View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Gabriel
Joined: 03 Aug 2009 Posts: 1067 Location: Panama
|
OT- Moving to PIC18 |
Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 7:30 am |
|
|
Hey guys,
I am about to "Class Up" into PIC18, and I am about to buy this:
https://www.olimex.com/Products/PIC/Development/PIC-MAXI-WEB/
And this:
PCH Command-line C Compiler : 52112-320
The boards' PIC is: 18F97J60
I was wondering if anyone had used that board/compiler/chip combo before?
Im particularly interested in exploring web conected devices, and how CCS supports or doesnt the internet of things...
I see most of the available example codes for that board are in C18... i am wondering if CCS provides drivers/examples etc..
I appreciate any recomendations.
I already have PCM Command-line C Compiler - V4.135 and its been great with MPLAB so i dont forsee any issues with using command line compilers for PIC18... I would really like to continue with CCS.
G. _________________ CCS PCM 5.078 & CCS PCH 5.093 |
|
|
asmboy
Joined: 20 Nov 2007 Posts: 2128 Location: albany ny
|
|
Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 8:13 am |
|
|
i have had good luck with ccs 1.141 and the 18f8723 - but never had to deal with more complex PICS as of yet.
my take is that in general , CCS support for newer, complex PIC architectures takes a few releases to become solid.
i have been lucky in that i have not had to migrate to 3.3v architectures, NOR need to bother with messy stuff like integrated ethernet, USB or CANbus. my condolences if you are needing to work with any of those integrated peripherals
and if U R familiar with the 16F887 - then consider the 18f4620- for which CCS has superb support- and migration is a snap...... |
|
|
Gabriel
Joined: 03 Aug 2009 Posts: 1067 Location: Panama
|
|
Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 8:28 am |
|
|
Hi thanks for your input!
i dont _need_ to work with higher end PICs but I feel like i need to catch up.
I recently presented my first comercial project (simple sensor data aquisition), but felt a bit outdated explaining why I only offered output in RS-232.
Especially since the client wondered if i could offer anything with Ethernet.
... I get the feeling your opinion is that CCS is not quite there yet for more integrated PICs...
Thanks,
G. _________________ CCS PCM 5.078 & CCS PCH 5.093 |
|
|
asmboy
Joined: 20 Nov 2007 Posts: 2128 Location: albany ny
|
|
Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 8:36 am |
|
|
rs-232 + FTDI chips
== USB connectivity with widely supported host drivers.
BTDT got many happy clients |
|
|
Gabriel
Joined: 03 Aug 2009 Posts: 1067 Location: Panama
|
|
Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 8:50 am |
|
|
yeah, I use FTDI chips extensively...
In that particular project I made 17 DAQs with Analog inputs+relays+integrated PSU... etc... and they all had to talk to the main automation system of the building (a hotel).. the units were placed in remote locations IP54 rated boxes surrounded by motors and pumps etc... where because of cable lentgh USB was not practical... also fiding host USB ports on the closest PLCs was not really an option.
anyways...ethernet is a big motivator for me to switch.
EDIT: IP54.... im used to typing 67 at work...
G. _________________ CCS PCM 5.078 & CCS PCH 5.093 |
|
|
newguy
Joined: 24 Jun 2004 Posts: 1907
|
|
Posted: Sat May 11, 2013 9:17 am |
|
|
asmboy wrote: | [snip]...NOR need to bother with messy stuff like integrated ethernet, USB or CANbus. my condolences if you are needing to work with any of those integrated peripherals
|
CAN is probably one of the easiest things to work with UNLESS you're trying to create something that interfaces with a vehicle's CAN system.
Actually CAN is my favourite communication scheme because it's so reliable and virtually everything involved with the transmission or reception of a message is all done for you in hardware. Love that aspect of it. |
|
|
bkamen
Joined: 07 Jan 2004 Posts: 1611 Location: Central Illinois, USA
|
|
Posted: Sun May 12, 2013 6:29 pm |
|
|
I've done projects with PCH and the 18F97j60 with no problems.
Now -- I tend to use C18 or now XC8 because the 97j60 is an ethernet PIC and Microchip has long since moved on from TCPIP STACK v3.75 which is what CCS supplies as their TCPIP Stack. ugh.
-Ben _________________ Dazed and confused? I don't think so. Just "plain lost" will do. :D |
|
|
Gabriel
Joined: 03 Aug 2009 Posts: 1067 Location: Panama
|
|
Posted: Mon May 13, 2013 7:32 am |
|
|
Hi Bkamen,
thanks for your input...
did you have any problems with peripheral support as Asmboy describes? (aside from the old TCP/IP Stack)
G _________________ CCS PCM 5.078 & CCS PCH 5.093 |
|
|
bkamen
Joined: 07 Jan 2004 Posts: 1611 Location: Central Illinois, USA
|
|
Posted: Mon May 13, 2013 9:49 am |
|
|
Gabriel wrote: | Hi Bkamen,
thanks for your input...
did you have any problems with peripheral support as Asmboy describes? (aside from the old TCP/IP Stack)
|
Not that I can remember.
To be honest, the last time I compiled the CCS TCPIP Stack to run on a PICdem.net2 was probably a good 3 yrs ago.
It's a reasonably mature part though at this point. You may find a bug or two.. you may not.
Hope that helps,
-Ben _________________ Dazed and confused? I don't think so. Just "plain lost" will do. :D |
|
|
asmallri
Joined: 12 Aug 2004 Posts: 1634 Location: Perth, Australia
|
Re: OT- Moving to PIC18 |
Posted: Mon May 13, 2013 11:26 am |
|
|
Gabriel wrote: | Hey guys,
I am about to "Class Up" into PIC18, and I am about to buy this:
https://www.olimex.com/Products/PIC/Development/PIC-MAXI-WEB/
And this:
PCH Command-line C Compiler : 52112-320
The boards' PIC is: 18F97J60
I was wondering if anyone had used that board/compiler/chip combo before?
Im particularly interested in exploring web conected devices, and how CCS supports or doesnt the internet of things...
I see most of the available example codes for that board are in C18... i am wondering if CCS provides drivers/examples etc..
I appreciate any recomendations.
I already have PCM Command-line C Compiler - V4.135 and its been great with MPLAB so i dont forsee any issues with using command line compilers for PIC18... I would really like to continue with CCS.
G. |
If you are looking to use Ethernet as a general platform and are moving from a PIC16 then I suggest bypassing the PIC18 all together and going to the PIC24/dsPIC33 family and use an external Microchip ENCx24J600 Ethernet controller. This will give you full duplex 100Mbps Ethernet as opposed to 10M Ethernet. There are some switches that do not support 10M Ethernet (it is now pretty old) so why start your development with a legacy implementation?
The PIC24/dsPIC family is a far superior platform for developing Ethernet class applications due to its larger amount of RAM, better register architecture, hierarchical interrupt structure, alternate interrupt vector tables etc. _________________ Regards, Andrew
http://www.brushelectronics.com/software
Home of Ethernet, SD card and Encrypted Serial Bootloaders for PICs!! |
|
|
bkamen
Joined: 07 Jan 2004 Posts: 1611 Location: Central Illinois, USA
|
Re: OT- Moving to PIC18 |
Posted: Mon May 13, 2013 7:22 pm |
|
|
asmallri wrote: |
If you are looking to use Ethernet as a general platform and are moving from a PIC16 then I suggest bypassing the PIC18 all together and going to the PIC24/dsPIC33 family and use an external Microchip ENCx24J600 Ethernet controller. This will give you full duplex 100Mbps Ethernet as opposed to 10M Ethernet. There are some switches that do not support 10M Ethernet (it is now pretty old) so why start your development with a legacy implementation?
|
That's true -- but it's a more complex implementation.
I have to give the 97j60 credit for being a one chip solution.
Quote: |
The PIC24/dsPIC family is a far superior platform for developing Ethernet class applications due to its larger amount of RAM, better register architecture, hierarchical interrupt structure, alternate interrupt vector tables etc. |
I wish MCHP would make a PIC24 w/ethernet without the 2chip solution.
Additionally, the 97j60 can use addtional FLASH in the EBI mode.. (but again, more silicon)
In any case, I agree -- but I also can see some remaining merit to the 97j60.
All depends on the application/cost/etc...
-Ben _________________ Dazed and confused? I don't think so. Just "plain lost" will do. :D |
|
|
|