New Informations about the SDK

Shayne White · Post by **Shayne White** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 9:07 pm

I remembered hearing it was $35,000. Was I crazy??

Shayne White · Post by **Shayne White** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 9:17 pm

OK, I was crazy...but it isn't just $299. That thing is only a piece of hardware (a DSP chip and some RAM) -- the developing software is called VisualDSP++ and costs anywhere from $2000-5000. That's still less than Scope D/P was selling for.

Well, I really hope we can lobby some developers to come to Scope.

MaoMusique · Post by **MaoMusique** » Sat May 01, 2004 2:26 am

Hello,

Just a small calculation:

1Puslar II + 1Pulsar I + 1SRB = 14 DSP =~3500€/Dl = no SDK

1Scope 14DSP =~ 1500€/Dl = SDK ok

Why ?

genoxcide · Post by **genoxcide** » Sat May 01, 2004 3:14 am

On 2004-04-30 22:17, Shayne White wrote:
OK, I was crazy...but it isn't just $299. That thing is only a piece of hardware (a DSP chip and some RAM) -- the developing software is called VisualDSP++ and costs anywhere from $2000-5000. That's still less than Scope D/P was selling for.

Well, I really hope we can lobby some developers to come to Scope.

Well as i mentioned "the expensive AD stuff" i also meant the VisualDSP *g*
The Hardware for itself is needed to run the VisualDSP but you need also the VisualDSP to program in a... erm... somehow easier way than hardcore assembler

So a really full SDK hits a score of about 12.000 Euro all in all (incl. a Scope card) and thats what i meant with expensive...

i would prefer to buy a car instead

cheerz,
GenoX

genoxcide · Post by **genoxcide** » Sat May 01, 2004 3:19 am

On 2004-05-01 03:26, MaoMusique wrote:
Hello,

Just a small calculation:

1Puslar II + 1Pulsar I + 1SRB = 14 DSP =~3500€/Dl = no SDK

1Scope 14DSP =~ 1500€/Dl = SDK ok

Why ?

Because there is no final word spoken...
It could be that a the freeSDK also works on a stacked DSP system... So to all 14+ DSP owners with no Scope/Powerpulsar... just wait and see what CW says...

cheerz,
GenoX

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sat May 01, 2004 5:39 am

On 2004-04-30 22:17, Shayne White wrote:
...but it isn't just $299. That thing is only a piece of hardware (a DSP chip and some RAM) -- the developing software is called VisualDSP++ and costs anywhere from $2000-5000. ...

it is common practice to offer such kits at extremely low prices (sometimes even below production costs) for 'evaluation'. Imho the Analog kit even contains a limited version of the software.
I dunno about restrictions, but while this stuff is generally intended as promotion by the chip suppliers - the Access Virus has it's roots in exactly such a kit

(of course a Motorola one)

cheers, Tom

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2004-05-01 06:40 ]</font>

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Mon May 03, 2004 10:52 am

it is common practice to offer such kits at extremely low prices (sometimes even below production costs) for 'evaluation'. Imho the Analog kit even contains a limited version of the software.

That was my impression too.
Does Scope DP, full version, include VisualDSP, or do we have to get the full version? Where is the info page about the full Scope DP on Creamware's page? Couple of months ago, when CW was still restructuring, someone (Ralph

) from CW replied to one of my emails about Scope DP, saying that they stopped selling them? So, a lot of conflicting information!

wsippel · Post by **wsippel** » Mon May 03, 2004 4:20 pm

VisualDSP is, as far as I understand, an IDE and compiler? Because there's also a freely available port of GCC for Sharc DSP's, but I don't know if it would be possible to write Atoms using any IDE, compiling it with GCC and using it with SCOPE (without the need for the development board)?

Maybe some of these links are of any interest?
http://www.eeglossary.com/sharc.htm
http://www.kvaleberg.com/g21.html
http://www.bdti.com/faq/3.htm

BTW, there even was a port of CSound for Sharc DSP's some time ago...

PS: For those that don't know what GCC is, it's an acronym for GNU C Compiler - but it's far more than that. GCC may not be the fastest compiler, but it sure is the most powerful, due to it's open frontend (language), backend (architecture) design. It allows you to compile C, C++, Fortran, Java, Assembler, D, Cobol, Pascal etc on x86, IA64, AMD64, MIPS, ARM, xScale, Sparc, PPC, Sharc etc, on almost every operating system available...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: wsippel on 2004-05-03 17:34 ]</font>

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Mon May 03, 2004 5:03 pm

my information is mostely from the time when the German Keyboards reviewed DP by the making of the Saturn synth as an example project, but afaik only restrictions increased - not the basic software

the 'regular' DP was (still is) similiar to Modular, but with a higher lever of details. The basic building blocks are called atoms.

if you wanted to create additional such modules (dsp assembler code plus a software 'wrapper' to use them in the DP environment) you had to licence a separate piece of software and THAT was very expensive back then.
Compared to the C language it must have been an assembler / linker app with an additional encryption and protection layer for commercial devices.

Visual DSP and Scope DP are basically intended for a similiar purpose but DP hides complexity and sacrifices control in favour of heavily reduced developement time (in ranges of 20-100 fold).

DP is limited, of course, but chances are that almost everything needed for a certain project is already 'on board' and it is highly specialized on audio.

That it doesn't need those infamous 'new atoms' to make a new sound has been approved by Adern's Flexor recently.
Imho there is a wide range of misunderstanding regarding the influence of those 'atoms' at the sound.

For those adventurous enough to dig into the low level stuff, I'd really suggest the Analog kit.
It's a good investment in private education, whatever you'll finally do with it.

my 2 cents, Tom

cannonball · Post by **cannonball** » Fri Aug 06, 2004 6:24 pm

bump
SDK?

Shayne White · Post by **Shayne White** » Fri Aug 06, 2004 9:23 pm

We want SDK NOW!
We want SDK NOW!
We want SDK NOW!
We want SDK NOW!
We want SDK NOW!
We want SDK NOW!
We want SDK NOW!
We want SDK NOW!
We want SDK NOW!
We want SDK NOW!

Neutron · Post by **Neutron** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 9:50 pm

if i decide to sell my entire scopeDP system
i could easilly also sell the DP licence because it is linked with the card but the person i sell it to would also need to sign something from creamware?

i was thinking i have to take a loss on the DP part which cost me a small fortune.

dehuszar · Post by **dehuszar** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 2:24 pm

I don't know what the license limiitations are, but if Scope is written in Java, and the atoms and SHARC code can be compiled by GCC, I doubt it'd be very difficult (for someone well versed in such things) to build a plug-in for the Eclipse IDE that could tie together VisualDSP and less visual things like the SHARC native language development.

I'm hoping to start learning how to use these things (for Notes and Websphere) but am not there yet... Just planting seeds. Anyone?

Sam

blazesboylan · Post by **blazesboylan** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 4:19 pm

SCOPE is written in C++, not Java.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 5:28 pm

Sam, there's a misunderstanding - the Scope SDK doesn't deal with Sharc DSP assembly code at all.
The so called atoms are data blocks containing embedded code with unknown interface specs, probably encrypted to prevent peeking inside (and reverse engineering).
It's my personal guess from several facts, don't take it for granted.

cheers, Tom