Flowcode 5 Anyone?

Hello All,
I was wondering if anyone has tried Flowcode 4 or 5. I have a great deal of trouble with PBP when it comes to interrupts, dts, TMRO, TMR1 and all of that crap. Really you would have to take a college course to understand all of these things. Oh and the manual that comes with PBP is shit as well. Seriously, if they wanted to improve PBP then need to make these things easier to use for non-engineers. But with what I have seen on flowcode you can just drag'n'drop components, add interrupts on the fly, whatever. It almost brings me to tears trying to understand PBP sometimes so I need something else. Any thoughts? Thanks for your input.

Hi, Picstar,

Quote:

---

It almost brings me to tears trying to understand PBP sometimes so I need something else

---

Sorry for you , but the automatic generating code program has not been put on the market to the day ...

Everything is worth a little effort from you ... even "Flowcode",Realizer, "MikroC", LdMicro, Psoc Express or Processor expert, ... despite what you say !!!

Programmer is a full time job ... :miserable:

Alain

Well, All I know is that PBP is beyond me in some important areas. I did download Flowcode 5 and I really like it. Sure there will be some learning to do, but within 30 minutes I created my first program. A stepper controller. Just about everything that pisses me off in PBP, including dts, tmro etc., all have drop down menus and such. Just what I was looking for. So I'm afraid that PBP has lost me as customer. There is just to many vague concepts that are just beyond my capacity to understand, as a matter of fact, after spending $250 for PBP i'm more than a little pissed off.

Perhaps PBP is more than you actually need then. But blaiming MELABS/PBP for the fact that you don't want to spend the time learning it isn't fair IMHO. You could've browsed the examples and the forum and the manual before spending the cash which would've brought you the same conclusion you're now at - that it's not for you, and that's fine if that's really how you feel.

However, PBP is definitely not harder to learn than other programming languages but it does take some effort and you do need a general understanding of how the peripherals in the PIC works - which the datasheets generally explains in quite some detail.

Anyway, I wish you the best of luck with Flowcode and wellcome back here when it no longer does what you need. There's nothing wrong in using both you know.

/Henrik.

Henrik spelled it out well. I started with basic stamps back in the 90's. I never finished junior high, but have managed to learn enough to be dangerous. My day job involves hiring college students for geophysical field work. I'm often asked how I learned so much on my own. The short answer is that I worked at it around the clock for decades (I'm not kidding here...). There is no substitute for experience and hard work, including getting through the tough times of banging my head against the wall for months on end over what turned out to be an obvious issue. I'm not terribly smart, and don't have anywhere near the skills the pros on here have. I've been reading the data sheets for a long time now, and still don't comprehend most that they contain.

Give PBP a chance, it is an awesome product with very good support. Without the help I've received from so many on the forums I would still be trying to flash an led. I don't think of productivity/effectiveness as a smart/dumb thing, it is all in the dedication and willingness to put in the time, and believe me it takes a lot.
Regards

Well Guys before Windows or GUI's came out, MS-DOS was king of the hill. That is what will happen I believe when people find out more about Flowcode, PBP will be old news. To all of you guys that think that i'm too lazy to learn well your wrong. Nor do I want anyone to write my programs, I enjoy that. But really, look at the 215? pages in this forum of people having problems with PBP. So I know I am not alone. As I've stated earlier I have had PBP for 5 or 6 years and I can do most things that I want with it, but some things I can't. As for myself, my first computer was a Tandy from Radio Shack, circa 1985?. Since then I've owned: Commodore 64, An Amiga 500, and several PC's that I built myself, so I'm no dummy. I have had a couple of Basic Stamps ,that I used to great effect, before finding out about Pics. Use both Flowcode and PBP? I undoubtably will but you see very few users of Windows wanting to go back to using DOS. I appreciate everyone that has tried to help out since I have posted on here but, to me at least, PBP is just too old and archaic for me. Bye Bye

I think you're misinformed, and that you are projecting your own issues onto a defenseless product.
Where PBP falls short, it's time to move to risc assembler with regards to Microchip pics,
not a sideways movement to another BASIC language.

Funny if you started in BASIC for the C64 or assembler on the Amiga you'd be cruising now.

Strange ... you said strange ???

Those kinds of subjects strongly remind me some Australian Guy ... called " super Trent " ... :o

any thoughts from the mod's team ??? ...

Alain

Quote:

---

before Windows or GUI's came out, MS-DOS was king of the hill

---

When MS-DOS was king of the hill... it easily ran on an 8088 or 80286 processor with 16 meg ram and 20 Meg harddrive. Floppy disks held 128 K of data.

My new laptop has 8 gig of ram, 1 terrabyte harddrive.

Many times (not always, though) execution speed of code is paramount. I would venture to guess that the final code produced with Flowcode 5 is many times slower and more bloated than what PBP produces. PBP is much slower than assembly. Its all relative to what your needs are.

If you want to learn interrupts then start with a breadboard, a couple of pushbuttons, a few LED's and give a go at some of the examples shown on Darrel's instant interrupt web site.

Writing code is a matter of putting together blocks of smaller code that you have tested, learned and gained an understanding of.

One thing I have learned the hardway is ALWAYS do a "save as" before you start modifying a piece of working code. Once you break it and want to go back to something that was working you need a working copy to go back to.

Good luck what ever you choose to do. There are some world class programmers here willing to help with specific questions/examples.

Well guys thanks for pummeling me with your comments, Jeez, all I'm trying to do is find a way to make my program work, with interrupts or whatever. But I have not been to college to study computer languages, like you guys. Also I don't work for MELabs, like some of you guys. All I know is that it is impossible for me to comprehend how to do it. Yeah, I know, go to Darrels website and read this post and that post. Well I still don't get it, Goddamn. I either need an easier program or I need to get out, altogether.

My apologies, but just a follow up, here is what I need: As part of my program I need an interrupt or timer to count pulses in the background,store that value in a variable, then enter a second loop where it counts pulses again and compares it to the first variable and makes corrections through a stepper motor. I believe this is possible with PBP but I have absolutely no experience with assembly or C. Yes, I found out how to use an interrupt to to turn on an LED, but it just gets over my head as to how to do this in the background and making adjustments at the same time. Oh, and Art, you are probably right about moving on to a what? A risc assembler? Well, as I said unless this could be programmed in BASIC, then I couldn't use it. A simple question, can what I want to do be done? Can it be done in PBP? If not then I am at the end of the road and will have to put my program to bed and move on to something else. Please don't answer in riddles that I am supposed to solve. Thanks in advance.

Yes it can be done in PBP. Oh, with a little assembler because part of the interrupt handler is assembler.
What I meant was, as you progress, if PBP holds you back, another basic product would not be a solution.
RISC assembler is the pic's native language.

Well I guess thats it then, I cannot comprehend assembly. I guess i am at the end of the road. Thanks anyway.

Maybe I am going about this whole thing wrong. The pulses that come from a vehicle speed sensor should be able to be converted into into a straight d.c. voltage with the addition of a capacitor. That way the program doesn't have to wait through a count statement, it can just read the voltage from an adc port and make adjustments. Of course the adc needs a short pause itself in order to operate correctly. Its either that or have another chip doing all of the counting and sending its info to my pic. (sounds pretty deep to me).

The duty cycle appears to be 50%, so the voltage will average to half, no matter what your speed is.

On the bright side, Darrel Taylor's interrupts do all the assembly thinking for us. So if you chose to go that route, you really don't need to learn assembly. I took a very brief look at the FlowCode interrupts, and I think I like Darrel's even more now :) (if that is possible) !

Gee, I wish you guys came with English subtitles so that I could understand you.

Hi, "Picstar"

Endly knowing what you try to do ...

the answer is quite simple : use TMR1 and the CCPx module in capture mode for each rising edge ( see relevant Pic datasheet chapter )...

that will trigger an interrupt for each pulse of your speedo ... or simply raise a " data ready " flag ...

just yours to read the CCPR1 registers and store the result elsewhere ...

BTW ... I do not remember having seen ONE compiler offering the " capture " function already cooked ... Flowcode included !!!

Alain

O.K. Ace, Well I did some online research and found a lot of info and glory be..even examples of what I am trying to do. It is an online book over at Mikroe.com call "Pic Processors:Programming in Basic". There are some slight changes between their version of BASIC and PBP, but very few so far. Thats all I ever wanted was a working example, and picture of course. I see a lot of reading in front of me, so I need to skip to it. Thanks

Wow! good find on the book... Looks to be a well written text with excellent examples and schematics. Stick with it and you will be rewarded. It's amazing what these little microcontrollers are capable of.