Subject:
|
Re: Why NQC over Robolab?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:06:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1465 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, Thomas Johnson wrote:
> Robolab uses the Scout as an intermediary. Essentially, you program the Scout
> to program the microScout. Using the Scout, scripts or direct commands are sent
> to the MicroScout. Robolab supports the Code Pilot in the same fashion.
> Although this method may seem somewhat convoluted, it works quite well.
>
> I would guess that it is possible to do nearly the same thing in NQC?
I'm having a hard time grasping the concept for some reason. In Robolab do you
say "I want to write a program for the MicroScout" or do you simply have a
component that can be placed into a script written for the Scout which says
"send a VLL command to the MicroScout" or "send a VLL command to the Code
Pilot"?
If the latter then NQC already supports the MicroScout and the Code Pilot for
both the Scout and the Spybot targets (and via custom NQC headers files the
RCX).
Does Robolab support the Spybot? If not, why not?
John Hansen
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why NQC over Robolab?
|
| (...) It is the latter. (...) I've never messed w/a spybot so I can't give a definitive answer but if the spybot is controlled via VLL, then it should be supported. Tom (19 years ago, 11-Dec-04, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why NQC over Robolab?
|
| (...) Robolab uses the Scout as an intermediary. Essentially, you program the Scout to program the microScout. Using the Scout, scripts or direct commands are sent to the MicroScout. Robolab supports the Code Pilot in the same fashion. Although this (...) (19 years ago, 10-Dec-04, to lugnet.robotics)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
