|
Farhan might I ask whi the pico and not just add a pc8575 or pc8574 i2c gpio expander into the mix if you need more gpio.
I think the z2w over pico w is alot better and mre power performance.
|
Alternatively, I would ask , why a PICO and not an ESP32 ? Cheaper also !
Regards VU2UPX?
On Mon, 10 Mar, 2025, 5:47 pm Richard Neese via , <n4cnr.ham= [email protected]> wrote: Farhan might I ask whi the pico and not just add a pc8575 or pc8574 i2c gpio expander into the mix if you need more gpio.
I think the z2w over pico w is alot better and mre power performance.
|
In general, GPIO is not the best way to interface a display IMO: it might lead you away from being able to use the GPU, and even worse, maybe you’ll waste cycles with bit-banging. ?(It’s been that way since the first pi: they gave us a machine with a middling CPU and ok-for-its-time GPU, but people mostly neglected the latter and pretended that it’s a high-power microcontroller or low-powered PC. ?Most of the software could have been better all along.) ?Of course in this case we can just say the pico is acting as the GPU for this little display: the main CPU can use some sort of language to tell the display what to show, and sending that out might be more efficient than actual rendering. ?That leaves the main pi’s GPU free for doing SDR acceleration (well it could, probably won’t though), running the external HDMI display and so on. ?But the wifi and bluetooth also seem redundant at first glance (when the radio and display are in the same box). ?Setting it up as a remote head was mentioned: two more ways to connect it then, besides the gpio.
I suspect it will ship with some sort of one-off display protocol just for the zbitx (and then how often will its firmware need updating as the feature set improves?), but it’s a long-term interest of mine to come up with a more reusable remote-UI protocol that scales really well.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mar 10, 2025, at 13:51, Charudatt Uplap via groups.io <charudattu@...> wrote:
Alternatively, I would ask , why a PICO and not an ESP32 ? Cheaper also !
Regards VU2UPX? On Mon, 10 Mar, 2025, 5:47 pm Richard Neese via , <n4cnr.ham= [email protected]> wrote: Farhan might I ask whi the pico and not just add a pc8575 or pc8574 i2c gpio expander into the mix if you need more gpio.
I think the z2w over pico w is alot better and mre power performance.
|
The Pico brings something to the table that those alternatives do not: PIO peripherals. Those let you take most hardware protocols, including non-standard ones, and turn them into something that is supported in hardware by the microcontroller. (The PIO libraries for support of addressable LEDs are a good example.) Not bad for a board that costs $4. At some point it might make sense to engineer its RP2040 microcontroller (or the next generation RP2350) directly into the zBitx design to shave a bit more off the build cost; the chip costs less than $1 (though it also needs some support parts like flash memory), but simply adding a Pico board made it possible for HF Signals to respond to the display issue more quickly and keep the design on track. On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 9:22?AM Shawn Rutledge K7IHZ / LB2JK via <social= [email protected]> wrote:
In general, GPIO is not the best way to interface a display IMO: it might lead you away from being able to use the GPU, and even worse, maybe you’ll waste cycles with bit-banging. ?(It’s been that way since the first pi: they gave us a machine with a middling CPU and ok-for-its-time GPU, but people mostly neglected the latter and pretended that it’s a high-power microcontroller or low-powered PC.? Most of the software could have been better all along.) ?Of course in this case we can just say the pico is acting as the GPU for this little display: the main CPU can use some sort of language to tell the display what to show, and sending that out might be more efficient than actual rendering.? That leaves the main pi’s GPU free for doing SDR acceleration (well it could, probably won’t though), running the external HDMI display and so on.? But the wifi and bluetooth also seem redundant at first glance (when the radio and display are in the same box).? Setting it up as a remote head was mentioned: two more ways to connect it then, besides the gpio.
I suspect it will ship with some sort of one-off display protocol just for the zbitx (and then how often will its firmware need updating as the feature set improves?), but it’s a long-term interest of mine to come up with a more reusable remote-UI protocol that scales really well.
Alternatively, I would ask , why a PICO and not an ESP32 ? Cheaper also !
Regards VU2UPX? On Mon, 10 Mar, 2025, 5:47 pm Richard Neese via , <n4cnr.ham= [email protected]> wrote: Farhan might I ask whi the pico and not just add a pc8575 or pc8574 i2c gpio expander into the mix if you need more gpio.
I think the z2w over pico w is alot better and mre power performance.
|
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 07:17 AM, Richard Neese wrote:
Farhan might I ask whi the pico and not just add a pc8575 or pc8574 i2c gpio expander into the mix if you need more gpio.
I think the z2w over pico w is alot better and mre power performance.
?
The zBitx is called the zBitx because it is based on the RPi Zero 2 W (Zero Bitx), and the RPi Pico W is being added to compliment the RPi Zero 2 W, not replace it.
?
As for the Pico vs ESP or other microcontroller, I'm not sure there is a significant cost advantage of one over the other (Pico W on a board is just a couple US dollars, how cheap are ESP boards?)
?
I suspect even if there is a greater cost for the RPi Pico W vs say an ESP processor, the engineers/designers may be more familiar/comfortable/productive in one environment vs another, and the RPi Pico W has a lot of interesting capabilities that owner/hackers may be able to exploit down the line.
?
I hope that helps, at least that is what I understand about the selection of the RPi Pico W.
?
Ken, N2VIP
|
The Raspberry Pi Pico is $4. The Pico 2 (a newer version with more CPU power and flash memory) is $5. The wireless variants are an extra $2 but I don't think the zBitx is using one; it already has wireless in the Zero 2 W so it doesn't need it in the Pico.
The WiFi and Bluetooth capabilities in the Zero 2 W bring some useful capabilities. WiFi can be used for NTP time synchronization (valuable for best results in FT8 and similar modes), for connection to spotting sites, and for networked contest logging. Bluetooth allows the use of a Bluetooth headset for audio input and output, and for linking with a keyboard and mouse (for software maintenance, or for controlling the software if you connect an external monitor).
Using a well established board with ongoing support means there may be a future upgrade path. There will likely be a Raspberry Pi Zero 3 W in the future, which would be a useful upgrade for some users, especially for additional?RAM if it's offered. Of course, a version with 1 GB or 2 GB RAM will probably cost more than $15 :(? If you don't care about the form factor you could take the zBitx out of the box and replace the Zero 2 W with a larger Raspberry Pi board, but at that point you're likely to be better off buying an sBitx.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 07:17 AM, Richard Neese wrote:
Farhan might I ask whi the pico and not just add a pc8575 or pc8574 i2c gpio expander into the mix if you need more gpio.
I think the z2w over pico w is alot better and mre power performance.
?
The zBitx is called the zBitx because it is based on the RPi Zero 2 W (Zero Bitx), and the RPi Pico W is being added to compliment the RPi Zero 2 W, not replace it.
?
As for the Pico vs ESP or other microcontroller, I'm not sure there is a significant cost advantage of one over the other (Pico W on a board is just a couple US dollars, how cheap are ESP boards?)
?
I suspect even if there is a greater cost for the RPi Pico W vs say an ESP processor, the engineers/designers may be more familiar/comfortable/productive in one environment vs another, and the RPi Pico W has a lot of interesting capabilities that owner/hackers may be able to exploit down the line.
?
I hope that helps, at least that is what I understand about the selection of the RPi Pico W.
?
Ken, N2VIP
|
Farhan explicitly stated the zBitx will have an RPi Pico W:
?
"Hence, the zbitx sports a new microcontroller, the Raspberry Pico W (with Wifi and Bluetooth on it!) that handles the front panel. This offloads the user interface to this microcontroller that handles the 3.5 inch TFT display. The two talk to each other over the I2C bus (Pi is the master, Pico is the slave)."
?
Clipped from yesterday's update.
?
Ken, N2VIP
|
Guys, let's not speculate, the designer is not a fool. You already know him from his earlier offerings.
I suggest, let's wait for the rollout and then discuss.
Right now we don't know much of what's in the offering. So have patience.?
de VU2UPX?
Farhan explicitly stated the zBitx will have an RPi Pico W:
?
"Hence, the zbitx sports a new microcontroller, the Raspberry Pico W (with Wifi and Bluetooth on it!) that handles the front panel. This offloads the user interface to this microcontroller that handles the 3.5 inch TFT display. The two talk to each other over the I2C bus (Pi is the master, Pico is the slave)."
?
Clipped from yesterday's update.
?
Ken, N2VIP
|
I sit corrected. But I wonder what the wireless in the Pico will be used for? Have to wait and see!
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 12:40?PM Charudatt Uplap via <charudattu= [email protected]> wrote: Guys, let's not speculate, the designer is not a fool. You already know him from his earlier offerings.
I suggest, let's wait for the rollout and then discuss.
Right now we don't know much of what's in the offering. So have patience.?
de VU2UPX?
Farhan explicitly stated the zBitx will have an RPi Pico W:
?
"Hence, the zbitx sports a new microcontroller, the Raspberry Pico W (with Wifi and Bluetooth on it!) that handles the front panel. This offloads the user interface to this microcontroller that handles the 3.5 inch TFT display. The two talk to each other over the I2C bus (Pi is the master, Pico is the slave)."
?
Clipped from yesterday's update.
?
Ken, N2VIP
|
I’m somewhat incredulous that people would urge a complete redesign of a product that is potentially days away from shipping, likely already built. The only issue is how to manage upgrades, something that demonstrates some foresight!
I don’t think you redesign a product, even changing the chip set , when it is ready to market. Validation of such a radical change would substantially delay delivery of the product to those who have already paid for it
My 2 cents, Gordon kx4z?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mar 10, 2025, at 13:20, Shirley Dulcey KE1L via groups.io <mark@...> wrote:
? I sit corrected. But I wonder what the wireless in the Pico will be used for? Have to wait and see! On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 12:40?PM Charudatt Uplap via <charudattu= [email protected]> wrote: Guys, let's not speculate, the designer is not a fool. You already know him from his earlier offerings.
I suggest, let's wait for the rollout and then discuss.
Right now we don't know much of what's in the offering. So have patience.?
de VU2UPX?
Farhan explicitly stated the zBitx will have an RPi Pico W:
?
"Hence, the zbitx sports a new microcontroller, the Raspberry Pico W (with Wifi and Bluetooth on it!) that handles the front panel. This offloads the user interface to this microcontroller that handles the 3.5 inch TFT display. The two talk to each other over the I2C bus (Pi is the master, Pico is the slave)."
?
Clipped from yesterday's update.
?
Ken, N2VIP
|
This is one reason why I wait until a product it out and vetted before ordering one.
Mike N2MS
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 03/10/2025 1:39 PM EDT Gordon Gibby KX4Z via groups.io <docvacuumtubes@...> wrote:
I’m somewhat incredulous that people would urge a complete redesign of a product that is potentially days away from shipping, likely already built. The only issue is how to manage upgrades, something that demonstrates some foresight!
I don’t think you redesign a product, even changing the chip set , when it is ready to market.
Validation of such a radical change would substantially delay delivery of the product to those who have already paid for it
My 2 cents,
Gordon kx4z
|
Please don't confuse a labor of love by a fellow HAM with a large company's professional product. I am appreciative of the development of this very innovative,state of the art, product by such a dedicated team of fellow hobbyists sharing their love of the hobby with us! Nothing like it anywhere and they have always said that it is an experimental project for tinkers!
This is one reason why I wait until a product it out and vetted before ordering one.
Mike N2MS
> On 03/10/2025 1:39 PM EDT Gordon Gibby KX4Z via <docvacuumtubes=[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> I’m somewhat incredulous that people would urge a complete redesign of a product that is potentially days away from shipping, likely already built. The only issue is how to manage upgrades, something that demonstrates some foresight!
>
> I don’t think you redesign a product, even changing the chip set , when it is ready to market.
> Validation of such a radical change would substantially delay delivery of the product to those who have already paid for it
>
> My 2 cents,
> Gordon kx4z
>
|
I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and recognize a few things.
1) This is new product, and to expect military precision for its release does not seem reasonable, especially with a smaller firm. Think of releases by Elecraft, QRPLabs, ant of course the "Big Three"; they may state a release date but really that should be taken as the beginning of a date range.
2) Asher and his group have made a couple of important additions to the zBitx based on changes to the operating plans for the rig. This benefits the end user but takes some extra time to implement. Waiting a bit longer to get a more complete product?!? This sounds like a no-brainer to me.
3) Some of the processes involved cannot be sped up by "adding another man to the job"; in fact, it may slow down the process.
4) Gordon makes an excellent point here. Asher only took on 2) above because he felt it would be advantageous to us end users at minimum disruption of the manufacturing process and minimum delay to getting them into our hands. In doing so, he made the same sort of decisions that all manufacturers make. If he had been much earlier in the design process, a more powerful CPU may have been a better answer, but it is not practical at this point.
73 de Lee KX4TT
> On 03/10/2025 1:39 PM EDT Gordon Gibby KX4Z via groups.io <docvacuumtubes@...> wrote:
>
>
> I’m somewhat incredulous that people would urge a complete redesign of a product that is potentially days away from shipping, likely already built. The only issue is how to manage upgrades, something that demonstrates some foresight!
>
> I don’t think you redesign a product, even changing the chip set , when it is ready to market.
> Validation of such a radical change would substantially delay delivery of the product to those who have already paid for it
>
> My 2 cents,
> Gordon kx4z
>
|
I decided to go for the zBitx because I'm really intrigued by the concept of a miniaturized allband allmode trx. I have full faith in the developers that they'll create an amazing product for the community (free and open software and hardware, just like the good old days of Ham radio, the packet radio / AX.25 / that's used today).
I personally prefer to receive a well-tested device, and I'm sure the developers will deliver just that.
73, Herbert
|
Thank you Lee for your 2? in the topic, without which we seemed to be in the dark.?
This seems like a new wave taking shape after "Add my name to the new order list"
Cheers
I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and recognize a few things. 1) This is new product, and to expect military precision for its release does not seem reasonable, especially with a smaller firm. Think of releases by Elecraft, QRPLabs, ant of course the "Big Three"; they may state a release date but really that should be taken as the beginning of a date range. 2) Asher and his group have made a couple of important additions to the zBitx based on changes to the operating plans for the rig. This benefits the end user but takes some extra time to implement. Waiting a bit longer to get a more complete product?!? This sounds like a no-brainer to me. 3) Some of the processes involved cannot be sped up by "adding another man to the job"; in fact, it may slow down the process. 4) Gordon makes an excellent point here. Asher only took on 2) above because he felt it would be advantageous to us end users at minimum disruption of the manufacturing process and minimum delay to getting them into our hands. In doing so, he made the same sort of decisions that all manufacturers make. If he had been much earlier in the design process, a more powerful CPU may have been a better answer, but it is not practical at this point. 73 de Lee KX4TT > On 03/10/2025 1:39 PM EDT Gordon Gibby KX4Z via <docvacuumtubes= [email protected]> wrote: > > > I’m somewhat incredulous that people would urge a complete redesign of a product that is potentially days away from shipping, likely already built. The only issue is how to manage upgrades, something that demonstrates some foresight! > > I don’t think you redesign a product, even changing the chip set , when it is ready to market. > Validation of such a radical change would substantially delay delivery of the product to those who have already paid for it > > My 2 cents, > Gordon kx4z >
|
"If he had been much earlier in the design process, a more powerful CPU may have been a better answer, but it is not practical at this point"
Not to pick nits, but I was under the impression that after the sBitx project and it's RPi 4 computer, Farhan speculated a simpler design, based on lessons learned with the sBitx could be built based on the RPi Zero 2 w, with its half-gigabyte of RAM and a CPU shared with the RPi 3 B+ and thus was born the zBitx project and product.
?
The starting-point for the zBitx (Zero Bitx) as I recall was always the RPi Zero 2 W, if a more powerful CPU was needed, that likely would have rendered the zBitx project a failure, based on its original goals.
?
Ken, N2VIP
|
I agree with most of Ken and Lee's points.? What is not mentioned is the enormous amount of software that Ashhar Farhan used that is open source and may not be available for the "lower cost/higher performance" options.? Also, note that the sbitx and zbitx can run digital modes without adding a computer.? Most of that is possible because of the Linux base that the Raspberry Pi uses in most of its forms.? That could also go away if another processor is selected.
?
If the specs published for the zBitx are met, the closest competitor is the QMX+ from QRP-Labs.? The QMX line needs an external computer for most digital modes.? The QMX does include two more bands (160 and 6 meters) than the zBitx.? The QMX does not have a graphic touchscreen interface.? The QMX firmware is proprietary and not modifiable by the user.? The advantage of open-source SW is best exemplified by the 64-bit dev team (led by JJ W9JES) 's work.? That software is a HUGE improvement over the original get-to-market version distributed by HFSignals.? Both the zBitx and QMX+ cost the same with a case: $150.? Both specify 5 watts, with SDR-based digital filters for signal processing.? I will own both when my zBitx arrives.
?
I am one of the original 250 "lucky" users.? I am anxiously awaiting my shipment notice and receipt of the radio.
?
All good things take time.? Speculating on shortcomings before analyzing the product is wasted time and effort.
73
Evan
AC9TU
|
Shirley Dulcey KE1L
Lee