Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

STM32CUBEIDE support for STEVAL-ESC002V1?

Associate III

Is there any chance that STM32CUBEIDE will have support for STEVAL-ESC002V1?

If not - what is the fastest way to do development for this eval board using the IDE?

Generally - as a new user of STM products, the overall impression I get is once of chaos. There is an over abundance of hardware but confusion about what are the mainstream strategic products. The software support seems patchy - some products, which I am guessing are the strategic solutions are in STM32CUBEIDE, others are not.

Trying to figure this out is expensive, slow and frustrating.

I just want a simple BLDC motor controller!

What is the fastest, simplest way to make this happen?

Associate III

After repeating profiling tests with both the 5.4.8 and 5.Y.4 mcwb's (no luck with 6.1.0 since there is no board support that I can tell) I believe the associated profilers behave the same way and have similar issues (at least when trying to profile my motor).

The 5.4.8 wb reports:


WB_to_Mx version "1.5.1"

WB_to_Mx.template version "21-11-15"


Device not connected


MMICalc DLL - Version

 Basic Motor Control Serial Protocolo Library  - Version

TL_003 Frame Transport Layer - Version 1, 0, 0, 0

PL_001 Dynamic Link Library - Version 1, 1, 10, 0

and the 5.Y.4


WB_to_Mx version "1.6.0"

WB_to_Mx.template version "22-01-11"



MMICalc DLL - Version

Despite setting extremely high (eg 100000) Max Speed values in the ui (and setting 2 amp, 12.3v, in the ui; with a 5 amp psu providing 12.4v) ) the motor will (after pulsing with 2amps and reporting back values in the range .58-.8 amp, 0.02-.0.05 mH) never exceed 32490 rpm despite being rated at 4800 kva. Once reaching this speed the motor reverses, and reaches 4800 and then throws a warning prompt: The measurement is taking too time

If I set the max speed rpm to 10 times the max rpm max value for a value below 32490 e.g. 160000 it reaches the corresponding speed by a lower factor of 10 i.e. 16000.

The test behaves the same way repeatedly.

Are these defects in the profiler code?