New Coldfire-based Networkable Embedded Laser Controller!

[cruch]

well...when a person removed all of his post for his product, bells ringing in my ears!! Not only removed his post here in PL but also on LaserFreak.
Link here and here and also on his website.
Sounds like scam! to me!!

I have also tried to email him 3 days ago and no response yet.

[allthatwhichis]

Sorry, but I will ask all people go back to technical questions...

This topic was interest for 1800 people;
I think it was interest not for persons here...

Eh, I don't think our interest was satisfied quick enough, and then instead of supplying informaiton, the seller/manufacturer got defensive and left, and took his posts. There are a lot of members interested, 1/3rd of the registered members are viewing the thread right now, some for shits and grinns, but most to see how this plays out, but also, in the back of thier minds, well mine atleast, "How does this controller work? As well or better?". But also, where did it come from, which is all Bill it trying to get us to ask.

I have latched onto this "taste test", "Pepsi Challenge" idea and would really like a showdown. I'd love to find a smaller, faster, less expensive controller with more features, but someone has to sell it to me enough to prove it is, smaller, faster, and less expensive, AND if anyone infers the items has been copied, the seller is going to have to prove them wrong also. This isn't the US legal system here, no "Innocent until proven Guilty", this is Civil court, where the lines are vauge, and there are no technicallities. Maybe Bill is in the wrong and in my opinion, this thread could do way more damage to Pangolin if he is wrong, and doing what msith is implying, manipulation and all, but, and that's why we're all playing in this thread, lasermame, IMC, msith, whoever is going to have to argue their case better, the scales are leaning in Pangolin's favor. Possibly by his clever manipulation, but more by default or forfiture from my perspective. So let's get a few of those cards out there and, what software did anyone say would run on it, and see what it can do.

[fpgalover]

As developer I'm sure: such developing is impossible from "empty place"

Dear Ihor,

I can’t agree with your statement. If a person has enough knowledge in designing embedded systems it is possible to design such a board from the scratch. With the support of some FAEs, development kits and one or two design cycles you can make it. However, designing the hardware is only one part as I mentioned before. Bringing the system up with a complete and sturdy firmware plus drivers is a different thing.

Best regards,
Andy

[JoJo]

I looked FB3 board first time yesterday.
Our MultiBus board have similar functionality, but these boards looked absolutely different! and have absolutely different components!

Components are just the bricks to build a house.
As long as somebody uses the same microprocessor, the same DAC end even the same network controller, but uses other firmware or offers completely different user interface, it is legal.
There are many "similar looking" products. Just compare the EasyLase USB DAC with Medialas USB Box or our MP12C player with the Medialas HotboardII.
Naturally, it is not very nice seeing a competitor's product with nearly the same architecture, but you have to live with it.
How many network routers are on the market and how many of them use the same architecture (and maybe the same embedded Linux kernel), just with a different looking user interface?

Where is "own" product - and where is "copy"?

Exactly this is the question.
Every idiot can see the similarities between the card, Bill posted the picture, and the QM2000. It is definitely the same hardware.
The question is, if both cards do exactly the same things.
A copy of a product is not just the board. It is all the features, included software or user API.
The other question for me is, when a company is not able to design their own board (by choosing for example different DACs), is that company even able to make their own firmware and software?
Routing the board is just a small part of the project, like Andy said.
How progressive and innovative would my company look, if I am not able to spend 50 hours to route a different PCB?

Ihor, the problem with "same parts" will go on in the future.
Example: You use an ARM7 controller together with a mobile LCD.
I work on the ARM7 since over 1 year + work on the identical S65 display for longer than 1 year. Last time I saw your product at ILDA, you used a kind of bad looking Nokia display.
So when my product will be finished in the future, will you come and say my product is a copy of yours? It sounds unbelievable, but we both worked with the same hardware in parallel. Why? Because many developers take reference designs of manufacturers, development boards and even projects in freak communities as part of their project.
The hardware source of your player project was an Olimex board. I also have an Olimex board. Why should I use another board? Waisting time just for fun?
There is a very large thread in a forum about the S65 display. I got information from there and you got information from there (or from the russian forum). Who has the "right" now to make his hardware using this display or this microcontroller?
We both had the same work on it. You were faster. But is this a reason for me to throw away all my work?
You see, just comparing hardware architecture or components is not enough to identify a product as a copy.

I not want to see clones of our products!!!

So is my ARM7 board with S65 display and network and/or USB a clone of yours???

You use an SD card as mass storage media.
I use SD cards since 2001 (I was the very very first one using SD-cards for lasershow playback system).
So are your products clones of my products?

Let's compare complete product features, not just boards or microcontrollers!

Joachim

[riyalasers]

Hi Joachim!,
I'm glad to read your opinion here!

I can repeat: I'm ready to talk "exuse me" to lasermame!!!

But I can repeat:
- ""When I looked photo from Bill - sorry lasermame - my opinion - it is "clone" of QM2000.""

First: as you can see - I talked about photo (hardware)
Second:
- I understand why Pangolin choised their architecture and type of components on QM32 (with slow PC);
- I understand why Pangolin continued the same line in 2000 year (or before it
- But I not understand why new developing on 2007 year is based on the same components and architecture.

Can it expline me or author, or you?




About your message: you are absolutely right in most your opinions!!!
Of course, we go to parallel direction, and use similar components and architecture.
But before "realy" production I, for example, have 5-10 versions...
I sure you have too

Will be good to look intermediate results, not only final product here.

Ihor

[MechEng3]

OK so Mr Msith you have labeled all of us here gutless and stupid. Meanwhile we are having fun doing what we enjoy ..... lasers. Why dont you just return to the hole you evolved from and let us enjoy what we think is a great hobby. It is people...wait......a$$ess like you who tend to leave a bad taste. If you are so well educated in the field, where is your controller and software package? I think the truth has been exposed in itself as to the actions that have occured. I think it may be time for you to just leave well enough alone. You will probably hang yourself with the allegations you made along with any new posts.....

[Banthai]

MechEng3 wrote

Why dont you just return to the hole you evolved from and let us enjoy what we think is a great hobby

The problem is that the hole he has dug for himself is so deep that he should be popping up in the UK anytime soon


all the best ... Karl

[cruch]

hehe.
I guess I am brainwashed since I use Pangolin software...

[JeroenVDV]

There´s one important thing people keep forgetting... It isn´t all about the hardware! With respect to Bill and the other hardware-designers here, but the most important thing is, in my opinion, the software the user will be working with.

I've found Pangolin software REALLY stable, simple to use - but still with more then enough features. Almost all the other lasersoftware I tried had lots of bugs in it and were full of unlogical ways to do things - or just not capable of doing the things I want to.

With the modern fast PC's we all have available for almost no money, we don't need seperate processing on our DAC's. We don't need memory in our DAC. We just need a stable and fast way to output ILDA-signal and that can be done by USB (like the FB3), by ethernet in combination with a simple processor for ethernet-communication and creating ILDA-signal.

I don't think the LD2000 software needs the processing-capacity of the QM2000 boards anymore. LivePro is working realtime without using the processing on the board and works without a problem - same for the LAstudio software.

[dream beamz]

There´s one important thing people keep forgetting... It isn´t all about the hardware! With respect to Bill and the other hardware-designers here, but the most important thing is, in my opinion, the software the user will be working with.

I've found Pangolin software REALLY stable, simple to use - but still with more then enough features. Almost all the other lasersoftware I tried had lots of bugs in it and were full of unlogical ways to do things - or just not capable of doing the things I want to.

With the modern fast PC's we all have available for almost no money, we don't need seperate processing on our DAC's. We don't need memory in our DAC. We just need a stable and fast way to output ILDA-signal and that can be done by USB (like the FB3), by ethernet in combination with a simple processor for ethernet-communication and creating ILDA-signal.

I don't think the LD2000 software needs the processing-capacity of the QM2000 boards anymore. LivePro is working realtime without using the processing on the board and works without a problem - same for the LAstudio software.

I think you are wrong. Regardless of what it looks to be on face value. The pangolin board creates stability that could not be matched without it. Every computer is different and varies in speed so no matter what, your settings would be slightly off. A good example is full auto, they use the approach you are speaking of and despite having a calibration button to try and add latency to make the hardware act the same. The issue that comes from this, even though it says i am only outputting 20khz, I am actually outputting a true 30khz. The pangolin board fixes that and at the very least decrypts the input signal to turn it into something useful. You could say it has many of the same principle of an ASIC (application specific integrated circuit). Most of pangolins functions rely heavily off of the computer built into the PCI slot. Remember it says on his website that you could be displaying an image off the pangolin and unplug the card from the computer. If you still had power going to the card it would still output (dont try at home)