Matrix user forums

Yes, it seems to work now!
Thanks again for your fast support - and for sure I'll let you know (here) if there should be an issue related to the configuration on the real target.

Ah ok, it's more "getting into it" then. I'm not that familiar with the "Flowcode-background" yet... BUT I figured out today, that my project needs more an up- than a downgrade concerning the controller. :shock: So I have probably to switch to the "PIC24F32KA304" with which it is the same ("no confi...

Thank you so much (again)!! :D With those files I can configure the chip in Flowcode now. Whether it works on the target I can't figure out yet - I'll order the chips today! By the way: Yes, a same support for the PIC24F16KA302 would be great too. ;) P.S.: Is there any "DIY" for modifying those "PPP...

Ahhhh ok - I didn't know about that behaviour. For my "logical" understanding it should normally be <<configure>> before <<enable>>.
I switched the order as recommended and it works as you said! - Thanks for the quick answer and your explanations concerning the "background".

Hi kersing, thanks for your fitting solution. I also tried "NOT" but didn't think on "!"...
It works well now as you said.
I just found time now to try every of your solutions (god bless the weekend).

To realize a feasibility study by rapid prototyping, I wanted to create a selection-menu to switch between two different PWM-frequencies before the original application starts working. So it is a reconfiguration of the PWM on-chip module while the target is running (initializing). Concerning the pro...

For a project I wanted to use a PIC24F32KA302 controller that can be chosen when creating a new project in Flowcode. When I want to configure the chip (=>project options>configure) a message box appears that's saying "unrecognized chip". Furthermore in the drop-down menu of the configure window ther...

The behaviour of the simulation is different to the one on the target when using a negation of a boolean variable foo (foo = ~foo). The C-code itself looks okay and works in the simulator but on the target the respective expression doesn't get evaluated properly... As a workaround I avoided the “~” ...