Helpful ReplyHot!ICD4 vs REAL ICE

Page: < 1234 > Showing page 3 of 4
Author
TJ2015
The New Math
  • Total Posts : 491
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2015/04/19 11:38:37
  • Location: OSI
  • Status: offline
Re: ICD4 vs REAL ICE 2017/08/24 09:37:59 (permalink)
0
qhb
FakeICE would have been a more accurate name.
Does anyone know what the "Real" was meant to imply, when it is not an ICE at all?
 


I guess you could say it is "real" hardware and not vaporware.


#41
KTrenholm
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 182
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2012/08/08 14:04:23
  • Location: Connecticut, USA
  • Status: offline
Re: ICD4 vs REAL ICE 2017/08/24 11:08:57 (permalink)
4 (1)
TJ2015
qhb
FakeICE would have been a more accurate name.
Does anyone know what the "Real" was meant to imply, when it is not an ICE at all?
 


I guess you could say it is "real" hardware and not vaporware.






I suppose it is an object that does exist.  Technically correct.
#42
rbuck
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 285
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2005/04/28 12:48:11
  • Location: Phoenix, AZ
  • Status: offline
Re: ICD4 vs REAL ICE 2017/08/24 11:47:42 (permalink)
0
One thing I have wished for years is that the Stopwatch Window would work when debugging. Any idea if that will be available with ICD4? Or is that an impossibility when using hardware debugging tools?
#43
mrpackethead
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 595
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/04/01 23:33:39
  • Location: 0
  • Status: offline
Re: ICD4 vs REAL ICE 2017/08/24 13:12:53 (permalink)
4.67 (3)
I programmed 60 MZ i'cs yesterday using teh ICD4, and the IPE.   Its is significnatly faster than the ICD3.  I now cant' have two units running and be able to plug one up before the other one is finished.    On increased programming time alone this unit is useful.     Have not used it for debugging yet.
 
 
 
#44
grambo
Elite code monkey
  • Total Posts : 65
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2017/01/04 11:38:49
  • Location: near Manchester NH, USA
  • Status: offline
Re: ICD4 vs REAL ICE 2017/09/06 13:31:13 (permalink)
1 (1)
Maybe the name "Real ICE" comes from how much ice you have to pack around the pod to get it to work when it's warm...
see also http://www.microchip.com/forums/FindPost/1013738
#45
zbogar
New Member
  • Total Posts : 11
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/11/02 08:21:39
  • Location: 0
  • Status: offline
Re: ICD4 vs REAL ICE 2017/09/06 23:51:23 (permalink)
0
i have noticed a couple of issues on ICD4. First, i can't see variables in "real" time because there is no "run time watch" option.
The second one is, when the GCP and GWRP code protection bits are turned ON and the target is programmed in production mode it can't be erased. REAL ICE did this without a problem.
Third one, after erasing the target i switched back on ICD4 and tried to enter debug mode, but i've got "fatal error" message: 0xC04. With REAL ICE debug mode works just fine.
 
Anyway.. The REAL ICE is still the first option until the bugs are removed..
 
Dominik
#46
zbogar
New Member
  • Total Posts : 11
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/11/02 08:21:39
  • Location: 0
  • Status: offline
Re: ICD4 vs REAL ICE 2017/09/07 00:07:28 (permalink)
0
btw.. metal case of ICD4 heats a lot.. i wonder from where all this dissipation come from?
#47
zbogar
New Member
  • Total Posts : 11
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/11/02 08:21:39
  • Location: 0
  • Status: offline
Re: ICD4 vs REAL ICE 2017/09/07 00:45:55 (permalink)
3 (1)
if the bugs will not be fixed, i will use it as a heater/radiator.. winter is coming.. LoL: LoL
#48
mikeharrison
Junior Member
  • Total Posts : 43
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2006/06/26 07:02:54
  • Location: 0
  • Status: offline
Re: ICD4 vs REAL ICE 2017/09/07 01:47:18 (permalink) ☄ Helpfulby grambo 2017/09/07 06:26:29
5 (6)
Instead of a bond-out chip, maybe the answer is a special version with SRAM instead of flash.
I did some speed comparisons for just programming :
PIC32MX170            50K code : ICD3 : 4 secs   ICD4 1 sec
PIC32MX170          220K code  : ICD3 : 7 secs  ICD4 3.4 secs
PIC32MZ0512EF      500K code : ICD3 : 13 secs   ICD4 6 secs 
 
I just did an ICD4 "first impressions" video and teardown :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXVWk-7OFvY
#49
Howard Long
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 316
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2005/04/04 08:50:32
  • Status: offline
Re: ICD4 vs REAL ICE 2017/09/07 02:16:52 (permalink) ☄ Helpfulby grambo 2017/09/07 06:26:24
0
Just a quick comment on the RealICE differentiating it from the ICD3 (and ICD4). Although I very seldom use it, there is a real time very high speed instruction trace facility for postmortem analysis. For example, it connects to some Explorer 16 PIC32 PIMs which have TRCLK/TRD0/1/2/3 trace pins.
 
You need to take care when interfacing it to your own boards, because it needs impedance matching/damping: I can tell you from my own experience it won't work, or it will deliver nonsense, without that matching ;-)
 
Rather than using the separate AC244006 trace cable, the Logic Probe cable ACICE0104 that came with my RealICE also works with the PIMs. Note that the ACICE0104 is not just a simple cable, there is a distributed resistance of about 100 ohms in the probe wires.
 
One further benefit of the RealICE is that it's a rectangular form factor, I'm definitely not a fan the ICD2/3/4 puck style, it makes it a pain to store.
 
My RealICE was one of the first and needed a hardware mod (ETN-30). I would imagine that production units nowadays don't require this.
 
The RealICE is not as reliable as the ICD3, although neither are particularly great, both need power cycling/reconnecting. The RealICE sometimes gets very hot when it crashes.
 
The RealICE cannot power the target. For most real bench situations, that's not really a problem, but having the option of target power is a convenient feature.
 
I read that the ICD4 doesn't necessarily need to have its firmware updated every time you change target device families. If that's the case, that is a significant benefit.
 
My biggest wish would be that attention is spent on the turnaround time in MPLAB X in the compile/program/debug cycle. While it's possible to improve it somewhat by persisting the connection, it's still very significantly slower than MPLAB 8, so this is not a hardware tool problem, it's a software problem. I just wish the MPLAB X developers would pull their finger out after five years and make some efforts with this.
#50
mikeharrison
Junior Member
  • Total Posts : 43
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2006/06/26 07:02:54
  • Location: 0
  • Status: offline
Re: ICD4 vs REAL ICE 2017/09/07 03:30:55 (permalink)
0
Howard Long
My biggest wish would be that attention is spent on the turnaround time in MPLAB X in the compile/program/debug cycle. While it's possible to improve it somewhat by persisting the connection, it's still very significantly slower than MPLAB 8, so this is not a hardware tool problem, it's a software problem. I just wish the MPLAB X developers would pull their finger out after five years and make some efforts with this.

+1 - fire the mechanical designer and hire another software person.
#51
Jim Nickerson
User 452 _
  • Total Posts : 4035
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2003/11/07 12:35:10
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Status: offline
Re: ICD4 vs REAL ICE 2017/09/07 06:26:50 (permalink)
3 (1)
mikeharrison
Instead of a bond-out chip, maybe the answer is a special version with SRAM instead of flash.
I did some speed comparisons for just programming :
PIC32MX170            50K code : ICD3 : 4 secs   ICD4 1 sec
PIC32MX170          220K code  : ICD3 : 7 secs  ICD4 3.4 secs
PIC32MZ0512EF      500K code : ICD3 : 13 secs   ICD4 6 secs 
 
I just did an ICD4 "first impressions" video and teardown :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXVWk-7OFvY


Very nice job on the tear down.


I do not see a Real Ice teardown.
I have noticed a great speed improvement especially when using high speed performance pak  https://www.microchipdire...aspx?Keywords=AC244002
#52
mrpackethead
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 595
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/04/01 23:33:39
  • Location: 0
  • Status: offline
Re: ICD4 vs REAL ICE 2017/09/07 12:54:09 (permalink)
3 (1)
I'd been trying to figure out how to open the ICD4 to rip it off.   T Hanks Mike, now i dont' need to. 
 
bit like you.. A lot of 'fluff' in the round case for somethign. That effort would have been better spent on things like bug checking MCLR etc etc. :-) .

The stickers are good for putting in your 'bling' box, which contains things that entertain grandchildren.   


#53
TJ2015
The New Math
  • Total Posts : 491
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2015/04/19 11:38:37
  • Location: OSI
  • Status: offline
Re: ICD4 vs REAL ICE 2017/09/08 06:28:13 (permalink)
0
I would have definitely kicked that design back to the mechanical department, the labor/time costs on building that would be ridiculous.
 
Are people not taught the KISS method anymore?
#54
drh
Arrrr
  • Total Posts : 999
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2004/07/12 11:43:22
  • Location: Laguna Niguel, Calif. USA
  • Status: offline
Re: ICD4 vs REAL ICE 2017/09/08 06:39:34 (permalink)
4 (2)
TJ2015
I would have definitely kicked that design back to the mechanical department, the labor/time costs on building that would be ridiculous.
 
Are people not taught the KISS method anymore?




No, they are taught what to think, not how to think.

David
#55
flubydust
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 1270
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2005/05/19 13:44:42
  • Status: offline
Re: ICD4 vs REAL ICE 2017/09/08 07:46:19 (permalink)
3.5 (2)
mikeharrison
I just did an ICD4 "first impressions" video and teardown :

I though my RealICE had 3 LEDs until I looked and saw it only has two marked ACTIVE and STATUS. Even with legends I have no idea what those LEDS actually mean other than it must be powered if either are on. Maybe the PICKits have 3 and I don't know what they mean either.
 
If I ever get an ICD4 I am sure I will never find out what the multi colour LEDs mean. If it wasn't for your video I doubt I would have noticed there were two of them.
 
The design is ridiculously pointless and expensive. Sadly I can't say I am surprised. Microchip's development tool department (hard and soft) haven't had a good grip on reality for years.
#56
Jack_M
Senior Member
  • Total Posts : 114
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2012/11/17 06:27:45
  • Location: 0
  • Status: offline
Re: ICD4 vs REAL ICE 2017/09/08 08:33:33 (permalink)
3 (1)
flubydustMaybe the PICKits have 3 and I don't know what they mean either.



hmm.. on the PK3 there is one that changes from green to red if you are powering from the pickit and you exceed the current it can provide
then there is the blue one that blinks  in different patterns when in programmer-to-go mode:
pattern 1 for idle, last programming ok
pattern 2 for idle, error during last programming (with also green led becoming red)
pattern 3 when programming.
 
also, programming become very fast in that mode.
#57
Howard Long
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 316
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2005/04/04 08:50:32
  • Status: offline
Re: ICD4 vs REAL ICE 2017/09/11 11:49:56 (permalink)
3 (1)
Mine just arrived today from Mouser, I've found it's definitely noticeably faster in the compile/program/debug cycle when doing some unit testing compared to that on a RealICE and ICD3. Programming seems to work fine. This is on an Explorer 16 target with a PIC32MZ2048EFM100 PIM, MPLAB X 4.00, Windows x64, with dual Xeon E5 2696v2 with 64GB RAM.
 
That's the plus.
 
I did manage to break it within 30 seconds by simply stepping through a program:
 
"A communication error with the debug tool has occurred. The tool will attempt to recover momentarily.
Failed while stepping the target."
 
or just
 
"A communication error with the debug tool has occurred. The tool will attempt to recover momentarily."
 
Pausing a running target deals you a similar hand.
 
Frankly, although programming seems OK, for debugging purposes I'm afraid it's next to unusable as it stands.
 
Very early indications seem to be that at least it recovers itself slightly more gracefully than the RealICE or ICD3 when things do go wrong, in that you don't need to unplug it and plug it back in, which is good because it breaks far more frequently when debugging.
 
#58
mrpackethead
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 595
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/04/01 23:33:39
  • Location: 0
  • Status: offline
Re: ICD4 vs REAL ICE 2017/09/11 11:52:42 (permalink)
4.5 (2)
ICD4 is definately BETA right now, and Microchip are using its customers to do testing.
 
#59
Howard Long
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 316
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2005/04/04 08:50:32
  • Status: offline
Re: ICD4 vs REAL ICE 2017/09/11 12:03:56 (permalink)
0
JANickerson
 
I have noticed a great speed improvement especially when using high speed performance pak  https://www.microchipdire...aspx?Keywords=AC244002




Hmm, I've never noticed any speed improvement, but it may be under the wrong circumstances. How are you using it, and on what target, to get the speed improvement? Mine's been sitting in a drawer for years!
#60
Page: < 1234 > Showing page 3 of 4
Jump to:
© 2017 APG vNext Commercial Version 4.5