Subject:
|
RE: NQC versus Lego RCX Code Speed
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 Oct 2000 13:07:35 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Wilcox, Doug <doug.wilcox@imcIHATESPAMkesson.com>
|
Viewed:
|
567 times
|
| |
|
|
Thanks very much, everyone, for the detailed answers. I suspect that, due to
the huge performance gain I seem to get using NQC (in one observable area:
touch sensor response time using two touch sensors on two separate ports),
that the RCX Code "Sensor Watchers" are chewing up lots of processing time.
I noticed this when I had a fairly simple program written in RCX Code that
was checking two separate bumpers and backing and turning depending on which
one was pressed. (The only other routine in the program was to emit a beep
every 5 seconds) The second bumper would only "trigger" after a 1-2 second
delay. I thought I had a bad RCX or bad sensor, but I tried the same program
on my second RCX with different sensors, and the same thing happened! This
delay behavior might only be a problem using certain combinations of Sensor
Watchers, but it did get me thinking about what's going on under the hood.
Doug Wilcox
Senior Web Developer
iMcKesson Provider Solutions Group-Needham
160 Gould Street, Suite 130
Needham, MA 02494-2308
Phone: 781.453.2900 x 237
Fax: 781.455.7990
e-mail: Doug.Wilcox@iMcKesson.com
http://www.imckesson.com
"You see, I had this space suit. How it happened was like this ..."
(Opening lines from Robert A. Heinlein's Have Space Suit-Will Travel)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: NQC versus Lego RCX Code Speed
|
| (...) With regards to your comment about sensor watchers, yes they are slow. If I remember correctly, they are implemented by a task that loops forever polling the sensors and starting other tasks whenever an event of the proper type occurs. Tasks (...) (24 years ago, 6-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
