In comp.arch.embedded,
Stef <stef33d@yahooI-N-V-A-L-I-D.com.invalid> wrote:
> For a demo project we want to use a webserver interface to some simple
> hardware. The initial demo will be 3 devices and after that a very small
> annular volume. For that reason we don't want to invest too much in
> hardware/software development and are searching for an off the shelf
> product. I thought I would find that in a minute, but so far I have
> been unsuccessfull. What we would like:

Thank you all for your input. Most of the suggested boards require too
much work on the software and I/O interfaceing for such a low volume
project. I have stored the options for when the volume of this, or
another, project exceeds the expectations.

We have decided to go with the fdm88, which I stumbled upon during this
search. The most obvious downside right now is the ladder programming.
But this is such a small control program that I think I can manage. And
if not, we have people in the company who are much more familiar with
ladder programming who can help or just do the 'entire' software.

-- 
Stef    (remove caps, dashes and .invalid from e-mail address to reply by mail)

How can you think and hit at the same time?
		-- Yogi Berra

On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 10:42:23 AM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 7:55:53 AM UTC-7, hamilton wrote:
> > On 7/11/2012 7:36 AM, Stef wrote:
> > > In comp.arch.embedded,
> > > hamilton <hamilton@nothere.com> wrote:
> > >> On 7/10/2012 4:41 PM, Stef wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Then I found this one: http://www.tri-plc.com/fmd88-10.htm
> > >>> looks like it has all I require and the price is also not bad, $ 229,- on
> > >>> the US webshop. I will call a nearby distributor in the morning to check
> > >>> availability, usability and price overhere.
> > >>>
> > >>> Anyone experience with this one (or with the brand)? Or other suggestions
> > >>> of similar boards?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> Yes, I have one of these board in the garage.
> > >> That's why I suggested: http://www.sparkfun.com/products/7830
> > >>
> > >> The fmd88 is very powerful, but ladder logic just does not make sense to me.
> > >
> > > Ladder programming is not my favorite either, but i think I can manage for
> > > the very small amount that is required for this project. But apart from
> > > that, is the board any good? Webserver, file upload, etc.
> > 
> > Never got that far.
> > 
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Programming C on MPLAB was much easier.
> > >
> > > My experience with C on PIC is very old (15 jears?) and vary bad. After
> > > a few tests we reverted to asm. Since those days we have not used PIC in
> > > many projects, the AVR and ARM where in our opinion much easier to work
> > > with.
> > 
> > Yes, I agree 15 jears ;-) is a long time.
> > 
> > >
> > > Have things improved a lot since then? I should think so.
> > > Maybe we should have another go at PIC when we have a suitable project.
> > > How is the compiler these days? When we tried it, I think microchip was
> > > the only one selling a compiler. And at a price I can not justify for
> > > this 3-piece project when I can buy ready hardware+software for just
> > > a little bit more per board.
> > >
> > 
> > The PIC18 family is so much better and was designed to be C compatible.
> > Also, a PIC18 compiler is free with Microchips IDE.
> > 
> > I have developed 10 PIC18 boards in the past 4 years.
> > 
> > I have only experimented with the PIC18 w/ethernet, but I will be added 
> > yet another product to the mix soon.
> > 
> > Microchip products have come a long way from the PIC16C series of 10+ 
> > years ago.
> > 
> > If you have time enough to learn ladder logic, you will be able to 
> > pickup PIC18 very easily.
> > 
> > hamilton
> 
> Just skip PIC16 and PIC18.  PIC24 is OK.  PIC32 is better.  PIC32 C is GCC based, no porting problem.  PICKIT 3 will program any PIC32 chip.  TCP/IP stack is available from Microchip library.

The new PIC32MX250F128 seems cool.  It is smaller (44 pins vs. 64 pins) and with remapped I/Os (similar to PIC24).  The remapped I/Os are missing in previous generations of PIC32.  We will be switching to this chip in a new design.
 

On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 7:55:53 AM UTC-7, hamilton wrote:
> On 7/11/2012 7:36 AM, Stef wrote:
> > In comp.arch.embedded,
> > hamilton <hamilton@nothere.com> wrote:
> >> On 7/10/2012 4:41 PM, Stef wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Then I found this one: http://www.tri-plc.com/fmd88-10.htm
> >>> looks like it has all I require and the price is also not bad, $ 229,- on
> >>> the US webshop. I will call a nearby distributor in the morning to check
> >>> availability, usability and price overhere.
> >>>
> >>> Anyone experience with this one (or with the brand)? Or other suggestions
> >>> of similar boards?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Yes, I have one of these board in the garage.
> >> That's why I suggested: http://www.sparkfun.com/products/7830
> >>
> >> The fmd88 is very powerful, but ladder logic just does not make sense to me.
> >
> > Ladder programming is not my favorite either, but i think I can manage for
> > the very small amount that is required for this project. But apart from
> > that, is the board any good? Webserver, file upload, etc.
> 
> Never got that far.
> 
> >
> >>
> >> Programming C on MPLAB was much easier.
> >
> > My experience with C on PIC is very old (15 jears?) and vary bad. After
> > a few tests we reverted to asm. Since those days we have not used PIC in
> > many projects, the AVR and ARM where in our opinion much easier to work
> > with.
> 
> Yes, I agree 15 jears ;-) is a long time.
> 
> >
> > Have things improved a lot since then? I should think so.
> > Maybe we should have another go at PIC when we have a suitable project.
> > How is the compiler these days? When we tried it, I think microchip was
> > the only one selling a compiler. And at a price I can not justify for
> > this 3-piece project when I can buy ready hardware+software for just
> > a little bit more per board.
> >
> 
> The PIC18 family is so much better and was designed to be C compatible.
> Also, a PIC18 compiler is free with Microchips IDE.
> 
> I have developed 10 PIC18 boards in the past 4 years.
> 
> I have only experimented with the PIC18 w/ethernet, but I will be added 
> yet another product to the mix soon.
> 
> Microchip products have come a long way from the PIC16C series of 10+ 
> years ago.
> 
> If you have time enough to learn ladder logic, you will be able to 
> pickup PIC18 very easily.
> 
> hamilton

Just skip PIC16 and PIC18.  PIC24 is OK.  PIC32 is better.  PIC32 C is GCC based, no porting problem.  PICKIT 3 will program any PIC32 chip.  TCP/IP stack is available from Microchip library.

Stef wrote:

> My experience with C on PIC is very old (15 jears?) and vary bad. After
> a few tests we reverted to asm. Since those days we have not used PIC in
> many projects, the AVR and ARM where in our opinion much easier to work
> with.

A few years ago some colleagues of mine were programming PICs using the C2C 
compiler; that compiler was actually very bizarre, but they got working 
results.  Since then SourceBoost have gone on to make a real C compiler.  
Price was a strong concern at that site, so they're still using SourceBoost.  
ISTR the only obvious discrepancy from the standard was that sizeof was 
treated as a function rather than an operator, so () were mandatory.

	Mel.

On 7/11/2012 7:36 AM, Stef wrote:
> In comp.arch.embedded,
> hamilton <hamilton@nothere.com> wrote:
>> On 7/10/2012 4:41 PM, Stef wrote:
>>>
>>> Then I found this one: http://www.tri-plc.com/fmd88-10.htm
>>> looks like it has all I require and the price is also not bad, $ 229,- on
>>> the US webshop. I will call a nearby distributor in the morning to check
>>> availability, usability and price overhere.
>>>
>>> Anyone experience with this one (or with the brand)? Or other suggestions
>>> of similar boards?
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, I have one of these board in the garage.
>> That's why I suggested: http://www.sparkfun.com/products/7830
>>
>> The fmd88 is very powerful, but ladder logic just does not make sense to me.
>
> Ladder programming is not my favorite either, but i think I can manage for
> the very small amount that is required for this project. But apart from
> that, is the board any good? Webserver, file upload, etc.

Never got that far.

>
>>
>> Programming C on MPLAB was much easier.
>
> My experience with C on PIC is very old (15 jears?) and vary bad. After
> a few tests we reverted to asm. Since those days we have not used PIC in
> many projects, the AVR and ARM where in our opinion much easier to work
> with.

Yes, I agree 15 jears ;-) is a long time.

>
> Have things improved a lot since then? I should think so.
> Maybe we should have another go at PIC when we have a suitable project.
> How is the compiler these days? When we tried it, I think microchip was
> the only one selling a compiler. And at a price I can not justify for
> this 3-piece project when I can buy ready hardware+software for just
> a little bit more per board.
>

The PIC18 family is so much better and was designed to be C compatible.
Also, a PIC18 compiler is free with Microchips IDE.

I have developed 10 PIC18 boards in the past 4 years.

I have only experimented with the PIC18 w/ethernet, but I will be added 
yet another product to the mix soon.

Microchip products have come a long way from the PIC16C series of 10+ 
years ago.

If you have time enough to learn ladder logic, you will be able to 
pickup PIC18 very easily.

hamilton

On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 8:15:38 AM UTC-5, Stef wrote:
> For a demo project we want to use a webserver interface to some simple
> hardware. The initial demo will be 3 devices and after that a very small
> annular volume. For that reason we don't want to invest too much in
> hardware/software development and are searching for an off the shelf
> product. I thought I would find that in a minute, but so far I have
> been unsuccessfull. What we would like:
> 
> - Module or board (will be built in control box)
> - Ethernet (10/100)
> - 2 analog inputs
> - 2 analog outputs (or PWM)
> - 2 digital inputs
> - 2 digital outputs
> - Stepper motor control, but this can be with external hardware
>   and 'step' output only. Limited frequency and accuracy
> - Webserver with a few static web pages for reading/writing values
> - Upload of pages
> - Run a simple "control loop" (example: Aout = Ain * m + b)
> - Control the stepper motor step frequency
> - Configurable fixed ip address
>   Can be like on routers: reset to default and config via web
>   But other methods welcomed as well
> - Web pages, control software and configuration stored stored in
>   NV memory
> 
> Anyone know anything that will fulfill (most of) the above?
> 
> -- 
> Stef    (remove caps, dashes and .invalid from e-mail address to reply by mail)
> 
> Minors in Kansas City, Missouri, are not allowed to purchase cap pistols;
> they may buy shotguns freely, however.



Dunno about the analog, but WinSystems may have a product that gets close - and maybe romdos with Sockets or even a linux package would get you close to your software solution.

They just celebrated 30 years in the embedded biz. dig around at; http://www.winsystems.com/index.cfm

In comp.arch.embedded,
hamilton <hamilton@nothere.com> wrote:
> On 7/10/2012 4:41 PM, Stef wrote:
>>
>> Then I found this one: http://www.tri-plc.com/fmd88-10.htm
>> looks like it has all I require and the price is also not bad, $ 229,- on
>> the US webshop. I will call a nearby distributor in the morning to check
>> availability, usability and price overhere.
>>
>> Anyone experience with this one (or with the brand)? Or other suggestions
>> of similar boards?
>>
>>
> Yes, I have one of these board in the garage.
> That's why I suggested: http://www.sparkfun.com/products/7830
>
> The fmd88 is very powerful, but ladder logic just does not make sense to me.

Ladder programming is not my favorite either, but i think I can manage for
the very small amount that is required for this project. But apart from
that, is the board any good? Webserver, file upload, etc.

>
> Programming C on MPLAB was much easier.

My experience with C on PIC is very old (15 jears?) and vary bad. After
a few tests we reverted to asm. Since those days we have not used PIC in
many projects, the AVR and ARM where in our opinion much easier to work
with.

Have things improved a lot since then? I should think so.
Maybe we should have another go at PIC when we have a suitable project.
How is the compiler these days? When we tried it, I think microchip was
the only one selling a compiler. And at a price I can not justify for
this 3-piece project when I can buy ready hardware+software for just
a little bit more per board.

-- 
Stef    (remove caps, dashes and .invalid from e-mail address to reply by mail)

If you suspect a man, don't employ him.

Stef <stef33d@yahooI-N-V-A-L-I-D.com.invalid> wrote:

> >> Anyone know anything that will fulfill (most of) the above?
> >
> > For example a Freescale Coldfire v2 (MCF5223X) demo board should do the
> > trick.
> 
> Yes, there are a lot of devboards out there with the required hardware.
> But the trick is finding one with software that can be used without, or
> with little, modification and that allows a user/installer/our customer
> to change the IP adress without a compiler or other 'complicated' tools.

then get an Arduino Ethernet
(http://arduino.cc/en/Main/ArduinoMotorShieldR3) + an Arduino Motor
(http://arduino.cc/en/Main/ArduinoMotorShieldR3).

I'm sure there is plenty of (almost) ready to use software out there ;)

Bye Jack
-- 
Yoda of Borg am I! Assimilated shall you be! Futile resistance is, hmm?

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:12:02 +0200, Stef
<stef33d@yahooI-N-V-A-L-I-D.com.invalid> wrote:

>> With the exception of the stepper control software, I think that
>> everything you need is available here:
>>   http://www.mpeforth.com/pb2468.htm
>
>Looks like this board has most of the hardware we require. But how about
>the software? Ideally there should be ready to run software to which
>I can add some small control functions and supply the html for the web
>pages. The 'ready' software should at least cover TCP/IP (including a
>means of setting op de IP adress and related stuff) and a webserver.

The standard fit demo software includes a multi-threaded web
server. You put the pages on an SD card. You can configure
the TCP/IP stack to use a static IP address or get one by
DHCP.

Perhaps we should now take this off-line.

Stephen

-- 
Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691
web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads

Stef wrote:

> For a demo project we want to use a webserver interface to some simple
> hardware. The initial demo will be 3 devices and after that a very small
> annular volume. For that reason we don't want to invest too much in
> hardware/software development and are searching for an off the shelf
> product. I thought I would find that in a minute, but so far I have
> been unsuccessfull. What we would like:
> 
> - Module or board (will be built in control box)
> - Ethernet (10/100)
> - 2 analog inputs
> - 2 analog outputs (or PWM)
> - 2 digital inputs
> - 2 digital outputs
> - Stepper motor control, but this can be with external hardware
>   and 'step' output only. Limited frequency and accuracy
> - Webserver with a few static web pages for reading/writing values
> - Upload of pages
> - Run a simple "control loop" (example: Aout = Ain * m + b)
> - Control the stepper motor step frequency
> - Configurable fixed ip address
>   Can be like on routers: reset to default and config via web
>   But other methods welcomed as well
> - Web pages, control software and configuration stored stored in
>   NV memory
> 
> Anyone know anything that will fulfill (most of) the above?

Maybe Netburner?  
<http://www.netburner.com/products/core_modules/mod5282.html> for example?  
(I have no direct experience with these, because our project went with 
simpler gear .. we only wanted simple binary UDP/IP.  We took only the 
briefest look.)

	Mel.
>