Subject:
|
Re: Near Final Release, rtlToronto15 info
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Nov 2003 18:19:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1670 times
|
| |
|
|
> With one wire for both ways communication, couldn't we have the wire from A and
> the wire from B connect to different ports on the Arbitrator? This way the
> Arbitrator can work something like the following:
>
> while (true)
> {
> ds_active(&SENSOR1);
> ds_passive(&SENSOR2);
>
> while(!TOUCH2); // wait for bot2 to finish
> delay(100);
>
> ds_active(&SENSOR2);
> ds_passive(&SENSOR1);
>
> while(!TOUCH1); // wait for bot1 to finish
> delay(100);
> }
>
> This prevents the 'double click' problem where the Arbitrator loses track of
> whose turn it is, and also isolates the two bots from each other. Additional
> code could be added to set both sensors back to passive after a short 'press'.
Unfortunately we don't yet know if a Control Lab can do this, but I will
be looking into it.
Derek
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Near Final Release, rtlToronto15 info
|
| (...) Well, if a CL can't flip active/passive (which I'm positive it can't, since it's separate ports for active and passive sensors), we could simply wire a motor port to a passive sensor on the control lab and make that the interface for one bot. (...) (23 years ago, 6-Nov-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Near Final Release, rtlToronto15 info
|
| (...) At least for the hobby show demonstration, my bot will be making moves in realtime or close to to it. (ie, 2-3 seconds per move) The scanning and droppingtakes ~20 seconds, so I'd be happy to see the time limit dramatically reduced. (...) Only (...) (23 years ago, 5-Nov-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
14 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
|
|
|
|
