 | | Re: studless construction practice
|
|
I've recently got back into technics.. and got a few of the 2004/05 kits... my first impression was: "This is Peg-o... not Lego!" after my first 4 hour session of building the 8436 truck.. my fingers were really sore from inserting so many little (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: What I would do (2)
|
|
(...) Absolutely. I think the design of the NXT NQC should be dependent on the standard firmware just as NQC was based on the RCX firmware. David nailed exactly what I'm interested in. Even when using NQC it still **feels** like I'm writing in C. It (...) (20 years ago, 1-Feb-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: What I would do (2)
|
|
(...) Definitely performance! Trying to porting an old RCX program to the NXT would be near impossible -- everything is so different there. Just as you'd have to totally rebuild your robot, you have to do a total rewrite of your code anyway. So (...) (20 years ago, 1-Feb-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: How many people signed up for the NXT Developer's Program?
|
|
(...) Following Bert van Dam: (URL) would investigate a self-learning robot with NXT via a wireless connection to my computer as a father-son project. (20 years ago, 1-Feb-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: What I would do (2)
|
|
(...) Oh, performance! NXT NQC should match the NXT brick's capabilities. How many people have such sophisticated programs that they need to port from the RCX to the NXT to realisically demand compatibility? I mean this a robot hobby tool. Half the (...) (20 years ago, 31-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: What I would do (2)
|
|
(...) The optimum solution would be both - provide a new API that gets the most out of the new firmware, but an optional "compatability layer" that adds what is necessary to provide an API compatable with the RCX. Note that I'd vote to get the new (...) (20 years ago, 31-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: What I would do (2)
|
|
(...) As the brick, sensor, motors... are quite different, direct portability is not of paramount importance for me. So I vote for performance. Philo (20 years ago, 31-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: What I would do (2)
|
|
(...) I like this concept, but what if in the case of NQC the new firmware turns out to be such a radically different design that it makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to carry over very much of the rather large API built into NQC to (...) (20 years ago, 31-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: What I would do (2)
|
|
(...) <snippage> (...) Ed, can you point me to the sort of things you have read which make you believe the NXT software and its underlying firmware will provide the sort of control and flexibility which such things as NQC and alternate firmwares (...) (20 years ago, 31-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Feb. Wired is out
|
|
(...) Great article, with some good pictures. Also online at: (URL) a sidebar on Lego Factory, Paul Sinasohn LUGNET #115 BAYLUG (20 years ago, 30-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.mediawatch)
|
