
freeSoC and freeSoC Mini - ippisl
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/18182218/freesoc-and-freesoc-mini
======
tibbon
To sum up the pain points that this is fixing:

\- More pins, enabling more input/output. While there are some projects that
only need a few pins, larger ones like big interactive light installations
benefit from more

\- Almost all pins are analog or digital compatible, with a few high current
digital ones

\- Compatible with Arduino header boards

\- Better IDE

\- Included ADC (two types, one can drive CD-quality audio), DACs,
comparators, op-amps for bufferring, capacitive sensiving. These remove the
need for a lot of external stuff to make simple and common things.

As someone who already has a stack of Arduinos, a PIC programmer, and a
handful of Raspberry Pi's... this is still something that is unique and
relevant. Pretty awesome and I hope it makes its funding goal.

~~~
jmole
Hey All, Jon Moeller here.

Thanks for all the support so far, I've received just under 20 backers from
direct referrals from here, and I really appreciate it.

This is a great summary of the pain points I'm trying to address.

I really can't emphasize enough how revolutionary the PSoC Creator IDE is.
I've been using it for the past three years, and it FAR exceeds any other MCU
development environment I've ever used. (including a few mentioned in the
comments here)

If you are on the fence about it, download the IDE from cypress.com and try it
out, it's totally free and always will be. They have several example projects
you can get to from the File->Open menu, which illustrate much of the
functionality.

Thanks again for the publicity and the support!

~~~
jessedhillon
I took a components design course 5+ years ago, but I haven't done any
hardware work since. This project looks really exciting to me, but can you
explain some of these features and why they matter?

For example, what is a digital-compatible pin? What makes a pin digital
capable, versus analog? And what are some of these serial port limitations
mentioned in the project description?

------
forgottenpaswrd
The best Microcontroller?

Does it works on Linux or mac?.

No.

It that software opensource?

No

Why then I should choose this thing instead of more powerful and closed micros
like this?:
[http://www.microchip.com/stellent/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_P...](http://www.microchip.com/stellent/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&nodeId=2551)

~~~
shadowmint
I think we can all agree that the arduino IDE is a terrible piece of software.
It works... on most platforms. It's not bloated. It's kind of documented.
That's about all the good you can say about it.

...but I have to agree, sounds like this is a neat platform, but if I can't
write, compile and deploy code to it, what's the point?

Is it really that hard to provide a tool chain that lets you cross compile
binaries for a platform, and a set of headers? I hate these 'integrated
development environments'. It's just bloated rubbish-ware.

For all the lack of support the android NDK gets from google, at least they
got _that_ right. It's a compiler. That's all it does. You write code in
whatever the heck you want, and just compile it.

I don't get why so many companies have such a hard time with understanding why
this is desirable.

~~~
revelation
Arduino is just an AVR processor nicely wrapped. They offer their own IDE so
you don't have to bother with the difficulties in getting your code on your
device.

Atmel maintains an AVR port of the GNU toolchain and provides their own IDE
based on Visual Studio.

~~~
vonmoltke
Eclipse + AVRdude is also an excellent IDE for Arduino development.

------
cocoflunchy
The projects of this guy are really cool (<http://moeller.io>)!

------
revelation
Is there stable support for this architecture in GCC and related projects?
That is, is there a standard-conforming open toolchain?

Otherwise I wouldn't even bother.

~~~
mtdev
PSoC5 is supported by GCC, the Cypress PSoC IDE just makes it easier for
novices to get started. There is also a FreeRTOS port to PSoC5, so you can get
into some pretty interesting stuff.

That aside, I am really glad they went with PSoC5 (ARM Cortex-M3 architecture)
instead of the cheaper PSoC3 (8051 architecture). This makes it easy to
prototype on the PSoC5 and then move to a more specialized Cortex when they
hit performance limits.

Finally, I don't see mechanical drawings, however, I hope they spaced the
parallel connectors on freeSOC n*0.1" apart. One of the frustrating things
about Arduino is that the spacing on the shield connector is non-standard, so
you can't simply plug it into a breadboard.

~~~
pvidler
Just from the descriptions and photos, it looks like the mini will be
breadboardable.

The bigger one almost certainly not -- it's arduino compatible and the gap on
one side is visibly smaller than the other. Also, it's not clear if the big
one will have pins dropping down below the board (just looks like female
headers).

~~~
mtdev
Yep, I just looked at the pinouts on the larger one and its very likely that
they kept the same out-of-spec spacing as the Arduino Uno.

------
zokier
Seems like fairly reasonable piece of hardware. But what I really dislike is
the name. SoC is an established acronym in the industry, so at first I was
thinking that they'd be developing their own free (as in speech) SoC. But
instead they are just making yet another dev board for a _proprietary_ SoC.

------
gamegod
I really, really dig this idea. There's a handful of little hardware projects
I've wanted to do with an Arduino or the like, but I've found that if you've
got slightly different peripheral requirements, it's difficult to find one of
these boards that will fit the bill. The idea of being able to significantly
change the functionality of the hardware pins without doing loads of work is
fantastic.

One minor gripe would be higher precision DACs (only 8-bit?), though the ADCs
look great. The DACs would be a problem for audio, though the ADCs would be
good for the lab.

------
Zenst
Best pair of odd sock(sic) I've seen in ages.

What is interesting is the ability to program them via a graphical drag and
drop style visual programming language and that is something for people
learning that will appeal strongly. As for the specs and abilities I shall
leave that to those more vested in this microcontroller.

~~~
dag11
It has dragging and dropping some components of the program, but still
requires code. It's not a visual programming language. Also, even the visual
aspect of it is rather technical. To fully use this board, it seems one has to
already be familiar with datasheets, C, and the concepts of components like
PWM or protocols like I2C, and so on.

That said, this seems to be a great product for people who already have some
experience with these concepts, and want an Arduino-like device that better
suits them. I think I'll be buying this board. I'll sleep on it, though.

~~~
Zenst
Yes I do fall into that concepts catergory, though does seem more
approachable. I too am sleeping upon it.

------
jgrahamc
Seems like a powerful device. Did I miss it or is there no information on
power consumption?

~~~
tibbon
You're right, I don't think that's been stated yet. The chip itself is fairly
low power draw- but with those op-amps and other stuff onboard I'm guessing
that stuff might be able to draw a good bit more.

~~~
joezydeco
The PSoC is so highly configurable internally that power consumption will
totally be up to how you set up the internal clocks and analog blocks. Cypress
has a great set of technical notes about all of these aspects. This TN even
includes a spreadsheet to help you estimate power draw and battery life:

<http://www.cypress.com/?rID=64554>

~~~
tibbon
That's essentially what I was thinking- its going to be low-ish power
consumption, but its all going to be about how you set it up.

