G oog le BadWeB | Login/out | Topics | Search | Custodians | Register | Edit Profile

Buell Forum » XBoard » Archive through June 12, 2012 » Anyone hookup ECM to LabVIEW/Arduino? » Archive through May 13, 2012 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Thepod
Posted on Tuesday, May 01, 2012 - 02:00 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

This is a fascinating project and really gets my engineering brain turned on. Keep it up, I read your entire blog and wish you the best of luck.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Blaylock1988
Posted on Tuesday, May 01, 2012 - 03:09 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Great to hear! I have over 1800 views now, I have no idea where most of the views come from (small percentage come from here and BuellXB.com) I need to add an update with the report results and future plans and all that on the blog soon.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Djohnk
Posted on Tuesday, May 01, 2012 - 07:22 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I hope you received an A in that class. It looks like you went above and beyond with the amount of time and thought you put into the project.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hildstrom
Posted on Thursday, May 03, 2012 - 11:14 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Blaylock1988: Thanks a ton for posting your work on that blog. I came across it while searching Google for DDFI ECM checksum information for my 1125R stator data logger, which is also discussed in this thread. Your discussion of checksum and your Arduino code definitely helped speed my progress. Thank you.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mesozoic
Posted on Friday, May 04, 2012 - 11:22 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Arduino and Atmel 16-bit MCUs are gutless. I would suggest running a Luminary Micro LM3S5732 or equivalent 32-bit MCU for datalogging, ADC, and various other functions. The LM3S5732 also has CAN bus so you can log over CAN which is a lot faster than RS232.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hildstrom
Posted on Friday, May 04, 2012 - 12:28 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Isn't "gutless" a bit subjective? That's a bit like saying my lawnmower engine sucks because Chevy makes the LS7. Those gutless MCUs work great for many applications. That aside, good suggestion on the LM3S5732; that MCU is a whole lot more powerful than the ATmega328 and only 3x the cost. The datasheet link on Digikey says it is a TI chip, but this one says it is Luminary Micro. I wonder who the real designer/manufacturer is and if any nice prototyping boards are available.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mesozoic
Posted on Friday, May 04, 2012 - 01:06 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Gutless ain't so subjective if you're trying to get some high speed datalogging going. Also, since the ECU has CAN bus and the CAN bus is what's used for the digital displays on the 1125 (and any DDFI-3 machine), it makes sense to use it since it actually has a datalogging feature. The data bandwidth is high enough that the Atmel chips run out of juice while operating the RS232 at high rates (57600+) and simultaneously driving an LCD display and reading ADCs. I think it's the interrupts that chew up the processing.

Regardless, the LM chips are roughly $10 from Digikey, Newark, or other similar sources. You can get entire dev boards in many different configurations ranging from $30 to $200 depending on what's on them. The peripheral driver library is one of the best I've ever seen (Stellarisware) and comes with all kinds of handy tools such as optimized ring buffers, LCD drivers, and more.

TI acquired Luminary Micro last year.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Greg_e
Posted on Friday, May 04, 2012 - 02:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

You do realize that the DDFI2 runs on a gutless PIC (8bit???) and only has TTL serial as an interface, right?

Any of the ATMega series would be more than fast enough to handle the job with decent code. The Atmel ARM core processors are all pretty cheap from the typical single unit suppliers, same goes for dsPIC, Cypress, MSP... I seem to recall the choice was made for ease of development from hobby level individuals, and Arduino seems to have a big following and lots of help.

I'm sure once the feature list is finished there is some optimization that can make this all run faster on the current test board. All in all, despite the processor wars, I'm happy to see someone doing this kind of project. This type of thing expands knowledge that all of us can leverage down the road. I'm hoping this will spill over into the DIY EFI area http://www.diyefi.org/
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Reepicheep
Posted on Friday, May 04, 2012 - 03:01 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Off topic, kind of, but I love the little PIC's. Program them in C (which is close enough to assembly to actually control, but much faster to code), and buy them for under $5 each (some under $2). Maybe $8 worth of parts for a fully functional dedicated circuit.

They are underpowered by "computer" standards, but they can replace a few hundred analog components. So as microcontrollers go, they are fantastic!

It's all about what itch you are scratching...

By the way, I did get to play with the DSO Nano scope. Very cool as an automotive / audio analog type tool, especially when you switch to the benf firmware. But only one probe, and it's a bit on the homebrew / fragile side, and the default software looks to be more about capturing waveforms than actually logging long term.

So I'd recommend getting one as a diagnostic tool, but not as a data logger.

http://www.sparkfun.com/products/10244

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mesozoic
Posted on Friday, May 04, 2012 - 04:02 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Ah, DDFI-2... I play with DDFI-3. I don't know what's in the DDFI-3 box, do you, Greg? Also, if you need CAN bus, an Atmel core just won't cut it. There's much nicer chips with integrated CAN controllers within.

The old DDFI-2 PIC MCU is fine for doing what it's doing because it's basically solely performing ADC, GPIO, main processing loop, and then pumping data out the UART and CAN bus (DDFI-3 only). I have no idea what MCU is in the DDFI-3, does anyone?

The Luminary Micro stuff (along with the Renesas RX core) is great for driving an LCD, performing lots of ADC, RS232, and CAN comms simultaneously. It's not to say that you couldn't do this with an 8-bit core, but you have to write a lot more code to make it work and then there's the precision issue as well from the inherent 8-bit registers. Your floating point computation ends up being written in a custom fixed point library. It's just easier with the 32-bit chips out on the market today and cost is very reasonable for dev boards.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Reepicheep
Posted on Friday, May 04, 2012 - 04:44 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Floating point is a crutch for developers without imagination. ; )

(Just kidding. Mostly.)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mesozoic
Posted on Friday, May 04, 2012 - 05:06 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Very funny. It comes down to time. I get paid to develop embedded and platform specific software... these days, we just don't have the budget to allow me to write something in assembly anymore.

My boss boils it down to this sort of question: would I rather spend 2 hours putting together a simple fixed point math library or spend $3 extra and get a processor that comes with an SDK that already has it and allows me to stand my app up in less than 5 minutes?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Reepicheep
Posted on Friday, May 04, 2012 - 05:11 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Agreed! I'm just having fun with the topic... I'm just a hobbyist playing in the garage, pining for the good old days when Men were Men and Computers were wooden. : )

(And actually, I never liked assembly either, C gives me almost the same control but with a lot less effort)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Timebandit
Posted on Friday, May 11, 2012 - 07:03 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I took a look at the Luminary Micro products for CAN logging. Luminary Micro is a TI product now. I wanted the LM4F232 kit, which is the latest and fastest processor.

Unfortunately, choosing the best development board isn't as easy as it sounds. Right now TI is offering the board in four flavors:

http://www.ti.com/tool/ek-lm4f232?DCMP=cortexm4f&H QS=ek-lm4f232

Unfortunately, there aren't any adequate on-line descriptions that accurately disclose what each of these packages offers and how they're different. Looking for documentation on how the CAN feature works? Good luck, there isn't any. It's just a port on the board. To find answers about product differentiation you have to call TI tech support and prod them with questions to get the information that your really need to know. By doing that you'll learn that all of the $150 board + bundled software packages are nothing more than crippleware demos for the software development companies; the SDKs are either: board-locked so that they only work with the development board; code-size limited so that the size of your application cannot be very large; or usage-time limited so that the application suite stops working after either 30 or 90 days.

Your basic choice in buying these products is to determine in which way you're willing to be screwed. Then, once you buy a product you can use it until you hit the wall by running out of demonstration days or code space. When that happens your only option is to buy one of the retail SDKs, which have retail prices in the range of $1400+.

I convinced that these packages are unsuitable for DIY consumer/enthusiast use. They are marketed toward corporate clients that won't blink at spending thousands of dollars on applications development when they get squeezed by the software vendor. That kind of marketing makes the "gutless" open source products look pretty good.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mesozoic
Posted on Friday, May 11, 2012 - 08:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Why would you be looking at a Cortex-M4 at this time anyway? That's the latest Cortex core with built in FPU and all that stuff. Cortex M3 is where you want to be for most applications. A dev board should run somewhere between $40 and $140, depending on the config. I have a LM3S8962 dev board which cost $85 a few years ago. It comes with all the peripheral drivers and the documentation is in the PDFs that come with the software drivers. The CAN bus is really straightforward and easy to work with. Well, as straightforward as embedded development can be, I guess. : )

You can download everything from here: http://www.ti.com/mcu/docs/mcuorphantoolsw.tsp?sectionId=632&orphantabId=8

(Message edited by Mesozoic on May 11, 2012)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Timebandit
Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2012 - 03:07 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Why look at the Cortex M4? That's easy -- I really want built-in single precision float and the faster clock.

I really want to bypass that he-man self-defeating mindset that's prevalent on the TI forum that says that real men don't by FP units -- they use 8-bit integers to perform pseudo floating point math. I can't see the value in putting up with all that tedium when there's FP hardware at my disposal. In addition to getting rid of the tedium of dealing with 8-bit integers, FP hardware also frees me from having to rely on a slow/crappy C-based floating point emulator. If you have interest in floating point, it's hard to find a good reason to go backwards.

What are your reasons for saying that the M3 is better? Display size? Memory?

About those downloads -- aren't they just the same crippleware CDs and DVDs that get packaged with the TI sample boards?


(Message edited by timebandit on May 12, 2012)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nightsky
Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2012 - 03:28 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

The LM4F232 has an 80MHz CPU as opposed to a 50MHz. Floating point is nice on the M4.

The LM3S8962 does have ethernet and a larger display (128x96 vs. 96x64) and more SRAM (64KB vs. 32KB) The LM3S8962 does talk about the CAN more. It's external.

What development SW are you using?
Are the CAN libraries also good on the LM4F232?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Reepicheep
Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2012 - 10:59 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I'm actually with you there Timebandit. On the PIC's, I just avoid using any floating point for the projects I am working on. C on a PIC with integer operations seems to be a really nice sweet spot for a $8 circuit or a $20 dev board. The "free" development environments are nice as well. It has, so far, not been a big deal to just work with integers. The signal starts as a 12 bit integer, I just keep working with it on those terms. Anything else is false precision anyway (and given it's a cheap pic, 2 of those 12 integer bits are probably false already anyway ; ) ).

If I really did need floating point, then it would be nice to have a board with a FP processor. I think I still have one from an old 80286 desktop laying around... that thing made that machine FLY! : )
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mesozoic
Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2012 - 12:35 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

The Cortex M3 chips are 32-bit, so they do support floating point. They don't have a built in FPU, but the software supported floating point is more than adequate. You can use floats directly in your code. As long as the machine is 32-bit, it doesn't need to have a hardware FPU. A barrel shifter is useful for floating point speedup as well, but shy of a being a full on hardware FPU. The M3 is a cost effective solution used widely throughout the embedded industry right now... the ARM Cortex architecture is manufactured by almost every MCU manufacturer out there today including NXP, Samsung, TI, Freescale, Renesas, etc.

The downloads include comprehensive drivers, projects to build driver libraries, utilities, and excellent documentation. Lots of very useful examples, there's no crippleware in there. You have your choice of compilers, including IAR, Code Red, and several more. Download one of the software peripheral library downloads and have a gander at the documentation. It's good. There's a reason why TI decided to buy out Luminary Micro!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nightsky
Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2012 - 02:31 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I had just ordered the LM4F232 with the TI Code Composer SW. Hopefully that platform will have enough SW support.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nightsky
Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2012 - 03:59 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I don't understand how SW support for the LM3S8962 can be uncrippled when TI says it is. Either they are memory limited, or time out after a month or two.

http://www.ti.com/tool/ek-lm3s8962#descriptionArea
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Foximus
Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2012 - 04:31 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I just change my jets when I need....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Greg_e
Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2012 - 04:44 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

This is starting to read like a "What's the best oil?" thread.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Timebandit
Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2012 - 05:50 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I downloaded the TI CDs/DVDs last night. They do look like crippleware, just like the linked TI description says they are. According to TI, if you want the full, unrestricted products you have to buy them separately. Bring $$$. Or am I missing something? Perhaps the older Luminary Micro boards aren't encumbered by the software limitations that are present on the current production TI products. It certainly seems that everything that TI is making available now is bundled with crippleware, regardless of which generation you choose. Perhaps that's an artifact of the TI marketing plan that became effective with the buyout. It's very difficult to sort through exactly what you're talking about -- are you saying that the current crop of TI marketed crippleware acts as crippleware with the current production TI products, but not with the older LM boards? If so, that's great for people who have the old boards, but it doesn't help anyone who needs to buy something new, as the new products are all crippled in one way or another.

As fas as floating point goes, this is the 21st Century -- I have trouble understanding why anyone would bother jumping through software hoops to try to speed up FP math on non-FP cores if you're designing from a clean slate. Doing that takes up code space and execution time, and FP cores are readily available at low cost. If you're starting off from a clean slate, it makes sense to pick a processor that's most suited for the task at hand, rather than having to resort to software tricks to make the wrong processor work right. Of course, if you're not starting from a clean slate, you have to work with what you've got. For me, I'm starting with a clean slate, and I can't see the value in buying old hardware that requires me to employ nostaligic software trickery in order to optimize perf.

(Message edited by timebandit on May 13, 2012)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mesozoic
Posted on Sunday, May 13, 2012 - 02:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

As a professional embedded systems developer, I can assure you that the speed of 32-bit non-hardware FPU processing is more than adequate for most applications. I'm running a high data rate tracker controlled by an M3 at 50Mhz and it works great. We're talking a difference of 250 cycles to perform a division vs. 20 cycles on a hardware FPU. If you're planning to run some serious math, like an FFT at 100Hz or several computationally intensive operations, a processor with an FPU will be useful. In my experience however, hardware FPUs are utilized in autopilot systems, handheld devices that encode/decode video, etc. Just keep in mind that the M3 does floating point very well without a hardware FPU.

I think Code Red as provided by TI is limited to 32K binaries. That's still pretty large. Yes, if you want to utilize the full SRAM range you might need to buy a compiler.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Timebandit
Posted on Sunday, May 13, 2012 - 03:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

FFT, complex number division, and inverse FFT are computationally intensive enough to make an FPU worthwhile.

FYI Code Red no longer limits compiler functionality by code size; they now limit to a 60 day evaluation period. (Read Nighsky's link.) That really changes the landscape.

Thanks for your insights. It always helps to get feedback from someone who has hand-on experience with the hardware.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nightsky
Posted on Sunday, May 13, 2012 - 07:43 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

These displays are small.
What external displays are you using?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mesozoic
Posted on Sunday, May 13, 2012 - 09:21 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

As far as Code Red goes, it's based on the Eclipse UI, which is kind of a pain to work with. Beware that Code Sourcery is also based on the Eclipse UI. I am really not a fan of it at ALL. Personally, I like using the IAR Embedded Workbench stuff, but it's $$$. Last I checked, you could download the Keil and Crossworks compilers and they are much more affordable options for enthusiast and personal project dev. You can also download the IAR Embedded Workbench compiler for eval and it's fully functional, but only for a few months or something. A good compiler is unfortunately expensive... which is why the GNU compiler exists. I'm sure that with some Googling and research online you can find a way to build unrestricted binaries with it. In practice, I use my licensed copy of Visual Studio 2010 to invoke the compiler for IAR. You could do the same thing with the GNU compiler - resulting in a great IDE to work with and a compiler that actually works too.

Nightsky, regarding displays, I would look at Sparkfun.com for some other display options to work with for a personal project. I'm sure there's other sites like robotshop.ca as well.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Greg_e
Posted on Sunday, May 13, 2012 - 10:19 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

And all this talk of buying an IDE is why Arduino and AVR are so popular... They both have a decent free IDE, same goes for Cypress (not sure about PIC but probably). Yes there are for pay systems for each, but you can do really high level work with the free no limits systems.

The insistence on using a high function processor that requires a paid development environment is fine for a commercial venture, but this thread is talking about a hobby level device designed by an enthusiast. In short this has really gone way too far off the path that the original poster started down. If he really needs more power, there is supposed to be an ARM based Arduino coming sometime soon.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Timebandit
Posted on Sunday, May 13, 2012 - 10:59 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

It doesn't bother me that we're going beyond the scope of what the original poster had considered -- that's how advancements are made. Right now I'm working on solving a heat transfer problem that's responsible for stator failures in the 1125, and that's a computationally intensive problem to solve. The simple truth is that the "gutless" open source IDEs just don't have the computational power to solve the problem.

What counts as "high level work" is in the eye of the beholder. To some people it's logging data to Excel, to other's it's performing deconvolution and solving heat equations. I don't think it's fair to assume that just because someone is a hobbyist/enthusiast and is talking about DSP on this forum, that their DSP needs/objectives are going to be simplistic. I'm an enthusiast, I'm doing this for fun, but then I'm also someone who has experience in professional DSP development and solving complex mathematical problems.

As great as the Arduino stuff is, the truth is that it's a low-bandwidth device that's just not capable of performing computationally intensive tasks. Sure, if you just want to log some parameters into Excel and perform a few basic computations it will work just fine. But try to do any real engineering math with it and you're going to get nowhere fast. As great as the free IDE may be, it's just not going to cut the mustard when it comes to solving heat equations, autocorrelation or deconvolving transfer functions. The 16-MHz arduino may be fine for general hobbyist work, but as far as mathematical processing goes, it really is gutless. I just can't imagine trying to solve a heat equation using a 16-MHz Arduino processor. If you want to perform anything that's computationally intensive, you really do need something better. Unfortunately, there's a huge chasm between the cheap, DIY, obsolete hobbyist grade hardware/IDE and the commercial offerings. This is probably due to the fact that most of the development work on the Arduino platform has already abated, and the platform is coasting into obsolescence. It doesn't look like the platform has been keeping pace with the commercial offerings, and the gap between them is growing rather than shrinking. It's a shame that such a wide gap exists, but I think the reason that this has happened is because the guys who worked on the Arduino have probably moved on to something else and the project has stagnated. Unfortunately it doesn't look like there's much available in the middle ground.

The net result is that anyone interested in using the professional quality tools in a project that's being performed on an enthusiast's DIY budget is going to end up being forced to roll some of their own tools, just as Mesozoic has alluded to. If you're going to put a lot of effort into generating an open source solution, it seems better to do it with state of the art hardware instead of obsolete hardware. Developing for obsolete hardware is a futile effort.

Agreed, the on-board postage stamp display isn't usable as a user interface. The alphanumeric USB displays look promising.
« Previous Next »

Topics | Last Day | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Rules | Program Credits Administration