where is the iphone/megatune app?
#27
Senior Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Falls Church, VA
Posts: 1,361
Total Cats: 17
#28
I've done a little research on this front and one thing that's a PITA is that the hardware interface for the iPhone is closed. You have to sign up with Apple if you want access to the docs on the port and/or bluetooth hardware (you don't need special access to do phone to phone bluetooth, just for other devices). That said, I'm sure some enterprising folks have got it reverse engineered. It will just then require a jailbroken phone since you'll be accessing the hardware in an unapproved way. I recall that there was one guy working on some kind of iPhoneOS megasquirt software on the ms-extra forums, but I don't know what became of it.
#29
Sorry Hustler, but thats one more reason to go Android. I can use certified apps in the market place, or use third party apps of your design or anyone else without apple or tmobile voiding your warranty. Apples dictating is tiresome
I'm a long time mac using graphic artist masquerading as a mac using sales engineer, but even I'm fed up with Apple demands on how I can use my hardware. ( I bought it, its mine!)
I've considering working on an app for the G1, and other Android enable phones, but again the interface is a bit of an issue. My MSPNP uses a serial connecting. I know some of the other Megasquirter builds offer full USB capability, but the I don't think that applies to the MSPNP. I don't know if any MS supports bluetooth although that would be a great option if things change.
I'm a long time mac using graphic artist masquerading as a mac using sales engineer, but even I'm fed up with Apple demands on how I can use my hardware. ( I bought it, its mine!)
I've considering working on an app for the G1, and other Android enable phones, but again the interface is a bit of an issue. My MSPNP uses a serial connecting. I know some of the other Megasquirter builds offer full USB capability, but the I don't think that applies to the MSPNP. I don't know if any MS supports bluetooth although that would be a great option if things change.
#31
I don't know for a fact, but I think it is because thats what was common when it was first developed. In addition it was really easy to find an older laptop with a serial port a few years ago. However things have changed. On the non PNP builds I know you can adapt usb, and I would think you could do this to the PNP as well, but you would have to talk to guys at DIYAutotune for that info.
#33
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,026
Total Cats: 6,592
USB, by comparison, is somewhat more complex to implement and has a higher overhead, and is thus not commonly seen on processors intended for embedded devices.
There are several low cost single-chip USB interfaces available for use in designs like the MS, and nearly all of them consist of a USB to RS-232 transciever which appears to the host PC as a virtualized COM port, and appears to the microcontroller to be a normal RS-232 terminal. I'm pretty sure that this is how USB is being implemented in the new MS3 design, although the schematic does not seem to be available yet.
#35
I'm a terrible person
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,174
Total Cats: 180
RS-232 is still a very common standard on embedded microcontrollers, largely because it is easy to implement, has very low overhead, and is entirely adequate for the sort of low datarate tasks that these processors typically perform. Both the 68HC908 (MS1) and the 9S12C (MS2) processors natively speak RS232 on dedicated pins, requiring only a simple line driver to interface with the outside world.
USB, by comparison, is somewhat more complex to implement and has a higher overhead, and is thus not commonly seen on processors intended for embedded devices.
There are several low cost single-chip USB interfaces available for use in designs like the MS, and nearly all of them consist of a USB to RS-232 transciever which appears to the host PC as a virtualized COM port, and appears to the microcontroller to be a normal RS-232 terminal. I'm pretty sure that this is how USB is being implemented in the new MS3 design, although the schematic does not seem to be available yet.
USB, by comparison, is somewhat more complex to implement and has a higher overhead, and is thus not commonly seen on processors intended for embedded devices.
There are several low cost single-chip USB interfaces available for use in designs like the MS, and nearly all of them consist of a USB to RS-232 transciever which appears to the host PC as a virtualized COM port, and appears to the microcontroller to be a normal RS-232 terminal. I'm pretty sure that this is how USB is being implemented in the new MS3 design, although the schematic does not seem to be available yet.
Once I get done with this freaking deployment I am getting back into software dev. a lot of my side projects will hopefully be automotive related
#36
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,026
Total Cats: 6,592
Yeah, while a lot of folks seem to view USB as being "simpler" than RS-232 (for reasons that I still don't understand), from an engineering standpoint, both hardware and software, RS-232 is 1,024 times easier to deal with.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post