On schematics, generally.
01-29-2011, 04:55 PM
#24
Boost Pope
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,022
Total Cats: 6,589
That's been my understanding, though I've not heard it stated specifically as such.
The Microsquirt Module was designed from the ground up to be a standalone product, requiring some external components albeit, but meant to be used separately from the traditional mainboards into which the MS1 and MS2 CPUs have historically been installed.
And to be honest, I actually kind of prefer the design concept of the "conventional" MS2 CPU board over that of the Microsquirt. And here's why: They integrate too much crap on-board the microsquirt.
In a perfect world, the ECU would consist of two parts. The first is the CPU itself, and the second is the "main" board which houses all of the functional electronics. And actually, I'm ok with the fact that the MS3 CPU continues to use the legacy DIP-40 package. Personally, I would have either chosen something with more pins and sacrificed backwards-compatibility or flipped the headers around to the bottom so you don't need to use ribbon cables, but it's not a deal-breaker. The header connectors give you access to everything you need, and they're not that burdensome. (Still seems a trifle silly to me that the SD card and USB port are on it, but whatever. Just put the shorter mainboard components under the area that they overhang.)
It would, however, be more convenient if the license were affixed to the CPU module itself, rather than a package of CPU, board, and other ancillary products. This licensing scheme seems to be a throwback to the original MS1 design, where the CPU was just a plain ole $10 chip that any fool could buy from Digikey, but it needs not restrict us further. You can't buy an MS3 CPU assembly out of a catalog, so it is already the de-facto "value-added" component in the system. By affixing the license to the CPU itself, and making the CPU separate from the I/O electronics, all sorts of possibilities open up.
Do that, and we're no longer "stuck" with a mainboard that was designed to retrofit a 1960's vintage V8 and a gnarly collection of daughterboards and outboard boxes. Somebody wants to build an MS3-capable board to support inline-4 engines with factory wasted-spark coils and PWM idle control? Have at it. In fact, that sounds kind of familiar.
So, why is it that if I want to build an MS3, I have to start by purchasing a board which, aside from the power regulator, is almost entirely useless, and then start populating daughterboard after daughterboard onto it? It's not just needlessly expensive, it's cumbersome. Case the size of a shoebox and there's still no room in it for proper closed loop low-impedance injector drivers.
We've actually taken a step backwards, here.
I just don't see why we need to remain shackled to this obsolete design concept. Was it really worth it to save a few dollars for the couple of folks who wanted to upgrade their old MS2 boards (effectively destroying a perfectly good MS2-based ECU in the process) at the expense of everyone else going forward from now until... whenever?
But I'm drifting my own drifted thread here...
The Microsquirt Module was designed from the ground up to be a standalone product, requiring some external components albeit, but meant to be used separately from the traditional mainboards into which the MS1 and MS2 CPUs have historically been installed.
And to be honest, I actually kind of prefer the design concept of the "conventional" MS2 CPU board over that of the Microsquirt. And here's why: They integrate too much crap on-board the microsquirt.
In a perfect world, the ECU would consist of two parts. The first is the CPU itself, and the second is the "main" board which houses all of the functional electronics. And actually, I'm ok with the fact that the MS3 CPU continues to use the legacy DIP-40 package. Personally, I would have either chosen something with more pins and sacrificed backwards-compatibility or flipped the headers around to the bottom so you don't need to use ribbon cables, but it's not a deal-breaker. The header connectors give you access to everything you need, and they're not that burdensome. (Still seems a trifle silly to me that the SD card and USB port are on it, but whatever. Just put the shorter mainboard components under the area that they overhang.)
It would, however, be more convenient if the license were affixed to the CPU module itself, rather than a package of CPU, board, and other ancillary products. This licensing scheme seems to be a throwback to the original MS1 design, where the CPU was just a plain ole $10 chip that any fool could buy from Digikey, but it needs not restrict us further. You can't buy an MS3 CPU assembly out of a catalog, so it is already the de-facto "value-added" component in the system. By affixing the license to the CPU itself, and making the CPU separate from the I/O electronics, all sorts of possibilities open up.
Do that, and we're no longer "stuck" with a mainboard that was designed to retrofit a 1960's vintage V8 and a gnarly collection of daughterboards and outboard boxes. Somebody wants to build an MS3-capable board to support inline-4 engines with factory wasted-spark coils and PWM idle control? Have at it. In fact, that sounds kind of familiar.
So, why is it that if I want to build an MS3, I have to start by purchasing a board which, aside from the power regulator, is almost entirely useless, and then start populating daughterboard after daughterboard onto it? It's not just needlessly expensive, it's cumbersome. Case the size of a shoebox and there's still no room in it for proper closed loop low-impedance injector drivers.
We've actually taken a step backwards, here.
I just don't see why we need to remain shackled to this obsolete design concept. Was it really worth it to save a few dollars for the couple of folks who wanted to upgrade their old MS2 boards (effectively destroying a perfectly good MS2-based ECU in the process) at the expense of everyone else going forward from now until... whenever?
But I'm drifting my own drifted thread here...
Reply
0
0
01-29-2011, 05:46 PM
#25
So, why is it that if I want to build an MS3, I have to start by purchasing a board which, aside from the power regulator, is almost entirely useless, and then start populating daughterboard after daughterboard onto it? It's not just needlessly expensive, it's cumbersome. Case the size of a shoebox and there's still no room in it for proper closed loop low-impedance injector drivers.
There seems to be a reasonable market for ready-built MSx and I gladly payed more to have less issues (although I might have managed with a MS2 with a multitude of MODs).
What you describe seems to be a MicroSquirt 3 that is scrapped from the I/O (since it would need a BaseBoard anyway).
Kind of like when Chipset Designers (nVidia, VIA etc) sell the chipset and also show off a basic working design (that some sell directly but others modify for extra options).
Reply
0
0
01-29-2011, 06:59 PM
#26
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
So, why is it that if I want to build an MS3, I have to start by purchasing a board which, aside from the power regulator, is almost entirely useless, and then start populating daughterboard after daughterboard onto it? It's not just needlessly expensive, it's cumbersome. Case the size of a shoebox and there's still no room in it for proper closed loop low-impedance injector drivers.
We've actually taken a step backwards, here.
We've actually taken a step backwards, here.
*******
one
I spent more time trying to figure out what NOT to assemble to the V3.0 board than actually soldering on it.
Then I spent even more time replacing all the circuits with ones that actually did something useful for my application. Seriously, for a modern Miata, the 3.0 board is simply a random collection of pads and traces that you hack to work a little.
Joe, for what it's worth, I did fit the P&H board in my MS3X, but it's very tight.
Reply
0
0
08-03-2011, 12:12 PM
#27
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
hey joe, did you see this:
http://www.msextra.com/forums/viewto...=41678#p292384
http://www.msextra.com/forums/viewto...=41678#p292384
Originally Posted by James@MSExtra
Source code for [MS3] 1.0 release is planned to be released soon
Reply
0
0
08-03-2011, 12:20 PM
#28
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (33)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: atlanta-ish
Posts: 12,659
Total Cats: 134
Or were you pointing out that no source exists for the 3X? There's not a microcontroller on the Expander card.
Reply
0
0
08-03-2011, 01:12 PM
#30
Boost Pope
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,022
Total Cats: 6,589
Yeah, I do recall that they've promised a release on the MS3 code. I guess that's nice. To be honest, I'm not a software guy.
I do appreciate that the schematics for the MS3X were made public.
I do appreciate that the schematics for the MS3X were made public.
Reply
0
0
11-13-2015, 09:22 AM
#34
Supporting Vendor
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,332
Total Cats: 67
The source code has been released. The MS3 daughterboard schematics will not be. Keeping them secret seems to have forced M-Tech to actually design their own ECU for a change instead of ripping us off.
Reply
0
0
11-13-2015, 11:30 AM
#36
Boost Pope
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,022
Total Cats: 6,589
I wish I could remember what I was trying to find last night when I came across this thread. I was searching for "patent" and "trademark" because I'd found something online to antagonize JasonC with, and my recollection is that it was quite funny...
Ah, well. Silly comic about intellectual property:
Ah, well. Silly comic about intellectual property:
Reply
0
0
11-13-2015, 09:10 PM
#38
Boost Pope
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,022
Total Cats: 6,589
I remember what it was.
A restaurant here in NYC has patented the donut:
USPTO TSDR Case Viewer
Well, not really. They've been granted a trademark on the name Cronut® (portmanteau of Croissant-Donut), but that's almost as silly. There's been a fair amount of legal commentary on the subject, so that's kind of amusing. Apparently we've solved all of the world's more pressing problems, and can now devote the full force of American jurisprudence to protecting the intellectual property rights of breakfast-makers.
Dominique Ansel?s Cronut Is Now Trademarked -- Grub Street
A restaurant here in NYC has patented the donut:
USPTO TSDR Case Viewer
Well, not really. They've been granted a trademark on the name Cronut® (portmanteau of Croissant-Donut), but that's almost as silly. There's been a fair amount of legal commentary on the subject, so that's kind of amusing. Apparently we've solved all of the world's more pressing problems, and can now devote the full force of American jurisprudence to protecting the intellectual property rights of breakfast-makers.
Dominique Ansel?s Cronut Is Now Trademarked -- Grub Street
Reply
0
0
11-13-2015, 09:44 PM
#39
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (33)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: atlanta-ish
Posts: 12,659
Total Cats: 134
So? We said they wouldn't be released, and they haven't been. Nothing has changed. Why the surprise after nearly a half decade?
The quote that you took out of context was regarding source code, which we were always planning to publish once the code reached 'release' stage. When it did, we released it.
Every product we released schematics for in the past has been ripped off. But four years and three months later, no counterfeit MS3 daughterboards exist.
The quote that you took out of context was regarding source code, which we were always planning to publish once the code reached 'release' stage. When it did, we released it.
Every product we released schematics for in the past has been ripped off. But four years and three months later, no counterfeit MS3 daughterboards exist.
Reply
0
0
11-13-2015, 10:00 PM
#40
Boost Pope
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,022
Total Cats: 6,589
I liked the MS3Pro. You guys did good on that one. I wish I'd have kept it when I sold the car. And I have no quarrel with DIY- you guys are a credit to the industry.
My beef is with Bruce & Al. Openness and community development transformed the original Megasquirt from a nearly worthless throttle-body-injector driver into the most versatile and best-selling ECU in the whole world. The MS3 wouldn't exist if people like Phil, James, Jean, and hundreds of others hadn't had the freedom to hack and modify the MS1 and MS2. And yet, after all that time, B&G have basically developed severe tunnel-vision and decided that we can all go **** ourselves. That was a serious dick-move.
If I ever build a regular MS3 for myself, I'm going to strip the components from the PCB, remove the silkscreen, reverse-engineer the artwork, and publish it.
Just FYI.
Reply
0
0
