Poll: Why Haven't You Applied for this Roadtest: STM32H7B3I-DK -  DISCOVERY KIT

Thank you, but international shipping is often more than the price of the product itself.

Still, thank you for the offer!

Didn't apply as already doing another roadtest and is yet to complete, which is unfortunately taking more time than expected due to some unforseen reasons.

As soon as it is finished, will apply for the ones available at that time.

I can send mine to you if you commit to write a report on element14 and want to pay the shipping from Belgium. I finished my road test.

I didn't apply because I didn't find this place until it ended

Following some of the comments on here, I've had my mind changed.  Jan saying what he would/wouldn't do is a good approach; Fred's view on the roadtest approach for boards like this I pretty much agree with, particularly "...decide if it's suitable for them" - that, if documented well, could be very informative for everyone.  I suspect some people would use such a board as a test-bed for the processor; whilst others would use the board as a product in its own right.  Price-wise it certainly stacks up against the Arduino+LCD+shields combination, and certainly the 4Duino boards I've been playing with. 

I think I was initially overawed by the feature set and thinking how could one review that in such a short time and do it justice! 

I recently purchased two STM boards (it was new to me, that they come in two variants, a Nucleo board, and a feature-rich Discovery board). I picked up both variants for an STM F7 chip, since I wanted to try different things with them. I'm going to use the Discovery board for general experimenting with data/algorithms, and the Nucleo board for attaching specific bits of hardware (I've attached a SD card so far) to learn what I'd want on a custom board. They're awesome. The H7 series looks amazing.

It looks like a nice kit, but I leave these types of road tests to newer members.

DAB

With the previous more free-form road test applications I used to often say what I would and also wouldn't be doing. If you were expecting more than I could manage then I'd rather not be selected. Also, it meant that if I was selected then I knew when it was done and it was to the standard that had been agreed. With the new application format I haven't really felt this to be as necessary.

That sounds like a good approach: Define the scope of our roadtest. Scope: what you will do and won't do.

Thanks for mentioning.

I agree.  I would suspect it would be of a benefit to the vendor to have someone new or not so familiar with the platform to see how hard it is to get to 'Blinky'. Although, with many of these vendors, the tools/IDE keep changing, so one with experience with the platform a couple of years ago might have a new learning curve with the new tools. Even TouchGFX has transitioned from a standalone tool to being incorporated into STM32CubeMX and STM32CubeIDE.