mplabx and code configurator

[large_ghostman]

Why is it so few 18f parts seem to be supported on the configurator? Anyone know if microchip intends to add some of the older 18f chips like 18f4685?
So far just installed mplabx and I have to be honest, if I had the cash I would be buying Mikroc!

Having used ARM based chips etc and not having done very much with pics for a while, I honestly expected to see why more progress with mplabx from the last time I took a peek at it (~2 years).
Compared to most IDE's I have been using its appalling, I get the strong feeling the 18F is a dead chip except maybe a few newer ones, I went to download mplab on the pc as I only have it on the laptop (no install file though), and cant find the mplab IDE or the old C18 compiler.

Pressed on data sheet button and was taken to the website in my browser!! I am used to silicon labs IDE which does everything for you in the IDE, you can go through the list of boards and chips and select one and up pops the datasheets and app notes. Just how far behind is MC?

The project I just finished didnt use pics for much more than motor control and a few other things, I had most the code already from a very old project I had done. I did the code tweaks on the laptop, I had not realized that MC seemed have ignored the 18F on mplabx. Why by HI TECH C which had a great IDE (cant even find an old version online now) and good compiler, then go and wreck it?? The old HITECH C IDE had a chip configurator 5 years ago!
So how come MicroChip has gone backwards with the tool chain?

Anyone use CCs IDE and tools? If so what they like now? I cant see me sticking with MC with the tools as they are, Shame as the ICD3 is a ok tool. Looks like I might be getting rid of the huge number of pics I have and get some more ARM chips instead.

Really disappointing to see so little done to the tool chain, especially after they brought HI TECH and seem to have killed off its IDE which was way better than MPLABX. More and more I am starting to think MC is getting left way way behind the other vendors.
When I started with pics 5 years ago they were good and a good selection of tools, but having taken a long break from them and using alot of other vendor stuff with really great dev kits at a very low price, it really hits home when you go back to pics

 

[NorthGuy]

They will certainly add some support.

However, I feel PIC18 family is dying. There has been no new PIC18 parts in years. The prices for PIC18s are high compared to similar PIC24/dsPIC33.

It's real good progress Microchip did lately in PIC16.

 

[granddad]

At the moment I am using MPLABX 3.10 and XC16 1.24 and pickit 3 once you get to know its 'hiccups' , its ok, but there again I am no programmer and the only other IDE I've used was some arduino headache with chipkit UNO32 (no thanks).
I skipped PIC18 did a lot with PIC16 and assembler, but 16 bit seemed more logical for C , so all my recent experimenting is with PIC24.

 

[large_ghostman]

I dont get why the pic 18F has dropped like it has, I would have said 3 years ago pic16F was on the way out, then they started upgrading them again, so I agree the 18F looks like its on the way out. Makes little sense because the K series looked like it was going to be a bigger branch than it has, the you have the odd situation with the 16bits. Again at the start the 24's were mainly DSP's and the 30F was more general 16bit.

Now I look and the 30F seems dead and buried with virtually no support in anything, same with the 32 series as that seems to have been dropped in favor of the 33's. I spent no end of time last night looking for a list of configurator supported parts. Same with the brief help file in XC8 suggesting to use pragma commands for set up and yet I can find ANYTHING about the pragma options and XC8 compiler, I know in the old C18 they had a really handy help file that gave all the option including libs ect for all 18F in a single file.

So as XC8 is the latest and greatest where exactly is the list of pragma commands for each chip? I know the datasheets have the old version of doing things, but the tiny help file I got on the XC8 compiler says use PRAGMA. No where does it tell you where these options are for each chip, the other main issue I have is the help file is htm and opened in notepad!!

I hate to knock MC as i started with them and used to love them, but its become really really poor. Tool wise I think they have stepped way back in time, you mention the little hiccups but the reality is there shouldnt be now now, same with the IDE. Its old enough now that there shouldnt be the kind of bugs it has, I had to reinstall 3 times on win 8.1 before it would install properly. If I didnt have a ICD3 and pickit3 I would go MIKROC, but I refuse to buy another programmer.

Anyway if anyone knows where there is any decent docs on the pragma for XC8 and the 18f's give me a shout please, Although I am considering getting rid of all my pic stuff and sticking with sil labs 8051 and the ARM range of chips they have.

 

[NorthGuy]

So as XC8 is the latest and greatest where exactly is the list of pragma commands for each chip? I know the datasheets have the old version of doing things, but the tiny help file I got on the XC8 compiler says use PRAGMA.

Click "Window->PIC Memory Views->Configuration Bits". It'll list you all the config pragmas. You can select as you wish and then click "Generate Source Code To Output". May not work for newer chips.

dsPIC30Fs are old and had worse design than newer dsPIC33FJ and dsPIC33EP, so I wouldn't suggest using them.

 

[granddad]

Tool wise I think they have stepped way back in time, you mention the little hiccups but the reality is there shouldnt be now now, same with the IDE. Its old enough now that there shouldnt be the kind of bugs it has, I had to reinstall 3 times on win 8.1 before it would install properly.

LG
Strangely , I solved one of my 'hiccups' after my post..... Current project , (PIC24FV32KA302 ) sometimes a clean build would take > 2 mins other times <1 sec ? Today I noted a function with incorrect arguments...(not errored) corrected same , now always ~ 1sec build , some posts on MC forum would suggest win 8 and MPLABX don't get on in some schemes , I'm still with win7 pro.
The PRAGMA setup as per NorthGuy .... ace for PIC24

 

[large_ghostman]

I had so many problems with win7 64 bit and the USB drivers eating my pikit 3's (the forum is littered with rants over this a few years back), plus you get little say with windows. When you buy a new machine or worse still a new laptop then your kind of stuck with that version of windows. My laptop I wanted win7 on it but the mother board and various bits dont have win7 drivers.

Thats one thing I really like about LINUX. I have a really nice powerful computer, it runs well but when I first got it I tried Linux on it and the speed was mind blowing. But I couldnt dual boot because it came with a hard drive section just for the reinstall, so to load windows you have to use that or it dosnt work. I would hate to run win 8.1 on anything less than serious hardware, I have an I7 laptop that my dad got for work and only had a few weeks use out of. Its a great laptop with 12 GB(I think) of RAM and 1 TB HDD, but it struggles sometimes win 8.1, I put one the first original win 10 beta versions on it and it runs better.

I prefer the first few beta versions of win 10 to the win 10 thats actually out. Cheers for the info I will go have a look at the files. I have been spoilt with IDE's like simplicity studio etc, I will have a look at some of the supported pics, I am after 5V ones rather than 5V tolerant ones.

I havnt looked at all at the pic 33's, I might go and see what sort of packages they come in

 

[NorthGuy]

I havnt looked at all at the pic 33's, I might go and see what sort of packages they come in

What is the project you are going to use it for?

 

[large_ghostman]

What is the project you are going to use it for?

No project in mind, just more a look and see what they have about at the moment. Some reasonable chips around but I still dont see why the pic18f isnt being supported as much, upto 40 pin PDIP and loads of things on the chip. Maybe I should look at 16f range

 

[NorthGuy]

No project in mind, just more a look and see what they have about at the moment. Some reasonable chips around but I still dont see why the pic18f isnt being supported as much, upto 40 pin PDIP and loads of things on the chip. Maybe I should look at 16f range

I think they're more concerned with volume customers, hence their priorities. They started MCC couple years ago, so it doesn't support everything. You still use all the PIC18F, only without MCC.

If you're starting something new, look at PIC16F1 if you want it to be small and consume less power. Look at PIC24/33 if you want a chip which can do a lot of work.

 

[granddad]

Loads of I/O pins can be useful , but more and more serial, of some description comes into play , I2C is my current starting point, If i have and idea to develop I start with a dev board with maximum peripherals, pins, Mhz , memory , EEprom etc and then condense it down to a minimum requirement , turns out 20 / 28 pins are usually more than enough.

 

[OBW0549]

I havnt looked at all at the pic 33's, I might go and see what sort of packages they come in

Many of the dsPIC33EP's and FJ's, at least the lower-pin-count devices, are available in 18- or 28-pin DIP. So are many of the older dsPIC30F's, at least one of which, the dsPIC30f4013, is available in 40-pin DIP.

 

[large_ghostman]

Loads of I/O pins can be useful , but more and more serial, of some description comes into play , I2C is my current starting point, If i have and idea to develop I start with a dev board with maximum peripherals, pins, Mhz , memory , EEprom etc and then condense it down to a minimum requirement , turns out 20 / 28 pins are usually more than enough.

I do it this way as well for projects with a set end goal, however I have this thing often means I am likely to add tweaks (Engineers call it feature creep I call it imagination), I also often start with a vague idea and direction (like my light and sound project) and let things develop. I really hate running out of IO etc and having to swap chips half way through, loads of reasons why I hate doing it but its a PITA for me.

Some projects like the sound and light one (that is my entire brief at this point!! besides needing a dual supply *maybe*) are so open ended its better to start with a chip that has everything on it, that way it just a meander around my mind and see what happens, I can just change the code as I go. My hexapod was like this but instead of a mega chip I decided early on to have a command structure, so I had the PI who was sort of in charge. Followed by two Arduino's who passed orders onto the troops so to speak and passed there request on to the boss.

Doing it this way meant I was free to imagine away and adapt because I knew it would all be modular to a certain extent, from an engineering perspective I would think good for bluesky R&D and bad for general practice. If I was to work on the hexapod with a commercial application in mind (I am not!), then at this point I would look at the design and shrink it down a bit at this point before moving on to the next improvements.

For the MKII however i am just going to smooth some edges and do some tweaks and add more modules, only this time I am going to go back to the bigger pin pics (maybe) and try and get more out of each chip. My reasons for this are mainly weight related as i am knocking on the ceiling for weight to flight time. On the other hand my 'just for the hell of it' sound and light project is so open ended I havnt a clue at the moment where its likely to end up. This is all totally different to the redesign of the transistor/component tester I am going to redo from the ground up. While I have an idea where I am roughly aiming, I will be starting more tightly focused and this is likely to be one in a series of test tools built from reusable R PI's that you just change the SD card in etc.

Scary reading that back!! I am not a natural engineer, I am more an explorer and what if person, I am way to unorganized to be much good at engineering. Maybe thats why you eat off Jims bench and cant find mine! Although the big sort out has begun!! (found some chips with 1973 date code on lol)

 

[large_ghostman]

Many of the dsPIC33EP's and FJ's, at least the lower-pin-count devices, are available in 18- or 28-pin DIP. So are many of the older dsPIC30F's, at least one of which, the dsPIC30f4013, is available in 40-pin DIP.

I have that 30F chip, like alot of the 18f's it isnt supported by the configurator. I realize it looks like I am obsessed with it but I have a simple reason, I have been away from pics for a fairly long time, I come back and the tools have really changed. I need to get some things done to my project and could do with some time saving, I can get around most of the problems but its a PITA using the old tool chain when I could be learning the new one.

I didnt think any of the 30F's were ds pics? I thought the 30F's were simply 16 bit versions of the 16f/18f range?

 

[large_ghostman]

GET OFF THE PHONE!!! Thanks guys you have just given me an excellent idea, actually I gave me the idea but wittering on above in response gave me a light bulb moment. I will post in the lounge and see what people think, personally I love the idea lol and its a good example of how I think

 

[OBW0549]

I didnt think any of the 30F's were ds pics? I thought the 30F's were simply 16 bit versions of the 16f/18f range?

No, all of the dsPIC30Fs have the DSP engine. The PIC24Fs do not, although in all other respects they're nearly identical to the dsPIC30Fs.

I've never used the code configurator (I work entire in assembly language). What does it do?

 

[large_ghostman]

No, all of the dsPIC30Fs have the DSP engine. The PIC24Fs do not, although in all other respects they're nearly identical to the dsPIC30Fs.

I've never used the code configurator (I work entire in assembly language). What does it do?

I had the 24f 30f totally the wrong way around then.

The configurator is just a lazy way to set up peripherals etc, its something I have never used but for what i wanted to do it would have saved chunks of time diving into datasheets. Although it looks like I might be going with a 32 bit part and harmony, I am not sure yet. I could do what I want to do easily with code i already have and a couple of dev kits I have to hand. But my problem is the weight budget is spent, so need a different approach. Also I thought I had just over a year to do the next part of the project but I have been given the chance to bring it forward by a year.

Anyway if nothing else this thread has given me an idea for something else and I learnt a few things that to me is always a winner!

 

[granddad]

I might be going with a 32 bit part and harmony

SLC Steep Learning Curve

I have never used but for what i wanted to do it would have saved chunks of time diving into datasheets.

I always taught my students ( Techies) RFM...the OWTL Only Way To Learn.
Great fun whatever way you choose.

 

[NorthGuy]

If you want to build a Web server or control large graphics display with touch screen, PIC32MZ with Harmony might be a valid choice, but not for traditional microcontroller work. You really need to come up with a project before you start picking PICs.

I don't think MCC will let you skip datasheets. If you don't know how the hardware works, you may get stuck with generated code. Two hours with datasheet is better than days of bug chasing.

 

[large_ghostman]

Hi, I know pic 18f's pretty well, I hant used pics for a fair while but I do understand the datasheets.
My problem was mainly switching from C18 to XC and mplab X, because my time slot was pretty short I decided to go with Arduino for the more complex things as it was quicker. I havnt tried pic 32's yet so want to give them try out, I would of used pics instead of Arduino for my last project but didnt have the time to learn XC8 AND MPLAB X, the configurator would of saved me time especially as I know the 18f''s, but with having to learn the IDE and compiler as well I didnt have enough time.

I notice the Pragma is the same as it was in C18, so I can continue to use the help file in mplab 8 if I need to.