Subject:
|
RE: Duplex Comms with RCX
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 Apr 2000 21:27:21 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
John Barnes <BARNES@stopspammersSENSORS.COM>
|
Viewed:
|
626 times
|
| |
|
|
I think this is an important subject. I am personally grappling
with multiple RCXs and I'm obviuosly not alone.
The vitally important thing about whatever scheme is adopted is that
it needs to be really simple. This keeps the code simple and debugging
manageable. I have worked on network systems before that hand around
the master "token". They typically suffer from "freezes" when the current
master drops out.
The nice thing about using a single polling PC master is that it does the
lions share of the work but it has more CPU resources and is easier to
debug on. And it can more easily tolerate RCXs going in and out of range.
What the scheme doesn't address, and which perhaps it should is what happens
if a pair of RCXs wish to dialog out of range of the others and the PC.
This is not a far-fetched wibni (wouldn't it be nice if) but a very real
requirement in my particular case in which I want to build a dual RCX
controlled rover which relies on RCX to RCX comms.
Your collective thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
JB
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | RE: Duplex Comms with RCX
|
| (...) Ummm, removing their batteries takes away their power, making them fairly docile grappling opponents.... (...) My current consulting assignment is a single-master / multi-slave control system that sits on a 485 protocol. (...) Now I'm going to (...) (25 years ago, 28-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Robotics
|
|
|
|
|
|
