|
I have recently noticed that Xilinx has changed the WebPACK download page: it now requires USER \ PWD login. I am not sure if you need to be a paying customer to get an account ? Just in case ! Once found, the files can be directly downloaded without logging in. Below is a link to the WebPACK 5.1 'complete' installers. http://ca.geocities.com/artiedc/apps/index.html E_C --------------------------------- |
|
|
WebPack 5.1 direct kink
Started by ●January 11, 2003
Reply by ●January 12, 20032003-01-12
|
Hi - Webpack is still free. Yes, the username and password are required which you can get by registering your details. No charge! --Neeraj ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Corter" <> To: <> Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 9:04 AM Subject: [fpga-cpu] WebPack 5.1 direct kink > > I have recently noticed that Xilinx has changed the WebPACK download page: it now requires USER \ PWD login. > > I am not sure if you need to be a paying customer to get an account ? > Just in case ! > > Once found, the files can be directly downloaded without logging in. Below is a link to the WebPACK 5.1 'complete' installers. > http://ca.geocities.com/artiedc/apps/index.html > > E_C > > --------------------------------- > > To post a message, send it to: > To unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > ">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > |
|
|
Reply by ●January 12, 20032003-01-12
|
Hello everybody,
I work for a company specialized in CNC system design. Most applications which I worked on (industrial milling machines with motion control) were based on Delta Tau Data System Inc. productions (www.delta-tau.com industrial servo control systems, that are popular in market). Working with these embedded systems, some other ideas come to my mind. Evaluating control system structures, product and solutions available in market, it seams that IP Core and FPGA implementation of standard blocks would be more efficient solution. The main disadvantage, which i come across using data systems in our projects, is that servo blocks, DSP gates, Quadrature Decoders, GPIO and MUX ports are made on ASICS and upgrade is unavailable (only standard interfaces such us USB, PCI are implemented on FPGA). To increase number of axis, or changing periphery makes to add or change entire boards. Such systems are expensive because of their set of accessories. Using FPGA based board there would be much more abilities: the same board could be used to control either step (DC), or 3-phase AC motors, connecting to host either by PCI or PC104 (ISA) standard busses. Besides, there would be ability of restructuring servo cycle, or to use the same board as PLC controller with flexible set of GPIO or other standard peripheries. It seams that such kind of boards will be more flexible, and, besides, a new market of Industrial Systems' IP Cores will appear. Currently I work on some modules' Verilog models and would like to know other opinions on this theme. Thank you, Manuk Shemsyan, |
|
|
Reply by ●January 12, 20032003-01-12
|
Hi Manuk, Iam not sure about the word upgrade u refer here, Please feed some more information like are u trying to upgrade a asic system? Thomas Manakkil --- Sarva Bhuvino Sukhino Bhavanthu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Manuk Shemsyan" <> To: <> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 6:05 AM Subject: [fpga-cpu] Industrial IP Cores. > Hello everybody, > I work for a company specialized in CNC system design. Most applications > which I worked on (industrial milling machines with motion control) > were based on Delta Tau Data System Inc. productions (www.delta-tau.com industrial > servo control systems, that are popular in market). Working with these > embedded systems, some other ideas come to my mind. > > Evaluating control system structures, product and solutions available in market, > it seams that IP Core and FPGA implementation of standard blocks would be more > efficient solution. The main disadvantage, which i come across using data systems > in our projects, is that servo blocks, DSP gates, Quadrature Decoders, GPIO and MUX ports > are made on ASICS and upgrade is unavailable (only standard interfaces such us USB, > PCI are implemented on FPGA). To increase number of axis, or changing periphery makes > to add or change entire boards. Such systems are expensive because of their set of accessories. > Using FPGA based board there would be much more abilities: the same board could be used > to control either step (DC), or 3-phase AC motors, connecting to host either by PCI or > PC104 (ISA) standard busses. Besides, there would be ability of restructuring servo cycle, > or to use the same board as PLC controller with flexible set of GPIO or other standard > peripheries. It seams that such kind of boards will be more flexible, and, besides, a new > market of Industrial Systems' IP Cores will appear. > > Currently I work on some modules' Verilog models and would like to > know other opinions on this theme. > > Thank you, > Manuk Shemsyan, > To post a message, send it to: > To unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > ">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > |
Reply by ●January 13, 20032003-01-13
|
--- Manuk Shemsyan <> wrote: > Hello everybody, > > > I work for a company specialized in CNC system design. Most (...) > Currently I work on some modules' Verilog models and would like to > know other opinions on this theme. > > Thank you, > Manuk Shemsyan, > I would consider placing a DSP or one of faster microcontrollers on board in addition to FPGA to lower costs - huge enough FPGA to handle every task + processor task (something like showing data on display, communication and etc. ) will be costly I think. I would use FPGA to do things which must be done very fast (PCI connection, fast encoders or whatever) leaving less time critical tasks to microcontroller. It would be a nice thing for IP cores users to have a choice between software and hardware core realization for such a mixed systems. regards, Tomasz Sztejka __________________________________________________ |
|
|
Reply by ●January 13, 20032003-01-13
|
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, [iso-8859-1] Tomasz Sztejka wrote: > --- Manuk Shemsyan <> wrote: > Hello everybody, > > > > > > I work for a company specialized in CNC system design. Most > (...) > > Currently I work on some modules' Verilog models and would like to > > know other opinions on this theme. > > > > Thank you, > > Manuk Shemsyan, > > > I would consider placing a DSP or one of faster microcontrollers on > board in addition to FPGA to lower costs - huge enough FPGA to handle > every task + processor task (something like showing data on display, > communication and etc. ) will be costly I think. I would use FPGA to do > things which must be done very fast (PCI connection, fast encoders or > whatever) leaving less time critical tasks to microcontroller. It would > be a nice thing for IP cores users to have a choice between software > and hardware core realization for such a mixed systems. > > regards, > Tomasz Sztejka We considered doing that (External CPU + FPGA) on our low end Servo motion controllers, and even laid out a card with an ARM CPU and a FPGA, but it turns out that its easy to get enough performance from CPU embedded in the FPGA to do 8 Axis of motion control at a 15 KHz update rate. We did have to do all the code in assembler though. If you use an external DSP you might consider the TI one with the built in PCI interface. Using a DSP also gives you access to better development tools. One advantage of doing everything in side the FPGA is that you can tailor the CPU instruction set to the task at hand (for example, something we end up doing a lot is bounding a signed 32 bit number to a signed 16 bit number. Our CPU has an instruction for doing that...) Take a look at www.mesanet.com/softdmc.pdf for manual of a 4 axis servo motion controller embedded in a ~$20 FPGA. The VHDL source for the hardware is available at www.mesanet.com/4i34.zip. That zip file also includes an earlier servo controller based on Ken Chapmans excellent KCPSM. That earlier servo controller includes the VHDL + assembly language source to the KCPSM code... Peter Wallace Mesa Electronics |
