I have a little Chinese robot that works very well and it was said scalable ... Lie ... But too late for me. They took cheap, Nano whereas it would take at least one Uno for my "project". Is it enough to change some lines in the .ino file? Or is it a hell of complication only for pros? I am level old mummy level language, not too silly but I know that the mini vital is to flash a diode. If anyone can help me, tell me where to start ... Thank you.
Friendly
Sy.
The nano and the uno are identical except for the size of the board they sit on. They both use the same chip and will run exactly the same code in exactly the same way. There is nothing that the UNO can do that the Nano can't and it sounds silly to say that the Nano is somehow insufficient but a UNO is going to somehow be any better.
A Nano is just an Uno in a smaller physical package. I would be surprised if it cannot do all that an Uno can do.
What is the problem you are trying to deal with?
Code written for a Nano will probably work unchanged on an Uno.
...R
Ok, thanks for your replies. : 0)
I'm donkey in arduino, except to make flash a led.
The nano on my robot has no more free pins and I want to add sensors and motors to my daughter's robot. So from what you say I'm going to have to go to a Mega ... Same question will I have a lot of things to change in my existing code to go from my tiny nano to the giant MEGAAAAAAAAAAAA :0) It yes, can you help me and tell me where to start ? Remember that we are not all computer pro, and that it is not to us to adapt to compounter but the reverse/oposite. Otherwise once all the specialists eliminated the machines will have won. :0) Let's stay simple and easy to understand for everyone. Please.
Friendly.
Sy.
The Uno and Nano use the same basic chip (ATmega328P) so as has been said, generally these are equivalent.
With the Nano, you get 2 more analog input pins (A6 and A7). However if you need 3.3 volts, you may require an additional voltage regulator (depending on the specific clone you are using).
Thanks to your response.
No i need more than one or two three or four pines. I need to add 4 digit servo(s) and several capteurs like laser and ghosts detector(really) I need a Mega. Same qiuestion. :0)
Friendly
Sy.
Do you have space for a Mega? For what it seems like you're doing, I would direct you towards the Teensy 3.2 and the Prop Shield. That will have a lot more capability for flashing lights and making a good toy.
The goal is to have the least thing to do to be able to devote myself immediately to the new possibilities. For example I change to/for a more powerful card I wire the new card and copy the code in the soft and I work immediately to go ahead.
But I'm going to look at Teensy 3.2 and Prop Shield to see if that fits what I need.
Thanks a lot.
Friendly.
Sy
Sylvain_Jeanneton:
Same question will I have a lot of things to change in my existing code to go from my tiny nano to the giant MEGAAAAAAAAAAAA
Surely you understand that the answer to this depends completely on what is in the code and as such is impossible to answer at present because we can't see your code.
Sylvain_Jeanneton:
The goal is to have the least thing to do to be able to devote myself immediately to the new possibilities.
Another possible solution would be to add a second Nano and arrange communication between them.
...R
Robin2 you wrote:
"Another possible solution would be to add a second Nano and arrange communication between them."
Great solution. I will try this solution too.
But I have always been told that putting "processors" in parallel is not helpful because processors waste their time doing nothing more than communicating with each other to agree. Is this wrong ?
If it's wrong where can I find information to put his nano/uno/mega in parallel or series ? (Of course I will look for my side but certainly you will have good answers much faster.)
Thanks a lot Robin2.
Friendly
Sy.
If you use the same pins on the Mega as on the Nano for the current robot functionality, I do not expect problems.
But I have always been told that putting "processors" in parallel is not helpful because processors waste their time doing nothing more than communicating with each other to agree. Is this wrong ?
So what? This only becomes a consideration in very low power applications. Most of the time it is outweighed by the energy you'd spend working around it.
Sylvain_Jeanneton:
But I have always been told that putting "processors" in parallel is not helpful because processors waste their time doing nothing more than communicating with each other to agree.
Who gives a sh*t if it does what you want?
And why would they need to agree with each other - presumably they are each doing different jobs.
Undoubtedly using two Arduinos and arranging communication between them is more complex than doing the job on a single Arduino. But sometimes the complexity is actually the most convenient solution.
...R
Oh cool ! I am old and not very healthy. I'm not inventing anything, someone told me that. I believed him.
Else, thank you all for helping me like this. This little bot I do as for me and for my daughter and her eternal requirements: 0) Lol.
She wants a ghost detector so she will have a ghost detector. For my part I will equip it with an andoscope and a Geiger counter. Funny is not it ?
Friendly.
Sy.