DSO203 GCC APP - Community Edition (2.51+SmTech1.8+Fixes)

[Wildcat]

@z76

Thanks for an amazing firmware, Wildcat. I’m mostly a hobbyist and this is my first feature-rich scope. I’m learning a lot thanks to your efforts!



Here’s a feature request I’ve been thinking about: What if there was a mode where the scope boots in the same condition as it was when it was turned off? (Technically the config 0 file would be saved whenever parameters were adjusted, perhaps after a timeout to avoid excessive writes.)



I try to remember to save my config before I power-off but sometimes I forget and spend a lot of time trying to restore whatever settings I had before. Thanks for reading -Zach

Well, I’ve done that myself, on more than one occasion. If I can come up with a simple way of monitoring the parameters that doesn’t use a lot of memory I might do that. Only working with 48 KILObytes of RAM for the entire program, things have to be done in a very efficient way. There’s very little memory left to spare…



Will be a while before another update though, I have little free time right now. Also waiting to see how the new FPGA I posted works out.

[z76]

Thanks for considering the request, Wildcat. I understand that there’s no timeline for features like these. Take care.

[alienrelics]

I’m sorry to bother you. I’m sure the information I seek is somewhere in here, but my eyes and head hurt after trying to scan a lot of the 60 pages here.



Mine is HW version 2.72, System version 1.60, and it says Device Firmware Upgrade V3.12C. I get no end of errors when trying to use it.



I was hoping to get it working, but it is unclear to me what works with it. I had tried Gabonator and that didn’t work, I saw later that it doesn’t work with my HW version. I put Version 1.60 back on it, now I get error messages many times when I press a button.



I was hoping to install Wildcat. But it is not clear to me which one I can use. I see 5.1 has FPGA files with a ReadMe that says it doesn’t work with earlier HW versions like mine. But does that mean 5.1 won’t work for me, or only that I can use it but not to install the FPGA files?



Thank you for any help.

[Wildcat]

@alienrelics

But it is not clear to me which one I can use. I see 5.1 has FPGA files with a ReadMe that says it doesn’t work with earlier HW versions like mine. But does that mean 5.1 won’t work for me, or only that I can use it but not to install the FPGA files?



Thank you for any help.

5.1 should work fine. It’s just the FPGA than can only be installed on HW 2.81. There will be a couple of functions such as full speed sampling that will be missing but everything else should work OK.

[safar2000]

Hi, Wildcat,



Just install 5.1 on 2.81 DSO. It works without any problems for my device.



Thanks!

[alienrelics]

Thanks, Wildcat!



Now I have to figure out why my 2.72 Quad won’t stay connected…

[Wildcat]

@safar2000

Hi, Wildcat,



Just install 5.1 on 2.81 DSO. It works without any problems for my device.



Thanks!

Thanks for the feedback!



Hope to hear from more users, curious to know how many have the problem vs how many don’t.

[alienrelics]

I still have an HP netbook with Windows XP, based on some comments on other threads I tried it on that. Yay! It stays connected. I put Wildcat 5.1 on it, it is beautiful!



I stopped messing with this a year ago due to frustration at all the firmwares not working with HW 2.72, and the original firmware that came with it being very buggy.



I don’t care that this occupies all the slots, it does so much I don’t need any more slots! I think I can finally get some use out of this. A year not plugged in hasn’t been kind to the battery, I guess I need to replace that next.



Again, thank you!



Steve Greenfield AE7HD

[roger4]

Wildcat hi. No ADC problems found with v5.1 on HW 2.81 here. Temperature around 20 Celsius.

Fantastic update! Thanks.

[alienrelics]

I should also mention that after the firmware update, it stays connected with later versions of Windows.

[norbert.christof]

Hi, wishes to all, new to the forum.

Wishes especially to the workers, who brought it with their outstanding work and time and extra time :shock: to the actual status. :!: :!:





I found the product by luck and would’nt have bought it without reading “all” the pages of this blog. Thanks.

I hope it supports me during my technical study.



I have made the test (hopefully in the way you need, but only with one channel :roll:). I would interpret no ADC problem at room temp. I would have uploaded the images, but I have to learn it first. Put them in later if wished ;

Again thanks a lot.



(Mayby later, end Jul.16, when I have to finished my master work (examination Sep.16), I want to give some time for work and support back.)



ok I found it,…

[attachment=1]20160323_DSO203_channel1-test.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=0]20160328_DSO203_Software 2 Boot serial-covered.jpg[/attachment]

[Wildcat]

Thanks for the feedback.



Norbert:

Check with the device in full speed buffer mode. With the same signal displayed as on your post, keep pressing the right toggle center button (switch #6) until the bottom notification zigzag turns blue with an orange border (the area under “save file” in your screenshot). The problem mostly shows up in this mode and in channel A. You could check Ch B with the same settings just to make sure. Also, raising the gen output level (Vo 1.3V on menu) to around 2.5V and using the .5V range should minimize waveform noise.

Thanks again…

[us9igy]

With 5.1 no problems whatsoever.

Wildcat, thanks once again!

Tested with size optimisation - no noticeable difference…

[borland]

@Wildcat

What I would be curious to know though, is the difference, if any, between the ADC versions used in the 2 devices you tested. The schematic for HW 2.81 specifies a HWD9288 from Chengdu Sino (CSMT), which is what I had in my device. Another, earlier HW V2.70 device I have might also have had one of these or possibly something from another source, can’t remember, while the early V2.60 versions have Analog Devices chips.

I replaced the ADC chip on my DSO which was showing abnormal CH(A) traces. Used an Analog Devices AD9288-80 chip which I purchased from Digikey.com.



The old ADC chip was the same as yours; markings were difficult to read, but appeared to be HWD9288BSTZ-40.



Attached, are screenshots of BEFORE and AFTER ADC chip upgrade with WC5.1 and FPGA V1.1 installed. Screenshots for “full speed oversampling” and “normal buffer” modes.

[Wildcat]

Thanks again for the feedback. I think the results speak for themselves.



For those with issues with their DAC using V5.1 and it’s FPGA with HW 2.81 an alternative would be to use the FPGA supplied with V5.0 . This should work fine with V5.1 and HW 2.81 with the problem DAC’s, and while it would not have full speed sampling, it would provide improved level based triggering accuracy and overall triggering stability at the fastest timebases over the factory FPGA. It would also provide auto mode freerun behavior selection.

[frater]

A few days ago I ordered a DSO202, but something went wrong with the order. This will be fixed soon, but I’m now thinking of cancelling the order to get this DSO203 instead.



Its price is a bit higher, but I think it might be worth it.

I haven’t owned an oscilloscope for 30 years now, but would like to have one again. If I’m getting much more “bang for the buck” with this one I will cancel that order of the DSO202.



I didn’t know anything about a custom firmware like this one.

Is there one for the DSO202…



I would love to get some input before that order goes through…



Thanks

[Jerson]

Frater,



DSO203 has many custom firmwares to try out. 4 channels to work with. Bandwidth is much better.

My choice is DSO203.



Jerson

[frater]

I appreciate your reply and I know it’s somewhat off-topic, but I had no time to research it.

It seems my order for the Nano is now cancelled and I can order this DSO203.

The order needed cancelling anyhow, even if I still took that DSO202



It does seem to be a much newer device (the touch), but I think



Another question.

They speak of 2 analog channels and 2 digital channels on this one.

The dso202 has 2 analog channels, does it?

[Jerson]

The touch 202 is a newer device and has good eyecandy but less analog bandwidth. However, I can swear by the DSO203 I own for a some time now. If you need more info, please open another thread so as not to divert this thread topic.

[indman]

Hi, WildCat! I want to thank you for excellent operation and to wish a good health!

I updated the DSO203(HW 2.81 SYS1.64 DCU 3.43) on version 5.1 and used FPGA 1.1. I checked operation of an oscillograph in the mode of the complete buffer. Results are visible on a photo. Problems begin in the AC1V,AC2V,AC5V mode. In channel B there are no such problems.