Arduino Project Upgrades With 2 New Boards

EqualSlash writes "The Arduino Project is releasing two new boards — Arduino Uno to replace Duemilanove and Arduino Mega 2560 to replace the existing Arduino Mega board. With Uno, the board is not just getting a new pronunciation-friendly name but also has a custom-made USB-serial converter to replace the older FTDI chipset, thereby removing the need to install drivers (they now have their own USB Vendor ID). It now has a logo and stylish packaging, and soon will have its own branded web store. A new Ethernet integrated board and a tinkering toolkit will be made available shortly."

Comments

stupid spacing

[X0563511]

Did they finally get rid of that lame spacing goof?

Re:stupid spacing

[nickersonm]

in fact, you can build an atmel 328 chip with a 16mhz resonator, 1 or 2 resistors, 1 or 2 caps and some wire. its REALLY that trivial.

You have a goldmine there - I'm sure Atmel would pay a lot to be able to duplicate their IC functionality with a few discrete components!

PS3 controller

[vlm]

From http://arduino.cc/blog/2010/09/24/dinner-is-ready/

more advanced users will be able to reprogram the USB chip to make the board show up as a variety of USB devices (Keyboards, Mice, Joysticks, MIDI etc)

How bout a PS3 controller?

New custom chipset...with no drivers?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you make a new custom usb to serial chipset, with a new vendor id, that doesn't require drivers?

I'm no expert, but have used PL230x chipset cables and FTDI cables, and both required some kind of driver under OS X. I think windows may have included the PL230x driver, but not the FTDI. And Linux includes drivers for both. But if I took the FTDI or PL230x chipset and changed its vendor id, then the driver under linux won't detect it by default.

So how is it that a new custom chipset with a new vendor id requires no drivers? Is there a standard for USB->serial that if you follow you don't need a driver? (and why do most cables not support it if there is?)

just wondering...

Also, since the pl230x chipset is a pain the ___ at times due to inconsistent implementations in cables and buggy drivers, I certainly hope they don't make things worse. FTDI has been the gold standard in my experience.

Re:New custom chipset...with no drivers?

[X0563511]

It probably uses a class that requires no drivers.

Every new thumbdrive out there doesn't need a new driver, and they manage with new VID/PIDs all the time... because they all flag themselves in the Mass Storage class.

Re:New custom chipset...with no drivers?

[makomk]

The only standardised USB class for serial-like USB devices is the CDC ACM class. That's driver-free under Linux and Mac OS, but it's not exactly driver-free under Windows - you still have to install a .inf file to tell the driver shipped with Windows to actually load. In practice, for Windows users it's not really better than any of the proprietary driver-required solutions.

Re:New custom chipset...with no drivers?

[cheater512]

Yup they say in TFA that Windows needs a .inf

That must be what they are using.

Re:New custom chipset...with no drivers?

[ZorroXXX]

No, the CDC ACM class is not that new; it has been used for mobile phones for several years. It is at least present in the "Wireless Mobile Communications Devices" document dated February 9, 2007. See http://www.usb.org/developers/devclass_docs/CDC1.2_WMC1.1.zip for full details.

And we care because?

[SirGarlon]

The summary would be more useful if it mentioned, you know, what the board is for. In case some of us haven't heard of it or something. Yes, I did RTFA. It didn't say either.

Re:And we care because?

[MadGeek007]

It's basically a prototyping system for the rest of us (non electrical engineers).

Re:And we care because?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Arduino system is a development kit around Atmel Mega8 microcontrollers. It makes microcontroller development simpler for those without a background in programming or hardware design by providing easy programmability with a boot loader and an integrated USB to serial converter, ready-made "shields" (pluggable boards with specific functions) and a software environment which abstracts from some of the nastier aspects of microcontroller programming. It has got quite a fanbase in the "maker community".

Re:And we care because?

[zlogic]

It's an awesome tool that makes interfacing with real equipment (lights, motors, sensors etc) easy for a software developer with minimum electrical engineering knowledge and some knowledge of C programming. After it's programmed, it can run on its own without a PC.

Re:And we care because?

[BillX]

Those with a programming and hardware background, too :-) Once you get used to the pin-numbering abstraction, it's a real suck-saver for quick n dirty / one-off / non-production projects. The entire Arduino project, toolchain and most users' projects are open-source, and it's its own bootloader! One of the Mechies calls up and needs a quick test fixture to cycle a valve once per minute and log a sensor reading for the next several weeks. I can grab someone's microSD-FAT library off the internet and cobble something together in the time it takes to figure out whose desk the PIC programmer is hiding under this week and where the license code for their C (not C++) compiler went.

Re:And we care because?

[drinkypoo]

Arduino is a platform based on some minimal hardware wrapped around the Atmel AVR microcontrollers. It makes it very easy to slap the AVR into the middle of a design (especially if you use the Arduino Nano, which is designed to be conveniently breadboard-socketable) and actually get something done with it, like read some sensors or flash some LEDs, or perhaps read some sensors and flash the LEDs based on the input. Indeed, you can load the Arduino bootloader into sufficiently capable AVR processors and use their programming environment, libraries, etc. Arduino devices understand how to read many common sensors and control many common devices, including R/C car servo-motors. All this makes them an extremely common basis for small robotics projects. As well, Arduino devices are extremely inexpensive, and the microcontrollers upon which they are based even moreso.

But that wasn't very hard to begin with, and what's REALLY super-cool about Arduino is the idea of "Shields", which are sub-boards of hardware designed to be interfaced with an Arduino simply by plugging it in, and which are provided with the code necessary to utilize them. Thus, adding some functionality to an Arduino project can take one of two forms: you can build it out yourself and interface it, or you can simply buy someone else's premade "Shield", plug it in, and use their code to interface to the hardware.

Shields generally utilize Free and Open designs and so you get all the source and the full schematic. This means that while you can use Arduino for making finished products, you can also use it for rapid prototyping, then take the (Free, Open) Arduino schematic, combine it with the (Free, Open) schematic(s) of the shield(s) that you used, and send the whole thing off to get made into a permanent PCB for your own product. This in turn permits someone with programming ability but little to no electronics ability to produce finished products with semi-custom hardware.

Shields exist for a broad variety of functions, and generally they add input and/or output to a design. There are shields to control relays, and shields which can be used to determine how much power is flowing through them. There are LED blinking shields, Ethernet shields, sensor-control shields, ZigBee wireless mesh networking, video output, you name it. And anyone can produce any of this stuff from the designs, modified or not. Arduino is open hardware for the masses today, albeit a bit limited in processing power. However, it can always be linked to a more powerful computer; it has RS232 onboard (one of the tricks that Atmel teaches you to do with their AVR when you get the dev kit, in fact) and most designs include a USB to RS232 adapter which both powers the device and permits communication.

There is probably a much better way to summarize all of this, it could be a lot shorter, but I've never typed a full missive on what it is. Maybe someday this highly redundant piece of text can be used to train machine language or something :D

And the people who don't need the hype

[Anonymous Coward]

...can still get Atmel Atmega8 chips for two dollars a piece and do everything the Arduinos do. These microcontrollers literally need no external hardware other than a power supply.

Re:And the people who don't need the hype

[Yvan256]

That's why I prefer simple, smaller carrier boards instead. They got the ISP header and sometimes a place for a crystal+caps or a resonator and a power supply connector at most.

I had a small batch made for the ATtiny85, and my PCBs only adds one row above and below for the carrier board pins (useful for connecting into protoboards), and 2.5 columns more to the width for the ISP header.

Re:And the people who don't need the hype

[imroy]

That's one of the great things about the Arduino - most of the hardware "magic" is really just the built-in capabilities of the Atmel AVR micro-controller. If you don't need to use a "shield" (daughterboard), there's plenty of simpler (and cheaper) clones for more specific purposes. They just need to be programmed with the Arduino bootloader (which they usually are) and the Arduino IDE will program it just fine.

Re:And the people who don't need the hype

[Yvan256]

I actually have a few, already soldered up and tested. I made a mistake with the hole size for the IC pin headers that go into the protoboard, so I needed to drill those holes to fit the pins. The ISP header holes are just fine, though.

I'll be putting those on eBay in a few days, just search "attiny85" and you should find it (currently only two results on eBay.com, for the IC only).

FYI, I connect to the ISP header via the old STK500, I have no idea if it will work with anything else, but all six pins of the ISP header are wired to the correct pins for the ATtiny25/45/85.

It's very similar to the one from Tinkerlog but with only the ISP header and a small capacitor between the power pins (hidden under an IC socket to take less room). I'd say it's roughly half the size of the Tinkerlog one.

Re:And the people who don't need the hype

[John Hasler]

You can even get just the chip (in a DIP package if you wish) programmed with the bootloader for about $5.00.

Slashdotted

[iluvcapra]

They must be running their webserver on an Arduino.

There's nothing wrong with FTDI...

[Gordonjcp]

It doesn't need any funny drivers or anything, it Just Plain Works.

Re:There's nothing wrong with FTDI...

[zlogic]

On Windows you'll need to install a driver in order for USBserial to work. There were no drivers on Windows Update ~6 months ago so you need to install the drivers manually (possibly it's already fixed now). Otherwise the board is useless since it cannot be programmed.

Re:There's nothing wrong with FTDI...

[TheGratefulNet]

the only thing that does not 'plain work' is the rts/dtr hack to reset the cpu.

that, and, well, the ftdi cable is $20 and is needed to program the chip. the ftdi chip is not that much but its a PITA to solder to (fine lead pitch) and the usual solutions (sparkfun) have the board at $15, anyway. cut that out of the picture and things are finally cheap enough to be used by 'anyone'.

anyway, RTS/DTR idea is that you toggle one of those lines for a short while to discharge a small value cap across the cpu's reset line. its a neat idea and the cpu does NEED to be reset VERY prior to the first byte in the download. either you press it 'very quickly' or have software do it.

ftdi uses RTS and some other boards use DTR. that's one problem. and the other is that windows or linux (both) have no easy way to twiddle that bit and needed to call other routines to do the reset and then start the download (via what's known as 'avrdude', the downloader).

if they properly architected instead of hacked this, it would be a big step forward.

also, with regard to ethernet; I posted something about this on the ladyada forum and it did get some commentary. the problem with ethernet/ip is that there is no security (none, not even a tiny bit). for a physical device that can turn things on and off in the real world (including ruining/damaging things) you NEED security. I just firmly believe this. no firewall, no hosts.allow, no nothing. not authentication or encryption or MAC access control, just like TRULY nothing. I find that unacceptable in a real-world device.

given the fact that you can buy $50 things (pogoplug, seagate dockstar, even WRT routers) that run a full linux and IP stack, why hack around with dodgy ip-on-a-chip things (the arduino ethernet shield) when you can front-end the controller (arduino) with an embedded linux board that has proper IP features. as long as the linux board can shake 2 bits it can talk i2c. if it has 2 leds or 2 colors, it can shake 2 bits. there, you have all you need really to talk between the 1board linux plastic router thing and the arduino. AND you can run a real apache, php (etc!) there. even mysql ;)

the controller is great for fast polling of i2c devices and even spi and analog. its really really sucky for things like ethernet and IP and apps that sit on them. just not meant for them and its the wrong tool for the job.

(disc: I develop for arduino and have spent over a year on an embedded project using them).

Re:There's nothing wrong with FTDI...

[Sarten-X]

So Ethernet, at layer 2 of the OSI model doesn't offer the security functions of layer 6?

With all those rules regarding collisions, timing, and even the physical wiring, they didn't even throw in the simple requirement for all Ethernet devices to have a powerful processor, memory, persistent storage, keys, and programming to handle security? Or even the ability to update as new encryption becomes standard?

Those lazy bums must have no idea what they're doing!

Re:There's nothing wrong with FTDI...

[TheGratefulNet]

by 'ethernet' I've meant 'tcp/ip on a chip' kind of service. I wasn't at all being strictly literal.

'ethernet' kind of implies ip level service when used in conversation. I agree its technically wrong (I used to develop/teach networking courses) but when they (the arduino guys) call it an 'ethernet shield' and yet allow you to use the onboard webserver (??) you know its a lot more than just layers 1 and 2.

at some point, I really can envision 'security on a chip' or firewall chips being so easy to just plugin and deploy that they can be integrated in embedded systems. but the arduino ethernet shield (the thing we're talking about) just has no way to have firewalling as a plugin and I think that's a technical mistake that makes the shield kind of useless to me. maybe its good for learning in the lab but its useless to deploy in the real world.

Re:There's nothing wrong with FTDI...

[formfeed]

Those lazy bums must have no idea what they're doing!

I think that sums it up.

You must have thought, that you used irony or something. But if you have to add $50 in hardware so your $3 IC can do what a $7 IC could do natively, you really don't know what you are doing.

Re:There's nothing wrong with FTDI...

[Yetihehe]

Making it yourself is just more fun.

Re:There's nothing wrong with FTDI...

[Stele]

Anyone with half a brain is going to be doing their microcontroller development in Linux.

Fortunately I have a WHOLE brain, so I know how to install a (mostly automated) one-time driver on Windows when necessary.

Re:The netduino has been updated as well.

[batkiwi]

Dotnet micro is under the apache 2.0 license.

Fully open source under a certified license.

What are you complaining about?

Getting Starten on the Cheap

[RAMMS EIN]

Interesting that this story would pop up now. I have recently been thinking about getting into tinkering with microcontrollers. I've always had deep respect for what people used to be able to do with, say, a 6502 and a few kB of code. I think it would be great fun to try my hand at that. However, I have some special requirements that seem to be difficult to meet:

First of all, I would like to interface with hardware I already have. Particularly, video, input, and Ethernet. So it would be really great if I could get a board with VGA out, USB host or on-the-go, and Ethernet, although other combinations are possible (e.g. Ethernet not on the board, but via a USB device).

Secondly, I have virtually no experience with electronics, so I need something that is really easy to get started with. Of course, I am doing this in part because I want to learn, so if it's better to do a few simpler projects first to get the needed skills, I am open to that, too.

Thirdly, I want the device that will be running things to be _cheap_. I am thinking max 20 USD. That's for being able to run some simple software (doesn't need a lot of RAM or ROM, as long as more storage can be added) with video output, keyboard input, and network access. If I need some extra expenses to bootstrap things (e.g. some extra hardware to write the ROM), that's ok, but I want to basically be able to tell my friends "for under 20 dollars, you can get one of these computers and run all this great software, too".

Within these constraints, I would like to get the most bang for the buck that I can get. It doesn't have to be an 6502. If I can get an 68k or an ARM or an FPGA (given enough gates, of course), that would be grand.

I am really excited about the Beagle Board, but that's far outside my budget. I've looked at DigiKey's catalog, and there are many chips there that look promising, but frankly, I'm drowning in information, choices, and unfamiliar terminology for the moment. Perhaps one of the Arduino knock-offs will fit the bill. Uzebox looks really exciting, too. I feel that what I have in mind is out there somewhere, I just haven't found it yet. If someone could help me on my way, I would greatly appreciate that.