Do you make use of Ghost features?

Moderator: Benj

Post Reply
User avatar
DavidA
Matrix Staff
Posts: 1071
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: Matrix Multimedia Ltd
Has thanked: 58 times
Been thanked: 258 times
Contact:

Do you make use of Ghost features?

Post by DavidA »

Please use this topic to discuss the Ghost features within Flowcode, what improvements can be made to ghost, what would make you use Ghost?

Docara
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 1:29 pm
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 61 times
Contact:

Re: Do you make use of Ghost features?

Post by Docara »

Hi David,

I think an EB006 type board should be made available to all processor families you support with full Ghost compatibility without having to buy a pack to gain access to its features. I feel this goes towards one of the unique selling point of FC.

It seems other than for 8bit PIC processors (possibly 16 I suppose) all the other programming type boards are very heath Robinson.

EtsDriver
Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 4:19 pm
Location: Kajaani, Finland
Has thanked: 345 times
Been thanked: 227 times
Contact:

Re: Do you make use of Ghost features?

Post by EtsDriver »

I now refer the old FlowkitV1 here mostly, have not bought the V2, waiting for the V3. :wink:

Personally, when at the field, serial terminal is my friend... But sometimes i wish there would be easy header to re-program the device and use Ghost to see some variables. I have Flowkit, but it just is not made for field use. And on my applications i still need to carry the trusty PICKit with me to there. But if we would have a good programmer/debugger/serialgateway device with sturdy enclosure, it would help a lot! The fact we could use just one header for all that, without the need to bring FTDI cable, pickit, ton of cables... etc. And benefit would be if the device would be a "multiprogrammer" with really the multi in mind, not caring about the processor family, it could program it.

Sometimes the Flowkit gives very ambiguous warnings, that usually seem like the program just needs recompiling, but there have been some weird things happening with bad cables and poor connections too.
I have had Ghost fail to start the user application and then i have to yet again recompile and send program, even tough i just did it second ago...

Ghosts ICT function is a great tool, and i have founded it to be useful in certain times.
Ill just keep the good work up!

User avatar
Steve001
Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
Posts: 1188
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:37 pm
Has thanked: 460 times
Been thanked: 521 times
Contact:

Re: Do you make use of Ghost features?

Post by Steve001 »

May I make a comment ?

the poll that appeared in flowcode when I opened today

maybe add another button or two ?

find I difficult to use / don't know how to use it

I would have clicked this. I have tied to use it but didn't have much success, admittedly I have not spent much time with it. I plan to when I have a bit more time.
I like the idea of a live monitoring interface similar to plc / scada software so that you can see what is going on.

Steve
Attachments
Capture - forum post.JPG
Capture - forum post.JPG (22.64 KiB) Viewed 7266 times
Success always occurs in private and failure in full view.

User avatar
QMESAR
Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2014 3:20 pm
Location: Russia
Has thanked: 380 times
Been thanked: 608 times
Contact:

Re: Do you make use of Ghost features?

Post by QMESAR »

Hi All.
In my humble opinion if a tool chain does not give you the developer the opportunity to debug en inspect mcu variable and registers and even debug lines of code(as Ghost give us and for that matter all the ICD's from MCHP) it is not worth using the tool chain.
Debugging and analyzing your code is for me 90% of a tool chain with this said I personally also feel that MATRIX does not invest the time in GHOST as it should as there are some very peculiar issues with GHOST on PIC32 on PIC18 I am happy it is working very well
Regards
QMESAR

viki2000
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 9:38 am
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 77 times
Contact:

Re: Do you make use of Ghost features?

Post by viki2000 »

I agree with QMESAR comments above.
I use also MPLABX with their compilers for simulator and/or debugging with debugging heads, but sometimes I use also CCS compiler and their IDE environment lets you debug with breakpoints and real time variables, SFR with no matter what board and PIC as long as is supported for programming/compile the code.
I want to see Flowcode with similar options, otherwise is useless.
I do not want to be bound by a special hardware for debugging, I want to use my hardware and to be able to debug any project as long as the PIC is supported by Flowcode to make a project and compile as hex using XC compilers.

User avatar
Jay Dee
Posts: 397
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 6:42 pm
Has thanked: 121 times
Been thanked: 154 times
Contact:

Re: Do you make use of Ghost features?

Post by Jay Dee »

I have the some GHOST capable programmers and the idea sounds great but in practice, I have never found spare time to delve in and work the whole thing out.
There are many great features in flowcode that have clearly had lots of development time put in but then there is no supporting documentation,
or tutorials. As such I keep using flowcode that way I always have, its a shame since I know it to be capable of more.

Same goes for Console, Scope, etc.. all potentially great features but despite having spent a few minutes, their method of operation was not immediately obvious and I don't have the time to just fiddle about for a few hours. A few basic documents and tutorials on the more advanced features would make this stuff much more accessible and widely used. J.

User avatar
E*2Engineer
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 6:54 pm
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 6 times
Contact:

Re: Do you make use of Ghost features?

Post by E*2Engineer »

The GHOST technology is something I was really looking forward to.
It is to ambiguous and needs more development and documentation.
So unfortunately, like others, I rely on tried and true methods for programming.

I really think it has a lot of potential, and hope it gets developed further, so using
it can become more mainstream, and not just something the developers at Matrix use.

-Craig C

Post Reply