|
|
| |
On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Manuel Weindorf wrote:
> thanks for the tips, but nothing helps. I tried 0.2.5, I tried the far and
> near mode, I changed the lighting conditions -> nothing helped. But I don't
> think that I fired up my Brick/Tower because the original Lego Software
> under Windows works, even the RcxCC with nqc works ok.
>
> But I will continue trying ...
Did you try using the slow mode option ("-s" for firmdl3) as was
suggested?
--
"From now on, we live in a world where man has walked on the moon.
And it's not a miracle, we just decided to go." -- Jim Lovell
Mike Ash - <http://www.mikeash.com/>, <mailto:mail@mikeash.com>
|
|
| |
Hi,
thanks for the tips, but nothing helps. I tried 0.2.5, I tried the far and
near mode, I changed the lighting conditions -> nothing helped. But I don't
think that I fired up my Brick/Tower because the original Lego Software
under Windows works, even the RcxCC with nqc works ok.
But I will continue trying ...
Manuel
|
|
| |
I think you're off to a good start! You mention some problems that I think can
be overcome, others I'm not sure about... but I'll offer my two cents anyway...
Edward Cox wrote:
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?m=brickfield
> At this stage it is:
> a) too heavy (strain on single motor)
> b) too weak (falls apart from shaking motion)
> c) not agile (only operates on flat surface)
> d) top too heavy - micro motor is under strain to turn/rotate upper body due
> to weight and weakness of single point holding it up.
a) what's your gear reduction ratio? I see a worm gear in there, which is about
the only way to get massive amounts of power in a small space from the
minimotor. Maybe you just need to add one or two more gears into your
drivetrain.
b) I'm sure Eric S. would agree that the only effective way to prevent this is
by cross-bracing your model. Eric Brok's excellent site (where I first saw how
to do this) seems to no longer be in existence, but Dave Baum's first book says
how... darn, I can't find a good link anywhere! But it's easy to do, and your
model WILL NOT FALL APART!
c) check out:
http://www.bea.hi-ho.ne.jp/meeco/biped/bipede.html
this thing could navigate _some_ goegraphy
d) again, gear reduction is the answer I think.
Also, see:
http://www.geocities.com/technicpuppy/hhead/hhindex.html
and
http://www.isogawastudio.co.jp/legostudio/modelgallery_model/a018.html
for more bi-ped ideas.
Keep it up!
stuart
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build.mecha, Edward Cox writes:
> Hi, well some weeks ago I promised that I'd begin a project of developing a
> Mech incorporating the RCX unit, some motors and sensors.
>
> Here is my very first attempt at a minifig scale Mech:
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?m=brickfield
I like the design, but as with most RCX-based walkers, it looks, well, 'clunky'.
I realize this can't be helped considering the nature of what it is you are
working with. I, too, have been working on a walker of this nature and have met
with NO success so far. Either it looks too clunk or it just won't move.
> The RCX is programmed using MacNQC and at this stage only utilises one motor
> for the motion (non COG [centre of gravity]), one Micro Motor to rotate the
> upper body (head), and two lights at front for effect only.
>
> The actual bi-ped mechanism is based on that designed by Joe Nagata (Thanks
> Joe!) in his Idea book.
>
> At this stage it is:
> a) too heavy (strain on single motor)
> b) too weak (falls apart from shaking motion)
> c) not agile (only operates on flat surface)
> d) top too heavy - micro motor is under strain to turn/rotate upper body due
> to weight and weakness of single point holding it up.
all of these seem to be a common problem. d is particularly annoying when trying
to create something that looks good. So far I haven't found a solution. Weight
is more of a factor than in most models, but trying to get the model to move
under it's own power while looking good may be too much to ask for given how big
RCXs are.
The shaking motion might be solved in an unusual way: by using non-ABS materials
such as corrugated tubing, rubberbands, etc. These can help diffuse the shaking
motion a bit. I wish I could find the link for the biped walker that solved the
shaking problem by wrapping the feet with rubberbands, but alas, I can not.
>
> but Hey! it works.
Congrats! That's better than I've accomplished thus far.
> What to do next?
>
> a) add touch sensors
> b) add light sensor to upper body (head).
> c) add sound generator unit.
> d) perhaps utilise pneumatics?
>
> So, what do you think? Suggestions, criticisms?
Good ideas for future revision. I wish you much luck in this project.
> I know it's early days yet - but if there's anyone at LEGO that see's this
> and wants to offer me a job just drop me a line :-) (doesn't hurt to ask!)
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Ed Cox.
> ecox@bigpond.net.au
-Dave Johann
LUGNET Member #524
Founding Member: LUGOLA
HardCore's Haven
http://members.home.net/legomecha/index.html
Beyond Bionicle: Lego Mecha Creations
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/legomechaforum
|
|
| |
Hi, well some weeks ago I promised that I'd begin a project of developing a
Mech incorporating the RCX unit, some motors and sensors.
Here is my very first attempt at a minifig scale Mech:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?m=brickfield
The RCX is programmed using MacNQC and at this stage only utilises one motor
for the motion (non COG [centre of gravity]), one Micro Motor to rotate the
upper body (head), and two lights at front for effect only.
The actual bi-ped mechanism is based on that designed by Joe Nagata (Thanks
Joe!) in his Idea book.
At this stage it is:
a) too heavy (strain on single motor)
b) too weak (falls apart from shaking motion)
c) not agile (only operates on flat surface)
d) top too heavy - micro motor is under strain to turn/rotate upper body due
to weight and weakness of single point holding it up.
but Hey! it works.
What to do next?
a) add touch sensors
b) add light sensor to upper body (head).
c) add sound generator unit.
d) perhaps utilise pneumatics?
So, what do you think? Suggestions, criticisms?
I know it's early days yet - but if there's anyone at LEGO that see's this
and wants to offer me a job just drop me a line :-) (doesn't hurt to ask!)
Kind Regards,
Ed Cox.
ecox@bigpond.net.au
|
|
| |
Dave Baum wrote:
>
> "Definitive Guide" had a sentence or two suggesting rechargeable
> alkalines. I didn't go into any detail about the tradeoffs, though.
>
> I'm still waiting for "Mr. Fusion" :)
>
> Dave
We'll have to feed it K'nex's, right? :-)
--
Frank Caggiano "The best education for the best
caggiano@crystal-objects.com is the best education for all."
http://www.crystal-objects.com/ Robert M. Hutchins
Logo Users Ring
http://www.crystal-objects.com/logo/logoring.html
|
|
| |
In article <3B718A14.18F826EA@crystal-objects.com>,
caggiano@crystal-objects.com wrote:
> Anyway when I do get around to finding a replacement for the alkalines
> I'll let you know how my choice works out. Dave, this might make a good
> section in a future book. "What batteries to use when alkalines don;t
> cut it anymore?"
"Definitive Guide" had a sentence or two suggesting rechargeable
alkalines. I didn't go into any detail about the tradeoffs, though.
I'm still waiting for "Mr. Fusion" :)
Dave
--
reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com
|
|
| |
Yes, there are planned updates. I believe 2.5 should be out in the "near
future".
-Peter
"Edward Cox" <ecox@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:GF0pK9.7Iw@lugnet.com...
> Is anyone aware of any planned or potential updates for RoboLab 2.0. It's • a
> great piece of software but I feel that it could be so much more.
> Thanks,
>
> Ed Cox
|
|
|
