Blogs

RoBoard

Posted by Larry Lukis on August 16, 2010 at 4:30pm
I've been getting the RoBoard up and running because I'd like to have a lot more compute power than the Arduino platform has. My plan is to interface RoBoard to APM, use APM for most of the I/O and eventually do some higher level vision processing on the RoBoard.

Now have Windows XP running on RoBoard, can write programs on my main workstation using Visual Studio which is great because it's what I've been using for the last 15 years.

Two tips for success with RoBoard in such an environment for anybody who might want to try:
1. If you get RB-100, don't bother buying a USB floppy to load the RB-100's IDE driver. You want to use nLite to make your modified XP install CD per the posts on RoboSavy.com. It's free, it works, and with it, you can strip down your XP install to use only the minimal stuff you need.
2. The RoBoard docs say you can put the winio files either in your application directory, or in windows\system32. I put them in windows\system32 and wasted a day because the winio library initialization failed. Eventually I tried putting them in the application directory, and it worked fine.

Next step... See if I can get RoBoard talking to APM.
E-mail me when people leave their comments –
Follow

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones

Comments

  • tshado August 19, 2010 at 1:34am
    Hello Larry,
    Thanks for reporting about this intersting and powerfull board.
    1)could you detail your point 1)
    Do you mean we can use a mini(or micro) SD card ?
    2)To start using it is it mandatory to have the mini-PCI VGA card ?
    I would prefer an other solution....
    3)what version of Visual Basic would you recommand for a more oriented "hardware guy"?

    Thanks
  • Greg Fletcher August 18, 2010 at 8:47pm
    Larry, warp ahead to the future where I have just in the last 1.5 years have learned to program microcontrolers ever, and have done a lot of good stuff in that time. Debugging is printing out an integer or byte to the serial monitor;) I am evolving like a cave man breaking stuf with 8 bit rocks. Don't know the technology but have the brains. I'am smart but lack the experience. I have done some LabView work and it some times makes me feel like a neanderthal.
  • Larry Lukis August 18, 2010 at 8:17pm
    A few more notes/comments/responses:
    The RoBoard is running at < 500ma (without the display adaptor). I removed the display adapter after getting XP loaded. Now I connect via Remote Desktop over ethernet.
    I must admit, it's an order of magnitude more complicated to program as compared to Arduino. But working with the Arduino environment and processors, I feel like I've entered a time warp and gone back 30 years. Wait a minute - even in 1980, we had debuggers!
    You can get some Roboard add-on boards with gyros, accelerometers etc, but I plan to use the APM for that, and for it's excellent PWM inputs, outputs, and failsafe circuitry. Basically, an I/O co-processor.
  • AVS August 17, 2010 at 1:30pm
    Looks very interesting. I am a believer in more cpu power because the programmer can create easier to maintain code.

    Less power means "clever" code is required. More complex, which then leads to more bugs and less adaptability code.

    Am I right in thinking the RoBoard does not include both 3 axis gyro and 3 axis accel?

    It would be interesting to see this board without the multimedia but with more sensors.

    The boards power consumtion would mean that an xbee pro blows the pc usb limit.

    It would be nice to see more code space. I would like to see an AP that doesn't have to rely on compiler switches to support different devices

    Thanks for pointing it out I will keep an eye on the RoBoard
  • Greg Fletcher August 16, 2010 at 8:24pm
    That's an incredible little device. Never heard of it before. This level of programing is out of my league, but for those that can, this just boggles the mind what can be done. That's more computing power than a space shuttle flight control system. I would think you would need a team of developers to utilize it's full potential. I have my hands full with Arduinos. I would keep the low level flight control on the APM and let the big boy do the thinking. Less to go wrong. I hear that airliners use 386 computers for flight control. Simple and robust. Good luck with your project.

    link here
This reply was deleted.