have ALL the features of pbasic, but I will stop there, I have been down this road before.
I must admit that I used the wrong wording in my recent post. Instead of writing "in time", I should have written "as soon as it became aware to Parallax".
I'm not on the Parallax payroll, so I can not, and will not make any statements on the behalf of Parallax. Due to his post in the "Sandbox" we know that Ken recently visited China, and I assume one reason for this trip was finding a packaging house for the SXes (he also mentioned this in his initial post here). It must have hit him to learn that placing the SX48/52 die into a 10 by 10 mil PQFP package is that problematic.
So I'm pretty sure that Ken published this news as soon as he finally noticed that there was no acceptable solution available for this problem, so it - maybe - was not in time but as soon as possible.
I further assume that Ubicom "forgot" to make Parallax aware of this problem when they made the recent "die-deal" with Parallax. Besides this, Ken has made the offer to put the SX52 in a larger 14 by 14 mil package but I can understand that this would require reliable customer commitments to put Parallax into a position investing in such a venture. As an alternative, I'm thinking of an SX52 placed into a PLCC, or similar, package. This would allow to put the device into a socket which would be great for non-SMT designs, small series and hobby use.
Besides such "start-up" problems that might be hard to some of us SX users, I'm really happy that Parallax has taken over control. IMO, this makes sure that the SX will be viable for a long period of time in the future.
Guenther,
My point is that Parallax announced several months ago that they would be making the SX-52 themselves (or actually contracting that out, as it really works). The fact of the matter is that they guaranteed parts would be available, when they didn't actually have the deal set in stone. They should NOT have made the announcement until they actually had a deal. It doesn’t matter why it happened. What matters is that many of us were traveling down a path driven by a promise from Parallax that they couldn't keep. Letting us know then that the 52 may have been going away would have prevented a lot of rework.
This is a really poor situation that would have been avoided if parallax had been up front about the whole situation. I believe that the blame lies completely with Parallax on this one. Announcing the end of life of a part with only 4,050 units in stock is a really crummy way to do it.
This·is going to cost me time, money, and customer relations. Thanks!
Expansion of the SX48 to a SX52, isn't difficult, simply use a transparent D type latch, use the existing porta as control for the latch (uses a single pin if you don't tristate the latch), and latch one of the other ports. In the end you gain 3 I/O, if you use a surface mount package, you consume little PCB space especially if you can use a BGA type, something which is offet by the smaller SX48. The software adds only a couple lines when acessing the external port. This suggestion is for an output port, similar and equally valid solutions exist for input ports. Yes this takes away the ability for the port to operate as both input and output, but only an extremely small percentage of applications require so many bi-directional pins (Id venture your more likely to be struck by lightning when in a mile deep mining shaft, than need a solution with 40 bi-directional pins). All in all the redesign is simple and straightforward, and if you're in this industry your either green or naive to think ocassional redesigns aren't nessesary.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔ ·1+1=10
Post Edited (Paul Baker) : 11/2/2005 8:31:10 PM GMT
You are absolutely correct - more notification would have been appropriate. That's the bottom line and I agree entirely and accept responsibility.
We had identified a packaging service for the SX52 in its present dimensions that we thought would serve our needs, but only recently we found that it would require extensive tooling and minimums we would not be able to meet ($$$). In fact, I'm certain there are other services to package the die in a 10x10mil format and we're not done seeking them out. Possible solutions would probably have a high unit cost and low fixed price.
This could have been handled better, for certain. I'd like you to understand that we make perhaps 200 business, planning and technical decisions each year of similar magnitude. We've still got a good record of doing things right, but there's always going to be a chance of making a mistake and this time you were affected.
If you're interested in a 14x14mil SX52 and have a production project where it could be used, feel free to contact me off-line.
Ken, · Just remember, "You can't please everyone". Some people insist on looking at the glass as "half-empty". · Dan, if it wasn't for Parallax the SX would be going away completely (not just the SX52 package). · I for one would like to thank Parallax for "saving" the SX processor. · And for making available a "FREE" compiler, even though it may not be as "robust" as the compilers that cost a couple hundred dollars.
Bean.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
"SX-Video·Module" Now available from Parallax for only $28.95
You are absolutely correct - more notification would have been appropriate. That's the bottom line and I agree entirely and accept responsibility.
We had identified a packaging service for the SX52 in its present dimensions that we thought would serve our needs, but only recently we found that it would require extensive tooling and minimums we would not be able to meet ($$$). In fact, I'm certain there are other services to package the die in a 10x10mil format and we're not done seeking them out. Possible solutions would probably have a high unit cost and low fixed price.
This could have been handled better, for certain. I'd like you to understand that we make perhaps 200 business, planning and technical decisions each year of similar magnitude. We've still got a good record of doing things right, but there's always going to be a chance of making a mistake and this time you were affected.
If you're interested in a 14x14mil SX52 and have a production project where it could be used, feel free to contact me off-line.
Sincerely,
Ken Gracey
Parallax, Inc.
Ken,
I appreciate your honesty, and can·understand your situation (I too, have to make similar decisions).
I can redesign a circuit, that's easy. What bothers me is Parallax didn't·have all of·the details ironed out·before
making the production announcement.·To be honest·with you, I almost switched from the SX when parallax
announced that they would be taking over production of the SX (That really spooked me).·I stuck with
the SX because of the promise of avalibility of parts.·The hard part now, is·fighting that·feeling in my gut, which
is·telling me this is just the tip of the iceburg. I sure hope I'm wrong!
Paul B,
I don't appreciate your the rude nature of your comment.·Before you accuse me of being naive or green, make
sure you've walked that proverbial mile in my shoes.
I don't know why you start talking about "motivation" which was never the topic of our discussion.
You don't need to research and list all my comments on the forum. I know what I said, and still stand by them.
If my comments on the forum sounds more like a chinese businessman than a hobbyist,
its because I am a chinese businessman.
Dan,
Im just stating that obsolescence is to be expected in the industry, my favorite SRAM was discontinued last year, and there is no equivalent replacement. Its the breaks and you have to roll with them, blaming Ken and Parallax doesn't solve anything but make all parties miserable. I was trying to illustrate that the missing IO pins can be replaced with relatively little hassle, and Ken doesn't deserve our ire, he tried his best to make things work and chose not to unessesarily alarm us when the situation was still "if-y". The SX line has been in the process of transistion for a while now, his warning us earlier would have accomplished absolutely nothing other than having the stock run out even sooner, either way the stocks would have been depleted within a couple days of his announcement, and you still would have likely complained. I don't need to walk in you shoes, everyone thats been around for a while has experienced problems with obsolescence, the worst is when a specialty chip hits the dustbins and there is no alternative except an expensive ASIC solution. The loss of the SX52 is far from this situation, all thats lost is 4 I/O pins, in the grand scheme of things its nothing to loose sleep over. Im sorry I have offended you, but I feel its a situation that must be taken in stride. Lamenting about it's loss is fine (see my first post to the thread), but blaming/b'tching isn't.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔ ·1+1=10
Post Edited (Paul Baker) : 11/3/2005 12:03:31 AM GMT
I'm afraid that on this one I have to side with Dan. My company is in the middle of a huge design effort in which the SX series is used as well as bigger processors.
We have deployed the SX52 on about 8 circuit boards; not particularly that we needed the extra 4 pins, but rather that we standardized on the larger pin count, should we need them in future products.
While I'm certain that Parallax is fully committed to supporting the supply of SX48's, the rapidity of the disappearance of the SX52 was rather a shock. I believe it would have been appropriate to give some more warning. I agree with you that osolescense is a fact of life in our industry, but a one year, or even 6 month end of life warning would have been adequate. Even some suggestion that for "new designs use the SX48" is something that industrial folks require; for the hobbyists I see it as less of an issue; costs there are "softer".
Sure, we all can deal with the lost port bits (darn it), but now to transition to the SX48, I have some new cost that would have been avoided or minimized if I had known about this earlier.
I'm still loving the SX, and will continue to use it, and other than this episode, I DO appreciate the professional manner in which Parallax conducts themselves.
Let's just call this one a tactical error............. so keep up the good work Ken!
I'm sure that you guys are aware that Ken/Parallax have enjoyed a personal rapport with us on this forum, and the yahoo groups, for quite a while.
They've given us tips on upcoming goodies that Parallax will be selling.....I think that's awesome!
IF it were Ubicom themselves or any other manufacturer, I dno't think you'd get a friendly call at home informing you that your favorite chip has been axed! You'd just go to order it and see a big "DISCONTINUED" next to it in the inventory list.
Ken, I do appreciate the personal touch you guys add to the forums by 'leaking' information to us.
Sure, things don't work out sometimes; that's the risk when sourcing the parts you need from other suppliers (whom just want your business and will say whatever to get the deal/$$)....Sh!t happens!
I think everyone's muckin through the crud cuz you've given them an outlet and they know you will respond to their vents.
As much as I hate to say it, cuz I love hearing some of the intimate 'goings-on' with Parallax (up and coming products), maybe it's best not to tell us squat!
Drop the bombs as you are prepared for them....good or bad....and half your complaints will stop (although ppl will complain they wished they'd known sooner that X product was coming out).... haha
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔ ·
Steve "Inside each and every one of us is our one, true authentic swing. Something we was born with. Something that's ours and ours alone. Something that can't be learned... something that's got to be remembered."
Ive appologized to Dan in a PM. I do understand the hardship that Dan and many others will have to face because of the discontinuance of the SX52. If I offended anyone else, I appologize,·but I·have a natural tendancy to defend the folks at Parallax, I believe they always try to do things with thier customers best interest in mind (a rare thing in the corporate world) and I empathize with them when they are critisized.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔ ·1+1=10
Post Edited (Paul Baker) : 11/4/2005 3:51:36 PM GMT
I don't know why you start talking about "motivation" which was never the topic of our discussion.
You don't need to research and list all my comments on the forum. I know what I said, and still stand by them.
If my comments on the forum sounds more like a chinese businessman than a hobbyist,
its because I am a chinese businessman.
Dear William,
so far, I had no experience, how comments from a chinese businessman sound - I think I've learned it now .
Let me try to make my comments from a "German engineer" concerning "Motivation" a bit more precise:
I think you agree with me that this forum is a source of a lot of valuable information. Provided meaningful questions for help are posted, it usually is a matter of only a couple of hours until at least a "first aid" is given by a forum member. As long as the answer comes from the Parallax staff, you might say: "As they are Parallax employees, it's their job to provide such support". This may be true for a couple of their staff members having a support job in the company, as you can find it in the support sections of other organizations. Other than that - in the Parallax forum, you can find support posts from staff members (even including the "Boss") who usually should dedicate their valuable time for other tasks than this. The only reason I can imagine why they do it anyway is that they feel commited to their company, the team, and the products they handle, and to the audience they meet in this forum.
Besides this, I think you may also agree with me that there are many other forum members - not on the Parallax payroll - who are regularly contributing valuable help and information to other forum members. Did you ever ask yourself why the hell, these people are cazy enough spending their valuable time answering (sometimes silly, or "un-Googled") questions, analyzing hundreds of program code lines, writing sample code, searching the internet for the benefit of others? My only explanation for this behavior is that these people feel being part of a community (maybe family) of think-alikes.
In my opinion, this all happens because people feel "motivated", which brings me back to the topic which was not part of our discussion before, but I felt free to address it. Motivation usually is generated when you get a positive feedback, like "thank you", "wow - your hint saved me the day", etc.
At least, this is what made and makes me feel "motivated", where - on the other hand - pinpricking comments (no matter if they are addressed to me directly, or to "my" community) make me really feel p...ed off or "un-motivated".
Since mismanagement of the SX52 has been the theme of the week and you appreciate close communication from Parallax even though we make tactical errors,·I should let you know that this issue may not be closed yet.·Two more solutions have surfaced this week and we've got them under some tight review.·Even though many of you have already made alternative plans and informed your customers of EOL, we're going to continue to follow through on our latest options.
It's risky to share information unless I'm sure of the outcome, but·we're hoping that by Monday we'll have a reliable direction to pursue.
Since mismanagement of the SX52 has been the theme of the week and you appreciate close communication from Parallax even though we make tactical errors,·I should let you know that this issue may not be closed yet.·Two more solutions have surfaced this week and we've got them under some tight review.·Even though many of you have already made alternative plans and informed your customers of EOL, we're going to continue to follow through on our latest options.
It's risky to share information unless I'm sure of the outcome, but·we're hoping that by Monday we'll have a reliable direction to pursue.
Your roller coaster operator,
Ken Gracey
Parallax, Inc.
Ken,
Please keep us posted. I have·already started redesigns, so if there is an Sx52 coming back, knowing that early would really help! Again, I'm a little spooked about the SX series, but·there is no doubt in my mind that you are trying·your best to keep the product alive long term!.
Paul,
I have not yet read your PM, but will in a minute. There are no hard feelings here, as it was a frustrating day on both our sides of the keyboard.·I was a bit frustrated with finding·out about the parallax announcement, long after the rest of the stock was gone!·(I'm used to about a year EOL·warning, or an offer for lifetime buys, etc.)· FYI, the reason I use the SX52 is that I do·very small quantity production, for both my day job and for my contract customers. I chose the SX52 because of package size. I (or I should say my guys) hand solder everything that we build (for both quality and quantity reasons)
I definitely understand the frustration born from not having enough advanced time to plan ahead, and you are correct that a year's notice is the norm. This is pure speculation since I do not have an insider's perspective, but I think it was an issue Ubicom hid from Parallax during negotioations for the SX line or at the very least they seriously downplayed the issue. If either of these were the case, then it was a situation Parallax was thrust into and had no feasible way of giving a large advanced warning, I don't even know if Ubicom and Parallax were negotiating the SX line a year ago.
With respect to the TQFP for the SX48, I too had trepidation about working with 0.5mm pitch parts, but was forced into doing so for a board because the CPLD used didn't have a surface mount package other than TQFP (an SX52 was also on the board). To my utter suprise I found hand soldering the TQFP CPLD easier and faster than soldering the PQFP SX, I don't know if its because I still have good eyesight, or a steady hand or good equipment, but the SX52 had 3 bridges that had to be removed while the CPLD solding in place correctly the first time. My personal belief is that the SX's pins being larger required more time over each pin to heat up for the joint to occur versus one quick fluid motion which was sufficient to heat the tiny pins of the CPLD. I don't know if your guys would have the same experience, but it was mine.
I can't say enough how good you guys are to your customers. I had a very similar EOL experience with an analog chip houses in TX last month and got a very polite but very final "too bad, you're SOL" from them when I inquired about alternaitves on behalf of our ~77k/year customer.
Thank you again.
-dave
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
This is not a sig. This is a duck. Quack.
I'm just a newbie but I have been lurking around the forums for a·almost a year here and there·and this is my 2 cents after just completing the beta test on a drag bike control and 31 IO PLC board with SX's. The final success of both of these was a direct result of parallax planning, support and the forum members here. The last major bug was solved in these forums by a lesson in current based inputs rather than voltage, given very thoroughly by parallax employees and forums members who have nothing to gain from it other than helping someone out.·None of this may sound all that surprising to most of you probably a fairly normal occurance around here even. Now for the reality of the actual chain of events, about··a year ago I ran across the basic stamp series and parallax searching the net trying to learn something about analog signal conditioning peak and hold circuits and found the stamp line of products. First couple of projects were stamped based, (when I got the nerve to try it)·a 12 IO controller thats still running in an industrial envirionment in a chassis plant. Very simple thing, a few buttons and some fets for output. A fairly primitive sequencer to shave a few hundreths of a second off of a 1/4 pass on a drag bike and make things·a little more reliable for the rider. Both of these projects worked out very well. A couple of months ago I started looking at the SX line of chips because of the price (read hobbyist here) and the speed, this thing is downright wicked for the cost and availability.·Moving into the SX chip took me a while, roughly a month to touch one after the kit and first units were purchased and the initial project·was a drag bike control, this time to sequence the air shifter and pulse a nitrous oxide system to make it a smoother and earlier application of power. At the time a 16 IO general use control board was in discussion at work for another project there. Now before someone gets off on a bent about automating a race bike, its not, its simply what allows these systems to work, and work better, to give the rider and mechanic more control of whats happening. It works wonderfully, with a very high level of confidince in safety. After that was working in bench testing the 16 IO controller needed to be a 26 minimum, so that too was migrated to an SX, SX48 that is its not mentioned in the ealier posts as it being done at work the project overall isnt mine to give out. That too is working wonderfuly and has passed all tests except the life over time testing. Now all of this may sound simple and minor to most of you, it should because its merely background for my next couple of statements. First, I have no formal training in electronics, and by no I mean none, no high school classes, no college, no night school, nothing, that started with those little Radio Shack Experimenters notebooks back in the day with 555's op amps and 2n2222's. Second, I have no formal training in programming, you can go down the same list that started with Quick Basic and never really progressed beyond it till now, with PBasic and Guenthers·book for a guide I'm actually starting to make a little·sense out of SX assembler.
All that being said now ask yourself one question........
What level of detail, support, and documentation would it require to give someone with that list of skills the tools to accomplish what may to some of you seem microscopic but to me, and many others on the hobbyist level tremendous abilities, at least tremendous for our level of knowledge and skill?
Pretty staggering question isnt it, I spent a lot of time studying and I'm a fast learner (sometimes) admitted, but to supply the support and tools in basicaly one place for that kind of education.... Parallax and the users of these forums have given me something tremendous and that is knowledge that I wouldnt have gained anywhere else. I've looked....· Next time someone makes an announcement that is dissapointing I would ask that you try to take a moment to think about the past, and what has went before. Society as a whole has taken the attitude of "What have you done for me lately?" This forum and all of you have seemed the exception to this rule, and thats one of the big reasons I came to rest here. Not for quick and easy answers, as both of my most recent projects came to fruition before the first question was asked.·I didnt have understanding of the problems cause, or why what I did fixed it, but it was working. The forums and parallax directly supplied me with understanding and better tools to fight it with. Its easy to take things for granted and we all do it, were human. Its harder to take the step back and say "Hmmm, lets think about this for a minute, its frustrating but maybe theyre just as frustrated as I am"
Edit: and yes, I also have about a dozen SX52's around and was thinking of expanding the 32 IO board with serial com's and a couple of AD's. Such is life, still going to do it eventualy, now it will just have multiple processors, so what SX's are very inexpensive I see no problem with it. The 52's I'm gonna hoard though [noparse]:)[/noparse]
the projects you have mastered so far with the SX are - in my opinion - by no means "microscopic". When I started my first SX-based project about six years ago, I had some knowledge about programming PICs, and a wider background in programming various microprocessors in Assembly, and in developing PC applications in different languages. This first SX project was a huge one, covering several different input panels with pushbuttons, LEDs, potentiometers, differential encoders, etc., all of them "talking" via an I²C bus. Once again, I found out that the best way of learning a new environment or technology is to bite through a non-trivial project. At that time, I had nothing else but the SX datasheets, and some SX code samples available for information and reference. So I went through a longer phase of learning by try and error. Fortunately, I had the SX-Key and one of the early versions of the SX-Key IDE.
I often compare my process of learning how to program microcontrollers with the way how I learned to program in Pascal. The first Pascal compiler I owned was UCSD Pascal for the Tandy TRS-80. It required four floppy drives to run this beast without swapping floppies all the time. Nevertheless, it sometimes took minutes to compile a program, just to get another mysterious error message. This was so annoying that I gave up learning Pascal at that time. Later, Borland published Turbo Pascal for the PC, and this worked like charm. The edit-compile-fix-bugs-re-compile-test-run cycle was so fast that it was a lot of fun using this programming environment. To learn Turbo Pascal in more detail, I again started with a non-trivial project - a spell-checker for WordStar text files, including techniques, like text line parsing, maintaining hash file structures, and other "goodies". When I touched base with microcontrollers, I started with PICs. These first types did not have a flash program memory, but UV erasable memory instead. Developing applications for such devices seemed to me pretty similar to my first steps using USCD Pascal. The SX, together with the SX-Key environment brought back to me the "Turbo Pascal feeling" with its fast edit-assemble-fix-errors-debug cycles. This is why I like the SX environment that much.
Another important reason why I like the SX is that it is now handled and supported by the right people at Parallax and because I can share ideas with many others here in the forum. Would have been great if I had these ressources on hand when I took my first steps in programming the SX.
Concerning your PLC-alike projects, you might consider using external components to expand the output capability of the SX instead of using devices with more I/O pins. In some of my projects, I use the TPIC6A565 Power Logic 8-bit Shift Register from TI. This is an 8-bit cascadable shift register with power outputs, each of them capable of switching up to 50V at 350mA with short-circuit protection, built-in output voltage clamps for inductive loads, and over-heat protection. It requires a minimum of 3 SX output pins to control this device (maybe one more to control the /G global enable line). As these devices can be cascaded, almost any required number of power outputs can be realized.
Guenther, ·· I meant nothing sarcastic when I spoke about my projects being minor accomplishments to some, surfing through the forums and seeing the complexity and precision of a lot of the SX applications "I" was reffering to what I've done with it so far as minor. The whole point of the post was to try and point out what an exceptional environment this is (forums, support, parallax etc).· To·put understanding of·something as complex as a microcontroler or robot within reach of someone with as little formal education as myself is quite an acomplishment as well as requiring extremely well thought out documentation and excellent support. As far as the IO boards, theyre strictly meant for use in less complex projects that do not require an operator panel so 32 io and a couple of AD's are as far as I really plan on developing them. At this point I have to firm up the two IO boards that are working, and totaly finish and document the bike project. That one still has a couple of timing quirks that I need to sort out in the code and clean it up considerably. Everything I've done so far leans heavily on the brute speed of the SX, its time to start learning some cleaner code [noparse]:)[/noparse]
update on the bike project, it seems to be working well
8.82 seconds @ 161.87 mph as of today its making consistant 8.80 and 8.90 passes on a stock engine. I'll post the full update on the tail of the thread regarding it.
I absolutely agree with you about the exceptional environment. Also congratulations to your bike project - I already read your latest post to that thread.
my english is very bad i prefer give my opinion with two messages one in french community and a message in english.
hello doesn't I do not include/understand why ubicom have to increase the Sx series? why remain with 4K of flash?
it is possible to make a new chip with 60 K of flash with the same instructions, it would simply be enough to re-examine the pagination of the RAM...
freescale has a series 68hc06 very diverse...
a manufacturer who is not able to call itself in question is a bad manufacturer, why the µC IPxxxx no succés? because the development tools are too expensive!!!!
have look at yourself the ARM of Philips? lpcxxx 10$ and complete development tools for nothing
then stop to tell us "conneries" simply UBICOM has programmed the end of the SX...
PS : it is useless to make SXkey with the compiler codes C because the flash is too small
the french text message :
bonjour
je ne comprends pas pourquoi ubicom n'a pas augmenter la série Sx ?
pourquoi restez à 4K de flash ?
il est possible de faire un nouveau chip avec 60 k de flash avec les mêmes instructions, il suffirait simplement de revoir la pagination de la ram...
freescale a une série 68hc06 très diverses...
un fabricant qui n'est pas capable de se remettre en question est un mauvais fabricant
pourquoi les µC IPxxxx n'ont aucun succés ? parce que les outils de developpement sont trop cher !!!!
avez vous regardez les arm de philips ? lpcxx 10 $ le chip et les outils complets de developpement pour rien...
alors arretez de nous raconter des conneries simplement UBICOM a déja programmé la fin des SX...
PS il est inutile de faire un SXkey avec le compilateur code C car la flash est trop petite
For those of us who love the simplicity of getting a small project up and running, somtimes in as little as a few MINUTES with the SX, we are happy to contine with it. We all realize it will not be optimum for all applications, especially larger ones, or for folks who want something different. But for many of us, we are tickled that Parallax has taken over the furtherance of the processor and is now adding C support. I for one am keen to see that product supported with the Parallax satisfaction guarantee.
All things eventually change, and Ubicom has chosen to manufacture a much higher IPXXXX series of processors with phenomenal performance and good flash sizes, and contrary to your suggestion, WITH phenominal success. Unfortunately the start-up costs for the tools are excessive for the hobbyist as their target is high-end commercial applications.
Eventhough you don't like it, please remember their purpose in business life is to maximize the return to their shareholders - period. If their business decisions are not in line with your thinking, then move on to some other processor that suits your needs. There is no need to call them a "bad manufacturer"; I think they have done a phenomenal job, and Parallax is providing an exemplary complementary service........what similar level of free and responsive support can you get elsewhere?
So far you've made two posts: both trash-talking the SX.· If you don't like the SX, that's fine, but please stop wasting forum bandwidth with your opinions in that regard -- the idea here is that we do like to use the SX and in this forum we exchange ideas to get the most from what we think is a nice little micro (of course it's not perfect for everthing, nobody said it was).
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔ Jon Williams Applications Engineer, Parallax
maybe this is a bit off topic here, but it just hit me...
Why don't we compile a list of applications/projects done with SXes? This would help "newbies" to understand what can be done with SXes and it also could help to avoid "re-inventing the wheel". This list should only come with a project title, describing the kind of project as good as possible, the SX type used, the developer's name, or forum ID, and possibly a link to another site where the project is described in more detail. Such a list might look like this:
If such list is of general interest, I'd volunteer to manage it. In order to make it as complete as possible, I'd need feedback from all forum members who have created SX application, no matter if these are fun projects, or commercial applications. I'm pretty sure that such list will grow quite fast.
Here's a list of recent·Parallax products that use the SX that I wrote the code for (or assisted) in SX/B:
Serial InkJet Printer module
Parallax EFX RC-4 module
Parallax EFX DC-16 module
Parallax EFX AP-8 (code by John Barrowman)
These are commercial products and we'll happily share the source code with anyone who thinks they can benefit from it.· For my Nuts & Volts column I have built several BASIC Stamp accessory modules, the latest being a Serial-to-PlayStation Controller interface that I posted here in these forums.
The SX may be a "small" chip, but "big minds" like Guenther, Bean, PJV, PJMonty and others have show that it is quite capable.· Imagine how expensive some of our favorite products would be if a "small mind" decided that a micro like the SX was not appropriate....
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔ Jon Williams Applications Engineer, Parallax
Post Edited (Jon Williams (Parallax)) : 11/29/2005 4:16:50 PM GMT
Comments
I must admit that I used the wrong wording in my recent post. Instead of writing "in time", I should have written "as soon as it became aware to Parallax".
I'm not on the Parallax payroll, so I can not, and will not make any statements on the behalf of Parallax. Due to his post in the "Sandbox" we know that Ken recently visited China, and I assume one reason for this trip was finding a packaging house for the SXes (he also mentioned this in his initial post here). It must have hit him to learn that placing the SX48/52 die into a 10 by 10 mil PQFP package is that problematic.
So I'm pretty sure that Ken published this news as soon as he finally noticed that there was no acceptable solution available for this problem, so it - maybe - was not in time but as soon as possible.
I further assume that Ubicom "forgot" to make Parallax aware of this problem when they made the recent "die-deal" with Parallax. Besides this, Ken has made the offer to put the SX52 in a larger 14 by 14 mil package but I can understand that this would require reliable customer commitments to put Parallax into a position investing in such a venture. As an alternative, I'm thinking of an SX52 placed into a PLCC, or similar, package. This would allow to put the device into a socket which would be great for non-SMT designs, small series and hobby use.
Besides such "start-up" problems that might be hard to some of us SX users, I'm really happy that Parallax has taken over control. IMO, this makes sure that the SX will be viable for a long period of time in the future.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Greetings from Germany,
G
Dear William,
maybe, I was a bit too emotional when I wrote my last post. On the other hand, I think that Parallax is doing a great job supporting their customers, and there are also many forum members around; spending a remarkable part of their time helping others in the forum without asking getting paid for this. I think the "magic word" making people behave like this is "Motivation". I have extracted some of your former forum posts, and I leave it up to you to judge if these posts do really generate motivation:
When is Parallax planning to sell the IP3000 processors and development kits on its website? The SX cannot last forever you know.... Even Stamp I had to give way to Stamp II.
I think it's time to reduce prices for the SMT SX chips. Currently the SX18DP and SX28DP are the lowest priced chips, and it doesn't make sense that DIP chips should cost less than the SMT chips....
Why is the SXkey being sold cheaper at xgamestation.com than Parallax.com?
Parallax should price it the same to keep things simple. I can't just buy 1 SXKey from there, the freight would be too high....
When the new Parallax SX chips arrive, will there be a price review?
When was that? Which chip's price was reduced? I didn't see any announcement or changes in pricing....
You know I have been having "SX-Key not found on COM1" problems with my SX-Key rev. E for a long time with nobody being able to help. So, I finally decided to do something about it once and for all....
Only last year some guys were saying the SX is not going away. Then the SX18 died. Now the SX52. I should be getting scared....
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Greetings from Germany,
G
I think that you should reconsider your worries about the sx48 chip going away. I decided to do a little investigating just to clear up some facts for myself. If you were to go and see how many Basic Stamps contain the sx48, you would·see that Parallax itself would be a different company if the sx48 were to disapear.
As for the sx52, all that you were gaining was the four extra i/o pins on the ra port. I guess if your design was built around that then I guess you would be in deep do-do. I may be missing something here, but the thing that I can't figure out is why a company would offer the chips that were four i/o pins in difference. I can't imagine an engineer sitting there looking at an sx52 and thinking that, if only this came in a 48 pin version. Maybe I am missing some secrets here.
If I have any disapointments, it would be, why SX/B is not becomming as robust as pbasic, and why it does not have ALL the features of pbasic, but I will stop there, I have been down this road before.
My point is that Parallax announced several months ago that they would be making the SX-52 themselves (or actually contracting that out, as it really works). The fact of the matter is that they guaranteed parts would be available, when they didn't actually have the deal set in stone. They should NOT have made the announcement until they actually had a deal. It doesn’t matter why it happened. What matters is that many of us were traveling down a path driven by a promise from Parallax that they couldn't keep. Letting us know then that the 52 may have been going away would have prevented a lot of rework.
This is a really poor situation that would have been avoided if parallax had been up front about the whole situation. I believe that the blame lies completely with Parallax on this one. Announcing the end of life of a part with only 4,050 units in stock is a really crummy way to do it.
This·is going to cost me time, money, and customer relations. Thanks!
-Dan
··
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
·1+1=10
Post Edited (Paul Baker) : 11/2/2005 8:31:10 PM GMT
You are absolutely correct - more notification would have been appropriate. That's the bottom line and I agree entirely and accept responsibility.
We had identified a packaging service for the SX52 in its present dimensions that we thought would serve our needs, but only recently we found that it would require extensive tooling and minimums we would not be able to meet ($$$). In fact, I'm certain there are other services to package the die in a 10x10mil format and we're not done seeking them out. Possible solutions would probably have a high unit cost and low fixed price.
This could have been handled better, for certain. I'd like you to understand that we make perhaps 200 business, planning and technical decisions each year of similar magnitude. We've still got a good record of doing things right, but there's always going to be a chance of making a mistake and this time you were affected.
If you're interested in a 14x14mil SX52 and have a production project where it could be used, feel free to contact me off-line.
Sincerely,
Ken Gracey
Parallax, Inc.
· Just remember, "You can't please everyone". Some people insist on looking at the glass as "half-empty".
· Dan, if it wasn't for Parallax the SX would be going away completely (not just the SX52 package).
· I for one would like to thank Parallax for "saving" the SX processor.
· And for making available a "FREE" compiler, even though it may not be as "robust" as the compilers that cost a couple hundred dollars.
Bean.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
"SX-Video·Module" Now available from Parallax for only $28.95
http://www.parallax.com/detail.asp?product_id=30012
Product web site: www.sxvm.com
Available now... SX-Video OSD module $59.95 www.sxvm.com
Those that would give up freedom for security deserve neither.
Post Edited (Bean (Hitt Consulting)) : 11/2/2005 10:10:13 PM GMT
I appreciate your honesty, and can·understand your situation (I too, have to make similar decisions).
I can redesign a circuit, that's easy. What bothers me is Parallax didn't·have all of·the details ironed out·before
making the production announcement.·To be honest·with you, I almost switched from the SX when parallax
announced that they would be taking over production of the SX (That really spooked me).·I stuck with
the SX because of the promise of avalibility of parts.·The hard part now, is·fighting that·feeling in my gut, which
is·telling me this is just the tip of the iceburg. I sure hope I'm wrong!
Paul B,
I don't appreciate your the rude nature of your comment.·Before you accuse me of being naive or green, make
sure you've walked that proverbial mile in my shoes.
·
I don't know why you start talking about "motivation" which was never the topic of our discussion.
You don't need to research and list all my comments on the forum. I know what I said, and still stand by them.
If my comments on the forum sounds more like a chinese businessman than a hobbyist,
its because I am a chinese businessman.
Im just stating that obsolescence is to be expected in the industry, my favorite SRAM was discontinued last year, and there is no equivalent replacement. Its the breaks and you have to roll with them, blaming Ken and Parallax doesn't solve anything but make all parties miserable. I was trying to illustrate that the missing IO pins can be replaced with relatively little hassle, and Ken doesn't deserve our ire, he tried his best to make things work and chose not to unessesarily alarm us when the situation was still "if-y". The SX line has been in the process of transistion for a while now, his warning us earlier would have accomplished absolutely nothing other than having the stock run out even sooner, either way the stocks would have been depleted within a couple days of his announcement, and you still would have likely complained. I don't need to walk in you shoes, everyone thats been around for a while has experienced problems with obsolescence, the worst is when a specialty chip hits the dustbins and there is no alternative except an expensive ASIC solution. The loss of the SX52 is far from this situation, all thats lost is 4 I/O pins, in the grand scheme of things its nothing to loose sleep over. Im sorry I have offended you, but I feel its a situation that must be taken in stride. Lamenting about it's loss is fine (see my first post to the thread), but blaming/b'tching isn't.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
·1+1=10
Post Edited (Paul Baker) : 11/3/2005 12:03:31 AM GMT
I'm afraid that on this one I have to side with Dan. My company is in the middle of a huge design effort in which the SX series is used as well as bigger processors.
We have deployed the SX52 on about 8 circuit boards; not particularly that we needed the extra 4 pins, but rather that we standardized on the larger pin count, should we need them in future products.
While I'm certain that Parallax is fully committed to supporting the supply of SX48's, the rapidity of the disappearance of the SX52 was rather a shock. I believe it would have been appropriate to give some more warning. I agree with you that osolescense is a fact of life in our industry, but a one year, or even 6 month end of life warning would have been adequate. Even some suggestion that for "new designs use the SX48" is something that industrial folks require; for the hobbyists I see it as less of an issue; costs there are "softer".
Sure, we all can deal with the lost port bits (darn it), but now to transition to the SX48, I have some new cost that would have been avoided or minimized if I had known about this earlier.
I'm still loving the SX, and will continue to use it, and other than this episode, I DO appreciate the professional manner in which Parallax conducts themselves.
Let's just call this one a tactical error............. so keep up the good work Ken!
Cheers,
Peter (pjv)
They've given us tips on upcoming goodies that Parallax will be selling.....I think that's awesome!
IF it were Ubicom themselves or any other manufacturer, I dno't think you'd get a friendly call at home informing you that your favorite chip has been axed! You'd just go to order it and see a big "DISCONTINUED" next to it in the inventory list.
Ken, I do appreciate the personal touch you guys add to the forums by 'leaking' information to us.
Sure, things don't work out sometimes; that's the risk when sourcing the parts you need from other suppliers (whom just want your business and will say whatever to get the deal/$$)....Sh!t happens!
I think everyone's muckin through the crud cuz you've given them an outlet and they know you will respond to their vents.
As much as I hate to say it, cuz I love hearing some of the intimate 'goings-on' with Parallax (up and coming products), maybe it's best not to tell us squat!
Drop the bombs as you are prepared for them....good or bad....and half your complaints will stop (although ppl will complain they wished they'd known sooner that X product was coming out).... haha
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
·
Steve
"Inside each and every one of us is our one, true authentic swing. Something we was born with. Something that's ours and ours alone. Something that can't be learned... something that's got to be remembered."
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
·1+1=10
Post Edited (Paul Baker) : 11/4/2005 3:51:36 PM GMT
Dear William,
so far, I had no experience, how comments from a chinese businessman sound - I think I've learned it now
Let me try to make my comments from a "German engineer" concerning "Motivation" a bit more precise:
I think you agree with me that this forum is a source of a lot of valuable information. Provided meaningful questions for help are posted, it usually is a matter of only a couple of hours until at least a "first aid" is given by a forum member. As long as the answer comes from the Parallax staff, you might say: "As they are Parallax employees, it's their job to provide such support". This may be true for a couple of their staff members having a support job in the company, as you can find it in the support sections of other organizations. Other than that - in the Parallax forum, you can find support posts from staff members (even including the "Boss") who usually should dedicate their valuable time for other tasks than this. The only reason I can imagine why they do it anyway is that they feel commited to their company, the team, and the products they handle, and to the audience they meet in this forum.
Besides this, I think you may also agree with me that there are many other forum members - not on the Parallax payroll - who are regularly contributing valuable help and information to other forum members. Did you ever ask yourself why the hell, these people are cazy enough spending their valuable time answering (sometimes silly, or "un-Googled") questions, analyzing hundreds of program code lines, writing sample code, searching the internet for the benefit of others? My only explanation for this behavior is that these people feel being part of a community (maybe family) of think-alikes.
In my opinion, this all happens because people feel "motivated", which brings me back to the topic which was not part of our discussion before, but I felt free to address it. Motivation usually is generated when you get a positive feedback, like "thank you", "wow - your hint saved me the day", etc.
At least, this is what made and makes me feel "motivated", where - on the other hand - pinpricking comments (no matter if they are addressed to me directly, or to "my" community) make me really feel p...ed off or "un-motivated".
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Greetings from Germany,
G
Since mismanagement of the SX52 has been the theme of the week and you appreciate close communication from Parallax even though we make tactical errors,·I should let you know that this issue may not be closed yet.·Two more solutions have surfaced this week and we've got them under some tight review.·Even though many of you have already made alternative plans and informed your customers of EOL, we're going to continue to follow through on our latest options.
It's risky to share information unless I'm sure of the outcome, but·we're hoping that by Monday we'll have a reliable direction to pursue.
Your roller coaster operator,
Ken Gracey
Parallax, Inc.
Cheers,
Peter (pjv)
SX52ers:
Since mismanagement of the SX52 has been the theme of the week and you appreciate close communication from Parallax even though we make tactical errors,·I should let you know that this issue may not be closed yet.·Two more solutions have surfaced this week and we've got them under some tight review.·Even though many of you have already made alternative plans and informed your customers of EOL, we're going to continue to follow through on our latest options.
It's risky to share information unless I'm sure of the outcome, but·we're hoping that by Monday we'll have a reliable direction to pursue.
Your roller coaster operator,
Ken Gracey
Parallax, Inc.
Ken,
Please keep us posted. I have·already started redesigns, so if there is an Sx52 coming back, knowing that early would really help! Again, I'm a little spooked about the SX series, but·there is no doubt in my mind that you are trying·your best to keep the product alive long term!.
Paul,
I have not yet read your PM, but will in a minute. There are no hard feelings here, as it was a frustrating day on both our sides of the keyboard.·I was a bit frustrated with finding·out about the parallax announcement, long after the rest of the stock was gone!·(I'm used to about a year EOL·warning, or an offer for lifetime buys, etc.)· FYI, the reason I use the SX52 is that I do·very small quantity production, for both my day job and for my contract customers. I chose the SX52 because of package size. I (or I should say my guys) hand solder everything that we build (for both quality and quantity reasons)
-Dan
Post Edited (dkemppai) : 11/4/2005 5:29:48 AM GMT
With respect to the TQFP for the SX48, I too had trepidation about working with 0.5mm pitch parts, but was forced into doing so for a board because the CPLD used didn't have a surface mount package other than TQFP (an SX52 was also on the board). To my utter suprise I found hand soldering the TQFP CPLD easier and faster than soldering the PQFP SX, I don't know if its because I still have good eyesight, or a steady hand or good equipment, but the SX52 had 3 bridges that had to be removed while the CPLD solding in place correctly the first time. My personal belief is that the SX's pins being larger required more time over each pin to heat up for the joint to occur versus one quick fluid motion which was sufficient to heat the tiny pins of the CPLD. I don't know if your guys would have the same experience, but it was mine.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
·1+1=10
I can't say enough how good you guys are to your customers. I had a very similar EOL experience with an analog chip houses in TX last month and got a very polite but very final "too bad, you're SOL" from them when I inquired about alternaitves on behalf of our ~77k/year customer.
Thank you again.
-dave
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
This is not a sig. This is a duck. Quack.
All that being said now ask yourself one question........
What level of detail, support, and documentation would it require to give someone with that list of skills the tools to accomplish what may to some of you seem microscopic but to me, and many others on the hobbyist level tremendous abilities, at least tremendous for our level of knowledge and skill?
Pretty staggering question isnt it, I spent a lot of time studying and I'm a fast learner (sometimes) admitted, but to supply the support and tools in basicaly one place for that kind of education.... Parallax and the users of these forums have given me something tremendous and that is knowledge that I wouldnt have gained anywhere else. I've looked....· Next time someone makes an announcement that is dissapointing I would ask that you try to take a moment to think about the past, and what has went before. Society as a whole has taken the attitude of "What have you done for me lately?" This forum and all of you have seemed the exception to this rule, and thats one of the big reasons I came to rest here. Not for quick and easy answers, as both of my most recent projects came to fruition before the first question was asked.·I didnt have understanding of the problems cause, or why what I did fixed it, but it was working. The forums and parallax directly supplied me with understanding and better tools to fight it with. Its easy to take things for granted and we all do it, were human. Its harder to take the step back and say "Hmmm, lets think about this for a minute, its frustrating but maybe theyre just as frustrated as I am"
Edit: and yes, I also have about a dozen SX52's around and was thinking of expanding the 32 IO board with serial com's and a couple of AD's. Such is life, still going to do it eventualy, now it will just have multiple processors, so what SX's are very inexpensive I see no problem with it. The 52's I'm gonna hoard though [noparse]:)[/noparse]
Post Edited (ChrisP) : 11/5/2005 1:55:26 PM GMT
the projects you have mastered so far with the SX are - in my opinion - by no means "microscopic". When I started my first SX-based project about six years ago, I had some knowledge about programming PICs, and a wider background in programming various microprocessors in Assembly, and in developing PC applications in different languages. This first SX project was a huge one, covering several different input panels with pushbuttons, LEDs, potentiometers, differential encoders, etc., all of them "talking" via an I²C bus. Once again, I found out that the best way of learning a new environment or technology is to bite through a non-trivial project. At that time, I had nothing else but the SX datasheets, and some SX code samples available for information and reference. So I went through a longer phase of learning by try and error. Fortunately, I had the SX-Key and one of the early versions of the SX-Key IDE.
I often compare my process of learning how to program microcontrollers with the way how I learned to program in Pascal. The first Pascal compiler I owned was UCSD Pascal for the Tandy TRS-80. It required four floppy drives to run this beast without swapping floppies all the time. Nevertheless, it sometimes took minutes to compile a program, just to get another mysterious error message. This was so annoying that I gave up learning Pascal at that time. Later, Borland published Turbo Pascal for the PC, and this worked like charm. The edit-compile-fix-bugs-re-compile-test-run cycle was so fast that it was a lot of fun using this programming environment. To learn Turbo Pascal in more detail, I again started with a non-trivial project - a spell-checker for WordStar text files, including techniques, like text line parsing, maintaining hash file structures, and other "goodies". When I touched base with microcontrollers, I started with PICs. These first types did not have a flash program memory, but UV erasable memory instead. Developing applications for such devices seemed to me pretty similar to my first steps using USCD Pascal. The SX, together with the SX-Key environment brought back to me the "Turbo Pascal feeling" with its fast edit-assemble-fix-errors-debug cycles. This is why I like the SX environment that much.
Another important reason why I like the SX is that it is now handled and supported by the right people at Parallax and because I can share ideas with many others here in the forum. Would have been great if I had these ressources on hand when I took my first steps in programming the SX.
Concerning your PLC-alike projects, you might consider using external components to expand the output capability of the SX instead of using devices with more I/O pins. In some of my projects, I use the TPIC6A565 Power Logic 8-bit Shift Register from TI. This is an 8-bit cascadable shift register with power outputs, each of them capable of switching up to 50V at 350mA with short-circuit protection, built-in output voltage clamps for inductive loads, and over-heat protection. It requires a minimum of 3 SX output pins to control this device (maybe one more to control the /G global enable line). As these devices can be cascaded, almost any required number of power outputs can be realized.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Greetings from Germany,
Günther
·· I meant nothing sarcastic when I spoke about my projects being minor accomplishments to some, surfing through the forums and seeing the complexity and precision of a lot of the SX applications "I" was reffering to what I've done with it so far as minor. The whole point of the post was to try and point out what an exceptional environment this is (forums, support, parallax etc).· To·put understanding of·something as complex as a microcontroler or robot within reach of someone with as little formal education as myself is quite an acomplishment as well as requiring extremely well thought out documentation and excellent support. As far as the IO boards, theyre strictly meant for use in less complex projects that do not require an operator panel so 32 io and a couple of AD's are as far as I really plan on developing them. At this point I have to firm up the two IO boards that are working, and totaly finish and document the bike project. That one still has a couple of timing quirks that I need to sort out in the code and clean it up considerably. Everything I've done so far leans heavily on the brute speed of the SX, its time to start learning some cleaner code [noparse]:)[/noparse]
update on the bike project, it seems to be working well
8.82 seconds @ 161.87 mph as of today its making consistant 8.80 and 8.90 passes on a stock engine. I'll post the full update on the tail of the thread regarding it.
I absolutely agree with you about the exceptional environment. Also congratulations to your bike project - I already read your latest post to that thread.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Greetings from Germany,
G
my english is very bad i prefer give my opinion with two messages one in french community and a message in english.
hello doesn't I do not include/understand why ubicom have to increase the Sx series? why remain with 4K of flash?
it is possible to make a new chip with 60 K of flash with the same instructions, it would simply be enough to re-examine the pagination of the RAM...
freescale has a series 68hc06 very diverse...
a manufacturer who is not able to call itself in question is a bad manufacturer, why the µC IPxxxx no succés? because the development tools are too expensive!!!!
have look at yourself the ARM of Philips? lpcxxx 10$ and complete development tools for nothing
then stop to tell us "conneries" simply UBICOM has programmed the end of the SX...
PS : it is useless to make SXkey with the compiler codes C because the flash is too small
the french text message :
bonjour
je ne comprends pas pourquoi ubicom n'a pas augmenter la série Sx ?
pourquoi restez à 4K de flash ?
il est possible de faire un nouveau chip avec 60 k de flash avec les mêmes instructions, il suffirait simplement de revoir la pagination de la ram...
freescale a une série 68hc06 très diverses...
un fabricant qui n'est pas capable de se remettre en question est un mauvais fabricant
pourquoi les µC IPxxxx n'ont aucun succés ? parce que les outils de developpement sont trop cher !!!!
avez vous regardez les arm de philips ? lpcxx 10 $ le chip et les outils complets de developpement pour rien...
alors arretez de nous raconter des conneries simplement UBICOM a déja programmé la fin des SX...
PS il est inutile de faire un SXkey avec le compilateur code C car la flash est trop petite
For those of us who love the simplicity of getting a small project up and running, somtimes in as little as a few MINUTES with the SX, we are happy to contine with it. We all realize it will not be optimum for all applications, especially larger ones, or for folks who want something different. But for many of us, we are tickled that Parallax has taken over the furtherance of the processor and is now adding C support. I for one am keen to see that product supported with the Parallax satisfaction guarantee.
All things eventually change, and Ubicom has chosen to manufacture a much higher IPXXXX series of processors with phenomenal performance and good flash sizes, and contrary to your suggestion, WITH phenominal success. Unfortunately the start-up costs for the tools are excessive for the hobbyist as their target is high-end commercial applications.
Eventhough you don't like it, please remember their purpose in business life is to maximize the return to their shareholders - period. If their business decisions are not in line with your thinking, then move on to some other processor that suits your needs. There is no need to call them a "bad manufacturer"; I think they have done a phenomenal job, and Parallax is providing an exemplary complementary service........what similar level of free and responsive support can you get elsewhere?
Cheers from Maui, Hawaii,
Peter (pjv)
no no non !!!!
man you are in a smal think ?
scenix is a good manufacturer ubicom is finantial
lattice has made the ISP but lattice is not a number one of CPLD and FPGA
lattice is a very bad manufacturer why ? because lattice is a police and the isplever is a not free
whan you have a licence after reinstall you licence doesn't goog and you take a "contrat".
pjv you said that the SX48 is a good µC with a small flash ? are you serious ?
in 2006 a µC must have a big flash and 4ko is good for end of life !
ubicom need a email and a patriot act and number of shoes and so the number of telephone that your wife and after ?
a good manufacturer is good with :
no questions and no big price of chip and no big price of developpement kit !
sorry you works for ubicom or parallax ?
a man who said that the memory flash is enough in the SX family is strange very strange !
how many chip is sale for the IPxxxx ?
very small number !
for me SX is finish and i think another manufacturer of 8 bits !
good day and best regards !
Maybe YOU cannot do anything useful with 4K words of flash, but alot of people can.
If you want the IPxxxx then spend the money to get it and the development tools.
Bean.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
"SX-Video·Module" Now available from Parallax for only $28.95
http://www.parallax.com/detail.asp?product_id=30012
"SX-Video OSD module" Now available from Parallax for only·$49.95
http://www.parallax.com/detail.asp?product_id=30015
Product web site: www.sxvm.com
Those that would give up freedom for security will have neither.
·
So far you've made two posts: both trash-talking the SX.· If you don't like the SX, that's fine, but please stop wasting forum bandwidth with your opinions in that regard -- the idea here is that we do like to use the SX and in this forum we exchange ideas to get the most from what we think is a nice little micro (of course it's not perfect for everthing, nobody said it was).
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Jon Williams
Applications Engineer, Parallax
maybe this is a bit off topic here, but it just hit me...
Why don't we compile a list of applications/projects done with SXes? This would help "newbies" to understand what can be done with SXes and it also could help to avoid "re-inventing the wheel". This list should only come with a project title, describing the kind of project as good as possible, the SX type used, the developer's name, or forum ID, and possibly a link to another site where the project is described in more detail. Such a list might look like this:
SX-Video Module, SX28, Bean (Hitt Consulting), www.sxvm.com
RS-232/I²C Adapter, SX28, Guenther Daubach, www.g-daubach.com/docs/adapter_doc_english.pdf
SX48 Proto Board, SX48, Parallax, www.parallax.com/detail.asp?product_id=45300
XGameStation Video Game Development Tool, SX52, www.nurve.net/, www.parallax.com/sx/projects/projects_xgamestation.asp
SX Multi Board, SX28, Guenther Daubach, www.parallax.com/sx/projects/projects_sxmultiboard.asp
etc...
If such list is of general interest, I'd volunteer to manage it. In order to make it as complete as possible, I'd need feedback from all forum members who have created SX application, no matter if these are fun projects, or commercial applications. I'm pretty sure that such list will grow quite fast.
Any other ideas on that?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Greetings from Germany,
Günther
Serial InkJet Printer module
Parallax EFX RC-4 module
Parallax EFX DC-16 module
Parallax EFX AP-8 (code by John Barrowman)
These are commercial products and we'll happily share the source code with anyone who thinks they can benefit from it.· For my Nuts & Volts column I have built several BASIC Stamp accessory modules, the latest being a Serial-to-PlayStation Controller interface that I posted here in these forums.
The SX may be a "small" chip, but "big minds" like Guenther, Bean, PJV, PJMonty and others have show that it is quite capable.· Imagine how expensive some of our favorite products would be if a "small mind" decided that a micro like the SX was not appropriate....
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Jon Williams
Applications Engineer, Parallax
Post Edited (Jon Williams (Parallax)) : 11/29/2005 4:16:50 PM GMT