I am putting together a very simple device for developing C++ applications on the go. Something like a a psp, size wise, with a small keyboard to write code and LCD screen for the output. This device has also a DVI out, so I can output to screen too.
Now, I am looking for a very lightweight C++ IDE for X11 (the device runs on a Linux variant of OpenEmbedded); something that is able to work decently on both the DVI monitor but mainly on the small lcd screen (it is a 4.3 inch screen with a 480x272 resolution).
I am aware that anything under 1024x768 is just pure joy for pain lovers, but the device will be used only in particular situations; when a laptop/netbook is not feasible.
While using the DVI out, I have no problems running Gnome, the screen is big enough to allow me to work comfortably. the problem is that it won't scale very well on the 480x272 screen.
The first idea was to use nano and g++, without even loading X11, but I need to have something with code completion and a minimal UI to do the standard operations (build, run, debugging step by step, breakpoints), if possible. The memory is not that big (256 Mb), so the smaller the IDE, the better it is.
What would you suggest, other than the approach via text editor and g++ ? I am new to the embedded linux world, I use Eclipse on Ubuntu, but that one is incredibly huge and on such small device would just kill it. On Windows I would use Dev-C++, while on Mac I use either code:blocks or Xcode, but I don't really need all these features for the device.
Thanks in advance
I had the same problem, developing on an ODroid (http://hardkernel.com) running Linux on an ARM processor. For a while I used Netbeans, but it was too heavy, so I finally gave up and wrote my own open source IDE for the purpose.
https://github.com/amirgeva/coide
Related
I tried using "Kinect for Windows" on my Mac. Environment set-up seems to have gone well, but something seems being wrong. When I start some samples such as
OpenNI-Bin-Dev-MacOSX-v1.5.4.0/Samples/Bin/x64-Release/Sample-NiSimpleViewer
or others, the sample application start and seems working quite well at the beginning but after a few seconds (10 to 20 seconds), the move seen in screen of the application halts and never work again. It seems that the application get to be unable to fetch data from Kinect from certain point where some seconds passed.
I don't know whether the libraries or their dependency, or Kinect's hardware itself is going wrong (as for hardware, invisibly broken or something), and I really want to know how to detect which is it.
Could anybody tell me how can I fix the issue please?
My environment is shown below:
Mac OS X v10.7.4 (MacBook Air, core i5 1.6Ghz, 4GB of memory)
Xcode 4.4.1
Kinect for Windows
OpenNI-Bin-Dev-MacOSX-v1.5.4.0
Sensor-Bin-MacOSX-v5.1.2.1
I followed instruction here about libusb: http://openkinect.org/wiki/Getting_Started#Homebrew
and when I try using libfreenect(I know it's separate from OpenNI+SensorKinect), its sample applications say "Number of devices found: 0", which makes no sense to me since I certainly connected my Kinect to MBA...)
Unless you're booting to Windows forget about Kinect for Windows.
Regarding libfreenect and OpenNI in most cases you'll use one or the other, so think of what functionalities you need.
If it's basic RGB+Depth image (and possibly motor and accelerometer ) access libfreenect is your choice.
If you need RGB+Depth image and skeleton tracking and (hand) gestures (but no motor, accelerometer access) use OpenNI. Note that if you use the unstable(dev) versions, you should use Avin's SensorKinect Driver.
Easiest thing to do a nice clean install of OpenNI.
Also, if it helps, you can a creative coding framework like Processing or OpenFrameworks.
For Processing I recommend SimpleOpenNI
For OpenFrameworks you can use ofxKinect which ties to libfreenect or ofxOpenNI. Download the OpenFrameworks packaged on the FutureTheatre Kinect Workshop wiki as it includes both addons and some really nice examples.
When you are connecting the Kinect device to the machine, have you provided external power to it? The device will appear connected to a computer by USB only power but will not be able to tranfer data as it needs the external power supply.
Also what Kinect sensor are you using? If it is a new Kinect device (designed for Windows) they may have a different device signature which may cause the OpenNI drivers to play-up. I'm not a 100% on this one, but I've only ever tried OpenNI with an XBox 360 sensor.
Im planning to build a Embedded system which is almost like an organizer i.e. which handles contacts, games, applications & wifi/2G/3G for internet. I planned to build the UI with QML because of its easy to use and quick application building nature. And to have a linux kernel.
But after reading these articles:
http://qt-project.org/forums/viewthread/5820 &
http://en.roolz.org/Blog/Entries/2010/10/29_Qt_QML_on_embedded_devices.html
I am depressed and reconsidering my idea of using QML!
My hardware will be with these configurations : Processor around 600MHz, RAM 128MB and no GPU.
Please give comments on this and suggest me some alternatives for this.
Thanks in Advance.
inblueswithu
I have created a QML application for Nokia E63 which has 369MHz processor, 128MB RAM. I don't think it has a GPU. The application is a Stop Watch application. I have animated button click events like jumping (jumping balls). The animations are really smooth even when two button jumps at the same time. A 600MHz processor is expected to handle QML easily.
This is the link for the sis file http://store.ovi.com/content/184985. If you have a Nokia mobile you can test it.
May be you should consider building QML elements by hand instead of doing it from Photoshop or Gimp. For example using Item in the place of Rectangle will be optimal. So you can give it a try. May be by creating a rough sketch with good amount of animations to check whether you processor can handle that. Even if it don't work as expected then consider Qt to build your UI.
QML applications work fine on low-specs Nokia devices. I have made one for 5800 XPressMusic smartphone without any problems.
I have to make a hardware project using a microcontroller, memory, screens, etc.
Is it possible to make an independent PDF / documents reader, which is capable of running on battery power?
Please note I don't want to use any technology which needs licensing. It must be all freeware readers, etc., and programing language can be assembly, C, Flash or any.
I have submitted proposal of PDF reader project (independent hardware). Many say it's impossible. What should I do?
Reading and displaying a PDF document is quite a "high level operation".
You should start with a microcontroller starter kit, with an ARM9 processor or something similar. Then install a Linux operating system on it, include a standard display driver and run an X server. Then you should be able to find a Linux based PDF reader with X drivers.
To 2nd another comment here, I would say that you're not going to to do this with a microcontroller, you're going to need to get some more powerful ARM CPU like an ARM9, Cortex-A8 or similar with a decent amount of RAM.
You'll probably need something that's capable of running Linux if you want to start with pieces of software that won't require writing quite a large volume of software from scratch.
Note that for commercial devices that are out there, including the Kindle, run Linux, and aren't based on a micrcontroller.
You might be best off getting something like a BeagleBoard, attach a display to that, and start from there with an X-based PDF viewer.
In the last two months I've worked as a simple application using a computer vision library(OpenCV).
I wish to run that application directly from the webcam without the need of an OS. I'm curious to know if that my application can be burned into a chip in order to not have the OS to run it.
Ofcorse the process can be expensive, but I'm just curious. Do you have any links about that?
ps: the application is written in C.
I'd use something bigger than a PIC, for example a small 32 bit ARM processor.
Yes. It is theoretically possible to port your app to PIC chips.
But...
There are C compilers for the PIC chip, however, due to the limitations of a microcontroller, you might find that the compiler, and the microcontroller itself is far too limited for computer vision work, especially if your initial implementation of the app was done on a full-blown PC:
You'll only have integer math available to you, in most cases, if not all (can't quote me on that, but our devs at work don't have floating point math for their PIC apps and it causes many foul words to emanate from their cubes). Either that, or you'll need to hook to an external math coprocessor.
You'll have to figure out how to get the PIC chip to talk USB to the camera. I know this is possible, but it will require additional hardware, and R&D time.
If you need strict timing control,
you might even have to program the
app in assembler.
You'd have to port portions of OpenCV to the PIC chip, if it hasn't been already. My guess is not.
If your'e not already familiar with microcontroller programming, you'll need some time to get up to speed on the differences between desktop PC programming and microcontroller programming, and you'll have to gain some experience in that. This may not be an issue for you.
Basically, it would probably be best to re-write the whole program from scratch given a PIC chip constraint. Good thing is though, you've done a lot of design work already. It would mainly be hardware/porting work.
OR...
You could try using a small embedded x86 single-board PC, perhaps in the PC/104 form factor, with your OS/app on a CF card. It's a real bone fide PC, you just add your software. Good thing is, you probably wouldn't have to re-write your app, unless it had ridiculous memory footprint. Embedded PC vendors are starting to ship boards based on 1 GHz Intel Atoms, and if you needed more help you could perhaps hook a daughterboard onto the PC-104 bus. You'll work around all of the limitations listed above, as your using an equivalent platform to the PC you developed your app on. And it has USB ports! If you do a thorough cost analysis and if your'e cool with a larger form factor, you might find it to be cheaper/quicker to use a system based on a SBC than rolling a solution using PIC chips/microcontrollers.
A quick search of PC-104 on Google would reveal many vendors of SBCs.
OR...
And this would be really cheap - just get a off-the-shelf cheap Netbook, overwrite the OEM OS, and run the code on there. Hackish, but cheap, and really easy - your hardware issues would be resolved within a week.
Just some ideas.
I think you'll find this might grow into pretty large project.
It's obviously possible to implement a stand-alone hardware solution to do something like this. Off the top of my head, Rabbit's solutions might get you to the finish-line faster. But you might be able to find some home-grown Beagle Board or Gumstix projects as well.
Two Google links I wanted to emphasize:
Rabbit: "Camera Interface Application Kit"
Gumstix: "Connecting a CMOS camera to a Gumstix Connex motherboard"
I would second Nate's recommendation to take a look at Rabbit's core modules.
Also, GHIElectronics has a product called the Embedded Master that runs .Net MicroFramework and has USB host/device capabilities built-in as well as a rich library that is a subset of the .Net framework. It runs on an Arm processor and is fairly inexpensive (> $85). Though not nearly as cheap as a single PIC chip it does come with a lot of glue logic pre-built onto the module.
CMUCam
I think you should have a look at the CMUcam project, which offers affordable hardware and an image processing library which runs on their hardware.
I would like to create/start a simulator for the following microcontroller board: http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/product_info.php?products_id=707#
The firmware is written in assembly so I'm looking for some pointers on how one would go about simulating the inputs that the hardware would receive and then the simulator would respond to the outputs from the firmware. (which would also require running the firmware in the simulated environment).
Any pointers on how to start?
Thanks
Chris
Writing a whole emulator is going to be a real challenge. I've attempted to write an ARM emulator before, and let me tell you, it's not a small project. You're going to either have to emulate the entire CPU core, or find one that's already written.
You'll also need to figure out how all the IO works. There may be docs from sparkfun about that board, but you'll need to write a memory manager if it uses MMIO, etc.
The concept of an emulator isn't that far away from an interpreter, really. You need to interpret the firmware code, and basically follow along with the instructions.
I would recommend a good interactive debugger instead of tackling an emulator. The chances of destroying the hardware is low, but really, would you rather buy a new board or spend 9 months writing something that won't implement the entire system?
It's likely that the PIC 18F2520 already has an emulator core written for it, but you'll need to delve into all the hardware specs to see how all the IO is mapped still. If you're feeling up to it, it would be a good project, but I would consider just using a remote debugger instead.
You'll have to write a PIC simulator and then emulate the IO functionality of the ports.
To be honest, it looks like its designed as a dev kit - I wouldn't worry about your code destroying the device if you take care. Unless this a runner-up for an enterprise package, I would seriously question the ROI on writing a sim.
Is there a particular reason to make an emulator/simulator, vs. just using the real thing?
The board is inexpensive; Microchip now has the RealICE debugger which is quite a bit more responsive than the old ICD2 "hockey puck".
Microchip's MPLAB already has a built-in simulator. It won't simulate the whole board for you, but it will handle the 18F2520. You can sort of use input test vectors & log output files, I've done this before with a different Microchip IC and it was doable but kinda cumbersome. I would suggest you take the unit-testing approach and modularize the way you do things; figure out your test inputs and expected outputs for a manageable piece of the system.
It's likely that the PIC 18F2520 already has an emulator core written for it,
An open source, cross-platform simulator for microchip/PICs is available under the name of "gpsim".
It's extremely unlikely that a bug in your code could damage the physical circuitry. If that's possible, then it is either a bug in the board design or it should be very clearly documented.
If I may offer you a suggestion from many years of experience working with these devices: don't program them in assembly. You will go insane. Use C or BASIC or some higher-level language. Microchip produces a C compiler for most of their chips (dunno about this one), and other companies produce them as well.
If you insist on using an emulator, I'm pretty sure Microchip makes an emulator for nearly every one of their microcontrollers (at least one from each product line, which would probably be good enough). These emulators are not always cheap, and I'm unsure of their ability to accept complex external input.
If you still want to try writing your own, I think you'll find that emulating the PIC itself will be fairly straightforward -- the format of all the opcodes is well documented, as is the memory architecture, etc. It's going to be emulating the other devices on the board and the interconnections between them that will kill you. You might want to look into coding the interconnections between the components using a VHDL tool that will allow you to create custom simulations for the different components.
Isn't this a hardware-in-the-loop simulator problem? (e.g. http://www.embedded.com/15201692 )