To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.robotics.rcxOpen lugnet.robotics.rcx in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Robotics / RCX / 2190
2189  |  2191
Subject: 
RE: leJOS & BricxCC news
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.trains, lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth
Date: 
Sun, 7 Sep 2003 15:01:25 GMT
Reply-To: 
<RHEMPEL@BMTS.COMstopspammers>
Viewed: 
5044 times
  
I will be adding DCC capabilities soon through - so some of these train-heads
can do some interesting programming.


Hmmm. I was seriously considering writing a leJOS package to support the LDCC IR
Protocol. (Here's why: http://news.lugnet.com/trains/?n=20951 ) What capabilities
were you going to add? Depending on your timeline, you might convince me to try
FORTH.

OK, I've looked at your wish list and have the following comments
with respect to how I see the pbForth implementation of DCC.

1. How important is it to have more than one port with DCC
   capabilities. The reason I'm asking is that it "would be
   nice" (tm) to have one output controlling the track and
   another output controlling a pair of wires that does stuff
   like driving discrete motors, lamps, etc.

   I know there are issues with bit timing, but I think I can
   get around them if we're willing to accept a slower bit rate.

2. How important is it to have a "pure LEGO" approach. I'm also
   prototyping a power booseter that will take a battery pack
   or wall-wart output and buffer the motor driver so that we
   don't need to parallel the RCX outputs or worry about burning
   them out.

3. The traditional Forth approach is to make the DCC functions as
   general as possible and let the user write the wrappers that he
   needs.

   One of the cool things about pbForth is that the train folks that
   are programmers can write these wrappers as needed and then make
   firmware images that they can share.

   NOTE well that you DON'T need to install a complicated programming
   environment, the compiling, debugging, etc is all done on the
   brick itself!

4. How important is the ability to read back the DCC data or to
   set parameters on the controllers? Again, the Forth approach is to
   provide a minimum set of functions and then let the application
   folks figure out the rest.

Just some thoughts to get the discussion going. I'd really like to
know more about your vision for this system.

NOTE: Thanks to Dave Koudys for lending me a DCC train motor and a
circle of track to help me develop this stuff!

Ralph

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out pbFORTH for LEGO Mindstorms at:
<http://www.hempeldesigngroup.com/lego/pbForth>

Buy "Extreme Mindstorms: an Advanced Guide to Lego Mindstorms"
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1893115844/hempeldesigngrou>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to:      rhempel at bmts dot com
--------------------------------------------------------------------



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: leJOS & BricxCC news
 
(...) Yes, it would be nice, plus the two or three unused sensors... I'm happy enough with the LDCC firmware as a DCC encoder (pleased as punch, really). But it "would be nice" if it were implemented as a library or patch to an existing brick OS (...) (21 years ago, 11-Sep-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.trains, lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth, lugnet.org.us.indylug)

2 Messages in This Thread:

Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR