Picaxe VSM and dacsetup

tgss

New Member
#1
Picaxe VSM is telling me that dacsetup is not supported. Is this for real, or am I missing a patch, or is there a workaround? Since Picaxe VSM is still listed for sale I can't imagine that picaxe is selling software that does not fully support their products.
Tom W.
P.S. A little edit here. If anyone can confirm whether or not their copy of VSM supports dacsetup I would appreciate it very much. If everyone has the same problem than I can probably assume I'm not going to find a fix. If others find their VSM does accept dacsetup then I can keep looking for a solution.
Thanks again.
Tom W.
 
Last edited:

Technical

Technical Support
Staff member
#2
It is not possible for a virtual simulation to be 100% identical to the real chip silicon, although it is a very good approximation there will always be some differences. The simulated model does not have a DAC module, and hence the DACsetup command is not supported either.
 

tgss

New Member
#3
It is not possible for a virtual simulation to be 100% identical to the real chip silicon, although it is a very good approximation there will always be some differences. The simulated model does not have a DAC module, and hence the DACsetup command is not supported either.
Thank you for your reply. I am disappointed that the sales blurb for Picaxe VSM goes to considerable lengths to list all the things that it does do, and it certainly promotes the impression that any valid circuit you choose to create will be simulated, in some sense, by the software. A brief statement, in not too fine print, that not all features of the chips are fully supported, or similar disclaimer, might be a little more... accurate?

I suspect that PWM output is one of the most used, and useful, features for many users, yet it's use is discouraged due to high processor load, though it's true it does still run in most cases, albeit slowly. But the DAC facility I imagine is also very valuable to many users, and not to mention that it is not suported at all seems misleading. I also have trouble understanding why it is not supported, since it doesn't "seem" that it would be incredibly difficult to do - but I speak from ignorance!

In any event, it is what it is - thanks again for the feedback.
Tom W.
 
Top