PBP projects for R/C models

[Kenjones1935]

My video shows my kit uses a 0.1" centers solderless prototype board. If I am to change PICs I would like something compatible.
I tried the 32BITWhacker board of 32MX460. I was disappointed because I could not program it using the PICKIT2 system. Maybe if I purchase a PICKIT3.....(It is programmable via its USB port. That requires I completely change my coding system and learn yet another variation of BASIC or C)

What Microchip PIC do you all suggest that has a Dual Inline (DIP) configuration and is easily programmable?

Ken

[Kenjones1935]

The BITwhacker is appealing because it has 0.1" center holes. All I need to do is solder male to male connectors and stick the whole shebang into a solderless protoboard. It is a bit large for the HPI SPRINT R/C car. I never got the BITwhacker to work. (I purchased two. One came with a teeny tiny slide switch in the wrong position. That led me on a wild goose chase which ended up with one BITwhacker losing its embedded STICKOS code. The other board is good as new, but now I am leery of the whole thing.

Is there a MIcrochip and/or MicroEngineering Labs product that works in a predictable fashion with the BITwhacker?

If not the above then I need the schematic of a starter kit showing how a powerful-enough-to-do-my-job DIP configured PIC is hooked up to either a classic USB port or the RJ11 Microchip USB adaptor. The I need a PC based compiler that will do the job and a programmer that will load the resulting code into the PIC.

Suggestions??

Ken

[cncmachineguy]

Ken, Here is what I think.
I agree with going back to the basics. As I have been reading this thread since your project started, I for 1 am not real sure where you are with methods, hardware, program,...

I suggest you do this: List all the parameters needed. such as how long does the sonar need to accquire a distance? How many things does the PIC need to do? Then you will be able to determine if your chosen PIC is up to the job.

I think it prolly is, and I think PBP is also up to it. Worst case is to sprinkle some ASM in if needed.

[Kenjones1935]

The SONARs each get a 10micro sec trigger. This creates an ultrasound PING. I use PULSIN plus PAUSE 10 to input the response and wait for the ringing to stop. Total time for two SONARs = at least 20msec.

To make room for the PWM pulses I could shorten the length of the SONAR PAUSEs. Trying to fit 20msec interrupts clearly might be a problem.

I could trigger the SONARs less often (interrupt driven). I do not need to be measuring the distances so often. The PIC could, at that time, skip a PMW interrupt - or delay it a couple of milliseconds.

Other than that all the code does is fly through various IF THEN state machines depending on the most SONAR readings. That is very simple.

However-----\

If I could calculate closing rates accurately and if I had a finely tuned proportional control system then I might be able to implement a real PID system. Not sure. I do not know how to analyze this.

Ken

[cncmachineguy]

The SONARs each get a 10micro sec trigger. This creates an ultrasound PING. I use PULSIN plus PAUSE 10 to input the response and wait for the ringing to stop. Total time for two SONARs = at least 20msec.

hate to be picky, but is it micro or milli seconds?
Can both sonars be active at the same time?

If I could calculate closing rates accurately and if I had a finely tuned proportional control system then I might be able to implement a real PID system. Not sure. I do not know how to analyze this.
Ken

Maybe I am just lucky at times, but i have never been properly introduced to a real PID system. I don't consider myself being able to emulate a PID when I am flying R/C planes, yet I can fly them. The finely tuned proportional control system is not too hard, I am sure we can get you there.