quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
I just didn't know if it would plug in with the satellite rx.

---

If you could do that and incorporate the gyro that Steve linked, I would be very interested.

Is there a way to increase the current handling of the Baby O to handle 4 Pololu HPs?
_________________
So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems

what are the IC's on the RX?
_________________
Mechanical engineers build weapons, civil engineers build targets

I thought about possibly soldering another motor controller chip on top of the existing one on the B328. This is the same method as the Scorpion XXL's.
_________________
https://www.halfdonethings.com/

If you want to run 4HP I would probably suggest either running 2 B-328 or a bigger motor controller rather than modifying it. I may include the gyro but that is not a high priority atm.

Steve
_________________
Steven Martin
Twisted Constructions
http://www.botbitz.com

I guess Froggy and Aussie should also be included in this thread. I have just placed a HK order for 2 x Brushless motor/ESCs and 2 x Sets of Pololu Drives and B-328s.

So we may have a few more spinning weapons next time. I am currently trying to program the B-328 and drive the motors for Splinter .

So I am currently very pissed off at the Arduino environment. Its just giving me the shits. The code which I got for the satellite receiver isn't working. I have got it to compile and I now have serial debug messages but I can't get the receiver to enter bind mode. Will try again a bit tonight.

So we should have 4 Antweights up and running in the next few weeks hopefully.

Steve
_________________
Steven Martin
Twisted Constructions
http://www.botbitz.com

Arduino does the same to me but can see why so many people like it.
I would prefer C code if you do it and publish it but then again i might be able to hack apart the arduino code to work it with C.
_________________
Remember to trust me, I am an Engineer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp8hvyjZWHs

My plan is to write in C now. Libraries can be compiled and used with arduino. It make a lot of things easier if you don't understand how they work but I just find myself wanting to know how it does things and trying to program non standard hardware is a bitch.
_________________
Steven Martin
Twisted Constructions
http://www.botbitz.com

Interesting, what is it about the Arduino environment that you dont like ?

I had a bit of a skirmish with Sean at last Robowars over it

It seems to me that a lot of people who have learnt the "traditional" way of doing things dont like it because it makes things "too easy" - thus invalidating their effort to learn the hard/real way. I have seen exactly the same attitude from old Vinyl DJ's who dont like the modern digital-DJ programs that can automatically handle the beat/key mixing functions for you.. "But *I* had to learn how to do it the *hard* way, why should *you* get it easily done for you ??"

[old codger voice] I started off writing in raw assembly code back in the Z80/6502/6809 days, probably before you youngin's had heard of electricity We had to be able to recite the 7400ttl databook off the top of our heads *backwards*.
[/old codger]

Arduino looks to me just like a well-setup Macro-Assembler with a bunch of scripts and libraries pre-rolled for you would look.

Its a toolchain that any experienced coder would work towards creating for themselves naturally if given time to focus on building their tools and not just the end product.

So someone has taken their well-delevoped toolchain for a popular micro (AVR), made it free and open-source and N00b friendly and specified a standardised piece of hardware and software so other can make add-on bits for it easily.

So whats the reason for all the hating on it by "I'm a *serious* coder - Arduino sucks" types ? I can write raw *machine-code* in Hex if I really want to, just like I could build a functioning 8 bit computer out of the 7400-TTL series chips, but why would you bother ?

If you want to hack the raw C, go ahead, its there in the function libraries, the GCC compiler is only 1 or 2 layers down from the GUI. The only things I dont like about it is the inbuilt editor is a bit simplistic (so I link to an external - Ultra-Edit, or you could link it to your favourite IDE). and the lack of an Emulator/Debugger to go with it.

If you want to pull rank, I'll unearth and dust of my old Tafe 6809e PCB with the Hex Keypad, 7-Seg LCD's, find the wind-up key for it, and let see you "real coders" hand punch in a hex boot loader to read the serial port and teach you what "bootstrap" really means

So seriously, whats the objection ?
_________________
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people

my problem with it is it does not suit my programing style. I will go out of my way to rewrite most functions rather then using someone elses its just the inefficient way i code..
+ it is all about the environment you are use to.
It hides a fair bit of the back of house stuff that can be useful to know for advanced applications. It is the reason why most places teach assembly first.

PINOUTS for instance do not match the standard datasheets that means on chips i am use to it is just extra effort and i find quite strange the lack of standardizing although if i had to guess its due to bitwise operations that can be a bit of a pain on C. hay i think i found an advantage.

I can see potential issues with using some Adrino library for business applications and without the libarys it looses everything of value

Last i checked they could not run on the newer chips like the XMEGA this again limits applications to a small array of approved chips. If coding with appropriate initiations transferring between a large number of C compatible chips can be down without massive rewrites.

we even had to do a little bit of coding in machine code i pitty anyone who was around during that time as the only real option.

Another clear advantage of C is the AVR are not the only microprocessor in the world. A lot of places use PIC. Most PIC's can handle C code and make switching between easer.

More still a lot of places program in assembly due to the cheepness of the chips. Starting with an assembly knowledge for another micro will be beneficial.

Each to there own. maybe if i had a spare week to dedicate to it then i could see the advantages but ATM C is just a quicker way for me to do stuff and have yet to see a persuasive enough reason to spend the needed time learning everything about aduno


edit. this is not well structured sorry about that doing 2 things at once

@ steve. bring on the assembly . at least the AVR has an assembly that makes sense so people will pick it up without as much effort as with some old assemblies eg hc11
_________________
Remember to trust me, I am an Engineer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp8hvyjZWHs

Last edited by seanet1310 on Wed Jun 30, 2010 11:25 am; edited 2 times in total

******it begins*******

Haha there is nothing wrong with it, some people absolutely love it. I guess 90% of my hating on it comes from me trying to make it work with the Baby Orangutan.

Currently I have wasted ~5hrs trying to get it to work with my STK500 and usb-serial converter in Mac. (So this may be flawed to start with) My current ritual to program it is as follows.

- go to working directory
- go to append directory
- rm -r * (remove all current build files)
- cd .. (apparenlty Mac doesnt show the files unless you leave and re-enter directory nfi why)
- Go to arduino wait for it to compile
- upload wait for avr-dude programmer to throw errors in Arduino environment even though it is setup exactly the same as my usual avrdude commands
- replug usb-ser converter as Avrdude under Arduino doesn't release it properly
- back to terminal and cd append
- run avrdude to program
- repeat from step 3

Ok so this may be because it isn't setup properly but it is enough to really give me the shits with not having complete control over how the building and programming works.

Compare this to my nice AVR GCC toolchain setup where to build and program i follow these steps
- "make"

So there is 90% of my issues with it. The other 10% is just stupid things like why the hell can't you follow the standard pin number system as used in every other atmel product PC7 = random number why??? I know its a bit more complex but its written on every data sheet there is.

Also is there really any difference between Arduino and C besides the nice libraries and interface they have? The only thing I really see is that there is a setup and loop function instead of main......

I don't have anything against arduino but I really just don't see the point, myself.

You better watch out Brett if we continue this much longer I will write it in assembly just to prove a point, then we will see how the noobs go with that. Although I may lose whats left of my hair and it will take 10x as long .....
_________________
Steven Martin
Twisted Constructions
http://www.botbitz.com

Maaaate.. Assembly ? Let me tell YOU about Assembly !

One job I had, I had to write the code for a "terminal" (fancy Keypad) for an Alarm System (Concept 3000).

I spent a *month* (full time) hand-coding the assembly to run the keypad, LCD and some Auxillary outputs, because it *also* had to run a bit-basher serial protocol in the background for the "lan" communications that used a custom *variable-speed* priority-slot collision-avoidance/detection/retry mechanism with a DHCP-like address assignment system so you could just plug up to 200 terminals in and they would just "work" communicating with the master over a two-wire interface.

The cheap-asses gave me a wimpy slow Z8 Micro with no UART in it, because they expected sales volumes of 1,000-10,000 per month and the chip with the UART was a whole $dollar or two more expensive than the uart-less version. So as the boss said "I dont care if it takes you 3 months to get it going, we'll still save money paying your wages and doing it this way than buying the more expensive chip"

So here I am writing and re-writing execution loops and looking up the bloody cycle-count times for different instructions and writing code that looks like a dogs breakfast using either the most basic, or weird-ass instructions becuase "I can save 3 microseconds in my keyboard scan routine using these intructions, which will let me get back to the interrupt routine to scan the next bit-basher bit in time ! woohoo.. oh bugger, run out of code space, wont compile, hmm, how can I keep the simpler codes speed advantage and still shrink the code ? I know, I'll use a lookup table and make use of that huge 42 bytes of unused data space Ive got ! and son and so on.."

Nearly drove me batty after 9 months of that sort of stuff, but it did give my assembly coding skills a serious workout and polish up which have sadly rusted up again in the intervening years - the usual story, if you dont use it, you lose it. But thats alright, nobody pays genius assembly coders any decent money anyway..

[/soapbox off]

So dont talk to *me* about assembly sonny !
(man I still feel like an old codger with all these "back in my day" anecdotes" ! )

Just a guess, but have you tried a different USB-Serial convertor ? They are the absolute biggest Pieces.O.S. Ive ever met.. no two work the same.. I have had heaps of trouble with Fuel Injection/Ignition/PicAxe/Anything that uses them working with Model A, but not with Model B. Took me ages to find one that a fussy Fuel Injection computer would talk via.

I have two different ones here for PicAxes, both work, but one programs *slowly* but reliably, The little progress bar goes across the screen in about 10 seconds. The other one programs in about 3 seconds, but fails about 1 out of 10 programs. I'm guessing its the lack of handshaking, but why one runs 3x faster than the other when they are both at the same baud rate is beyond me.

I would reccomend using a USB/Serial convertor based on the FTDI chipset, and preferably one that is known to work well for Arduino applications ( http://www.adafruit.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=19&products_id=70 ) for example.

Not saying thats definitely it, but they sure can screw you around if you have a weird one and more of them are weird than are good in my experience.
_________________
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people

Lol I figured you were well versed in assembly. That sounds like the type of bit-banging story which would result in banging you head against the keyboard until bits fly off.

I have to say I do enjoy the challenge of writing assembly but in a practical hobby sense it is very pointless.

I have 3 usb-serial converters. 2 cheap brands fail completely in Mac the expensive one $65 or something like that is the only one which work. I don't think its to do with the USB-serial because it works fine with AVR dude. Might just have to get off my laptop and venture out into cold living area with my main computer that has a real serial port. Or even worse reinstall windows. (Will definitely try ubuntu first)

I have been way too spoilt with my teensy chip. Plug in usb download their software. Program. Works first time everytime. http://www.pjrc.com/teensy/

Too bad it doesn't have a motor controller.
_________________
Steven Martin
Twisted Constructions
http://www.botbitz.com

usb>serial is a bad idea for programming with generally, or anything with timing critical parts.

If you are going to use bare avr with C take a look at LUFA, you get a full USB stack out of the box, no serial conversion crud.
also the USB AVR's come with a usb bootloader pre-programmed, hold HWB low then do a reset and your in usb programming mode, the device ID's itself, you run the programming software from atmel and your done.

oh the LUFA guy hangs out on #avr on freenode
_________________
Mechanical engineers build weapons, civil engineers build targets

Yep I have been looking at the USB AVRs for ages now but I am pretty sure they are all SMD which is why I went with the Teensy. Non-Standard bootloader but I can deal with that. The software is actually pretty good, there is a reset/program button on the board which you just press. If you setup the software to autodownload you just compile ur program and everytime you press the program button it just automatically downloads the hex file and reboots.

I looked at LUFA a while back but might be a little bit of overkill as once I get it working it will be a one time programming type thing.
_________________
Steven Martin
Twisted Constructions
http://www.botbitz.com