>
> > If you are using an older chip (< C.1.1) then use V5. If you have
> > the newest chip, you have a problem. Perhaps someone else can get it
> > to work.
>
> I am getting to the point where I am wondering if it is worth it to
> keep going with the OOPic.
Don't take my test of V6 and oStepper as the gospel. I tried it and
it didn't work immediately. I gave up and tried V5. Since I have
only B.2.2+ there no reason for me to bother with V6. And I haven't...
It is likely that someone else can get this to work. It's just that I
have a short attention span - kind of like a 3d grader in that regard.
If it doesn't work, I take a different approach.
I really believe the Stamp is a better developed platform and there is
no question that the documentation is orders of magnitude better. But
there are issues: the servo pulses are not continuous and don't run in
the background. Same with PWM. The chip has to take a very bizarre
approach to doing analog input. Given a few moments, I could come up
with a long list of warts. But the warts are documented and working
examples are given.
With both devices there is a tradeoff between ease of programming and
sophistication of operation. There is nothing either of these devices
can do that can't be done a lot better with the same underlying chip
and 100 times as much programming effort.
As I mentioned much earlier in your posts, there is no motivation for
moving to C.1.1 or V6. It is much better to search around for B.2.2+
chips (www.junun.org?) and work with V5.
In terms of breadboarding an idea, nothing beats the OOPic. Whether
it sees the light of day in the final design is another issue. I have
3 or 4 OOPics (2 in Mark III controllers) and I play with them when I
want something down and dirty. When I want it to work, I move to the
ATmega128 or one of the ARM7 devices. But this isn't feasible for
your classes.
In my view, all of these controllers would be outgunned with one of
the high end Z80 clones running an enhanced version of Palo Alto Tiny
Basic. A few functions need to be written to interface with the
hardware gadgets and the rest of the programming is just like
timeshare Basic. It would be blistering fast (50 MHz, 1 clock per
simple instruction), interpreted and able to handle all of the IO
gadgets. Unfortunately, I am not motivated enough to do the work. I
did get PATB running on an EZ80F91 board but then moved on to
implement CP/M 2.2. CP/M would be an even better platform!
In the end, I just use the OOPic within its' limitations and am quite
happy with B.2.2+ and V5.
Richard
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oopic/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oopic/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:oopic-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:oopic-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
oopic-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
No comments:
Post a Comment