Subject:
|
Re: Is Scout powerful?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:56:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
704 times
|
| |
|
|
I also think Scout is very good, and it has some new features that not in RCX
but will be in new RCX2, like event monitor and so on.
NQC 2.2 r1 supports scout in NQC language, so you can write software like for
RCX, if you like to use IDE environment, you can use WinNQC.
I made a LightSeeker that can use RCX or Scout, and with one NQC program,
You can find detail information in lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc and
lugnet.robotics.scout.
Br
Zhengrong
Mauro Vianna wrote:
> I just acquired the Discovery set that includes the Scout. At first I
> always face the scout as a simpler version of the RCX with the following
> disadvantages:
> -2 motor outputs only
> -2 inputs only
> -inputs are restricted to touch sensors only
> -less memory
> -less suns and tasks
>
> But then I noticed a few aditional feautures:
> -built in light sensor
> -third output connected to a VLL output (LED)
> -more built-in functions
> -lower firmware download time (at least with the new beta version). Does it
> happens at all??
>
> I confess my interest in Scout started because of availability. I can find
> the Discovery set here in Brazil, but not the the RIS set (At least not with
> a fair price).
>
> Since I worked mainly with simpler programs until now, I noticed no real
> disadvantage. In fact it was even easier since I could use the built-in
> interface to preliminary tests and them the power mode for more complete
> programs. I used only the Lego script code until now but it seens the new
> NQC supports Scout including the exclusive built-in functions.
> So, from the software side, you have more limitations (less subs and
> variables) but you benefit from the built-in functions and built-in priority
> control. Probably that's why firmware download is faster (or inexistent).
> The limitations didn't really looked a big deal for me.
>
> From the hardware side, at first it seems more limited if you consider as it
> comes from the box. It lack of support to external light and rotation
> sensors seens to be the main limitation (Is it really true???). Also the
> third motor may be a problem.
> But if you think about expansions and building home-brew sensors, things may
> be different:
> 1) It's possible to build active sensors (like light, sound, etc.) that
> emulates the touch sensors in raw mode. the problem is that they should have
> an external power source.
> 2) The VLL output seens a great option. The VLL is well documented. A
> external circuit similar to the ones used for serial communication could
> take this output and translate into a 7 bit output. That opens a great
> possibility to controlling more motors or even switching sensor banks.
>
> Most home-brew sensors and expanders I saw (most at Michael Gasperi page:
> http://www.plazaearth.com/usr/gasperi/lego.htm) are focused on the RCX. I
> wonder it somebody already explored the VLL output or aditional sensors for
> the Scout? It seens a great uncharted territory...
>
> Mauro Vianna
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Is Scout powerful?
|
| I just acquired the Discovery set that includes the Scout. At first I always face the scout as a simpler version of the RCX with the following disadvantages: -2 motor outputs only -2 inputs only -inputs are restricted to touch sensors only -less (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
