Interrupt Timer Wrong

[Docara]

Hi

When I'm simulating this the display is not counting up in seconds - why?

FC7.1.1 30 day trial

[medelec35]

Simulation is not in real time, it can be much faster.
It depends on PC calualtion abilities as well.
Should be fine in the real world on hardware.

Martin

[Docara]

Thanks Medelec,

Sorry I don't have a thumbs up icon.

Yes but surely this is a basic function which needs to be addressed, especially in a programme that advertises simulation!! In this day and age there is more than enough processing power - it would also be nice if thepin on the chip pulsed at the same time as the LED!

Also, the video tutorial I copied it from, although it used 50Hz timer, counts up in seconds. If I put in two 1sec delays n place of the interrupt it flashes the LED correctly.

Matrix certainly makes it hard o me to want to buy their product.

[QMESAR]

Sorry I don't have a thumbs up icon.

It can not be just look properly

[medelec35]

Sorry I don't have a thumbs up icon.

You must be logged in, then look next to the Quote button top right of posts.

Matrix certainly makes it hard o me to want to buy their product.

Try creating projects with C code or assembly, then you will probably think the opposite.

I have tried using C and assembly and always prefer flowcode.
Producing a working project is miles faster.

Even dedicated simulators are not that accurate when it comes to real time.

One more thing.
After the Print seconds macro, you will also want to place a Print String " " (two spaces) macro.
Otherwise when seconds roll-over from 255 to 0 then the wrong amount of seconds will be displayed.

Martin

[Docara]

Hi Medelec,

Couldn't see for looking (might have been looking in the wring place cough cough !!

I hear what you say about Flowcode. Whilst I agree its brilliant it has its limitations which affect me buying it - because I have a very limited budget I just cant justify it.

I genuinely think Flowcode used to be an educational tool which gained a following and crossed over to the dark side but the developers/management got lost somewhere and they are now using a 'scatter' gun/ all eggs 1 basket approach with the product. As a quick example there''s no offline help but you HAVE TO have a compulsory 3d rendering engine (why) but pay for some basic components like some more common LEDs & switch components (which were present in v5) and the extra Ghost debug bits which they market as a feature but only work with PICS.

As a novice how can I have confidence in the software that during a simulation doesn't simulate accurately - how do I know I've written the programme correctly if an LED on screen is not flashing correctly? Whilst I appreciate the realistic answer is to programme a chip and see if it will work as intended it is not the correct answer - I want to know it IS working as intended BEFORE programming the chip. Its a pity Matrix didn't concentrate on the basics before adding 'features' (aka 3D and implement all internal component of chips they say they support eg native onboard RTCC and not having to use an external DS107)

Sorry rant over.
Doc

[Benj]

Hi Doc,

eg native onboard RTCC

Native RTCC would certainly be a very good feature addition. The reason we haven't done it yet is that there are a lot of different implementations of RTCC's in chips over the years. Getting all the variants working with all the different clocking options would be a monumental task. Saying this I've put it on the list for us to investigate. If we were only working with a handful of chips e.g. the Arduino way then it would be easy.

There is now offline help available here, though please note you have to browse the html files manually.
http://www.matrixtsl.com/resources/file ... ort_v1.zip