 | | 1.5/2.0 infrared problem
|
|
Hi I've got two RCX: a 1.5 and 2.0 version. I' ve got a problem with IR emiter/reicever. The 1.5 version seems to be more sensitive to reflected infrared and its good to use ! But the 2.0 RCX is less sensitive and for example doesn't receive (...) (21 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: 1.5/2.0 infrared problem
|
|
I don't know anything about this because mine work properly. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system ((URL) 6.0.471 / Virus Database: 269 - Release Date: 10/04/2003 (21 years ago, 15-Apr-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: 1.5/2.0 infrared problem
|
|
(...) we ' ve told about this thing with Philo few days ago cause he had the same problem. So I' ve made several tests with 4 RCX: 2 RCXv1.0 and 2 RCXv2.0 . It seems RCX emitter is the same in 1.0 and 2.0 versions. But 2.0 receiver is less sensitive (...) (21 years ago, 23-Oct-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | IR Sensitivity - Was: 1.5/2.0 infrared problem
|
|
(...) I think there might be an explanation for this and I've been meaning to post on this topic, but never seem to have gotten around to it! :-) I've opened up my RCX 1.0 and the IR receiver has the markings "TSOP 1138" on it. After looking this (...) (21 years ago, 23-Oct-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: IR Sensitivity - Was: 1.5/2.0 infrared problem
|
|
chip 1138 / chip 1176 Strange... 38 + 38 = 76 What does that mean? Rob "Mark Riley" <markril@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Hn6xKJ.1o68@lugnet.com... (...) its (...) reflected (...) axle (...) same (...) post on (...) on (...) messages. (...) (...) (21 years ago, 23-Oct-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: IR Sensitivity - Was: 1.5/2.0 infrared problem
|
|
(...) OK thanks for your reply! But the bad thing is that two RCX2.0 could not communicate properly....Am I wrong?? Chris. (21 years ago, 23-Oct-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: IR Sensitivity - Was: 1.5/2.0 infrared problem
|
|
(...) Hello Mark, Thanks for your answer, this will keep me from dismantling once again my RCXs ! So it seems that LEGO modified RCX2.0 to get better compatibility with Spybots/Manas. Now a question remains, why did they increased carrier frequency (...) (21 years ago, 23-Oct-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: IR Sensitivity - Was: 1.5/2.0 infrared problem
|
|
(...) Mine have been apart more often than I'd like, too! :-) (...) My guess would be mostly for increased communication speed. With the higher baud rate, the duration of the 2-byte Spybot/Manas packets is halved. This allows for fewer collisions (...) (21 years ago, 26-Oct-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: IR Sensitivity - Was: 1.5/2.0 infrared problem
|
|
(...) Hello Mark, How did you managed to receive Spybot remotes messages with your RCX? I tried several settings, no luck :-( Philo (21 years ago, 2-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: IR Sensitivity - Was: 1.5/2.0 infrared problem
|
|
(...) Hi Philippe, I've been adding support for the Spybot and Manas remotes to my custom firmware LDCC. The idea is to allow 3 people to each control a seperate train using these remotes. This is how I discovered the problem with RCX 1.0 not (...) (21 years ago, 3-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics.spybotics)
|
| |
| | Re: IR Sensitivity - Was: 1.5/2.0 infrared problem
|
|
(...) Thanks, Mark, I was indeed using standard firmware through NQC... Philo (21 years ago, 3-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics.spybotics)
|
| |
| | Re: IR Sensitivity - Was: 1.5/2.0 infrared problem
|
|
(...) Mark, Thanks for posting this. I've been trying to figure out how to do that, but I don't know enough about the IR messages and baud control of BrickOS to do it myself. (...) I don't know if this is printed anywhere, but here's some more info (...) (21 years ago, 3-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics.spybotics)
|
| |
| | Re: IR Sensitivity - Was: 1.5/2.0 infrared problem
|
|
(...) As cool as this sounds, it's not right. :( Sorry about that. There are just the two bits (like Mark said above). See, this is why I haven't been able to get my Spybot remote to work with my RCX. :) Steve (21 years ago, 3-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics.spybotics)
|
| |
| | Re: IR Sensitivity - Was: 1.5/2.0 infrared problem
|
|
(...) You're welcome! (...) Well, I did try it out and it does work... somewhat. For example, when you set the channel to 5 using the technique mentioned above, only some of the remote packets reflect 5 as the channel number, while others still (...) (21 years ago, 3-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics.spybotics)
|
| |
| | Re: IR Sensitivity - Was: 1.5/2.0 infrared problem
|
|
(...) Thanks a lot for posting this very useful information, Mark! I don't know how long I've been beating my head against the brick trying to make heads or tails out of the values I calculated for the various possible combinations of button (...) (21 years ago, 4-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics.spybotics)
|
| |
| | Re: IR Sensitivity - Was: 1.5/2.0 infrared problem
|
|
(...) [snippage] (...) [more snippage] (...) Glad you like the chart. Trying to find a way to present the information in a useful manner was the trick for me, too. :-) I'll have to throw up a web page or something. As to figuring it out, credit has (...) (21 years ago, 4-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics.spybotics)
|
| |
| | Re: IR Sensitivity - Was: 1.5/2.0 infrared problem
|
|
(...) ... (...) ... (...) Yes. The extra channels are for non-repeating stuff. Like you said. (...) Well, I've discovered (while working on a Spybot project) that if you ask just the right question, the people at LEGO may reply to it. They are (...) (21 years ago, 4-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics.spybotics)
|
