| |
In lugnet.events.brickfest, danny staple <orionrobots@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/23/05, Larry Pieniazek mylastname <larry.@ascentialsoftware.dot.com> wrote:
> > In lugnet.events.brickfest, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
> > >
> > > Suz,
> > >
> > > While it's not exactly a 'simulation', there is a community project for the
> > > robotics/technic areas this year. More will be announced soon, but you can
> > > get
> > > started by looking here:
> > >
> > > http://www.teamhassenplug.org/GBC/
> > >
> > > Steve
> >
> > Right, but haven't you and your cohorts (Hi Brian!) been busily proving that
> > there hasn't yet been a mechanism that NEEDED an RCX? Most of the GBC modules
> > are (brilliantly, elegantly...) purely mechanical except for the train ball
> > return, and Brian was claiming that a sufficiently clever mechanical engineer
> > could do that one without an RCX either....
>
> Not having an RCX does not necesarily make it irrelevant to robotics.
> I consider automatons fairly relevant - and the technique of getting a
> single motor to do many things is a very valuable one, especially
> considering the IO limitations of the RCX compared with say a PIC
> based controller.
TOTALLY agree. Not saying it's not relevant to robotics, there is lots of clever
mechanical stuff to be learned from GBC... Just saying it's somewhat in a
different direction from leaving a bunch of identical RCX based autonomous
mobile mechanisms running identical code all fest long to see if emergence
happens...
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
10 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
|
|
|
|
