Subject:
|
Re: RCX3 - Can extra hardware functionality be added?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sun, 23 Jan 2005 01:26:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1138 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, Mr S <szinn_the1@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This type of 'change' makes sense to me. To improve
> the capabilities of the current RCX by removing the
> physical limitations that the current form factor puts
> on the processor inside. This is what transformed the
> original home computers like the Atari and C64 into
> the huge processing machines that we have in tower
> style pc's... we moved the input and outputs away from
> the processor to give it more room.
Having built a number of prototype "clone" bricks, I feel reasonably certain
that the RCX's internal space is not the limiting factor. The surface area
occupied by 2x2 I/O connectors is the true limit. (Assuming you dedicate a board
to hosting the physical connections and a second board to hosting the bulk of
the electronics. There's gobs of space for a board with TSSOP parts on both
sides of the board. I've yet to need the second surface of the "CPU" board for
parts in any of my forays into this realm.
If you count out the number of 2x2s that could fit on one surface of the RCX,
you'll see you can get quite a few motor and sensor ports.
(Assuming you put the display and buttons in their own "pod", or on the end,
side or under surface of the brick.)
I suspect the RCX limitations come more from economic considerations than from
physical limitations, based on the target market. Will a child truely expand
beyond what the current 3+3 channels that the RCX offers? I have yet to meet
one.
As an adult user of TLC's basic idea, I simply take it upon myself to expand as
needed. More motors ... more sensors. Yep, just make more interfaces.
As and when TLC comes out with their next generation, I personally would guess
that they may offer a few more sensor types. They may also offer a modest
increase in sensor and motor connectivity, although it has to be backward
compatible. I'd be surprised to see more than that. The one thing thay'd be
really foolhardy in doing would be to invalidate all those FLL group's
investment in the current system.
JB
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: RCX3 - Can extra hardware functionality be added?
|
| I've seen this topic come up several times, and am curious why no one suggests that the input and output ports be extended from the RCX to pods. Using the same form factor constraints limits the possibilities. Using a more condensed cable connection (...) (19 years ago, 22-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
