 | | Re: Robotics in Aussie —Laurentino Martins
|
| | | (...) I've found out that a CyberMaster is worth every penny of it! :-) I'm very happy with it, since it goes with my tendency to make vehicles instead of more static bots. Also, it's radio link makes it possible to use the "higher intelligence" and (...) (26 years ago, 11-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Robotics in Aussie —CyberUser
|
| | | | | I agree with Laurentino. I am very impressed with the Cybermaster. I was also originally worried that it had been trimmed down, but the more I experiment with it, I realise that the only loss is possibly the more advanced sensors. I now see the (...) (26 years ago, 11-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Robotics in Aussie —Kin W. Lau
|
| | | | | | (...) One quick question, is the Cybermaster software as easy to "hack" as the Mindstorm OS. Any sense in buying both Mindstorm and Cybermaster ? Thanks. -- Kin W. Lau Teaching Associate, Communications And Signal Processing Group, Electrical (...) (26 years ago, 14-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Robotics in Aussie —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | | | | (...) You're not being too specific, but the answer is probably "no". The CM unit has much less onboard RAM, and it is probably not an option to even download firmware to it. (...) You'll get lots of pieces and more building possibilities? But no, (...) (26 years ago, 14-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | CyberMaster communications —Laurentino Martins
|
| | | | | | | (...) Humm.. in fact having two units using completely different mediums of communication (IR/Radio) might be an advantage in some cases because communications with the computer never mix. By the way, has anybody ever tried changing a bit the radio (...) (26 years ago, 14-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Robotics in Aussie —CyberUser
|
| | | | | | | In message <3674F1D6.DE43C9BC@ic.ac.uk>, Kin W. Lau <kin.lau@ic.ac.uk> writes (...) The way I understand it is that the firmware which needed to be downloaded to the Mindstorms chip, allowing Lego to issue any fixes or new versions, is now burnt (...) (26 years ago, 14-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Robotics in Aussie —Laurentino Martins
|
| | | | | | | (...) There also other 3 functions for driving the motors and 2 for reading misc. hardware values. I may not be the best person to answer this, but I think the answer is no. The same way you cannot use the Spirit.OCX to read the firmware downloaded (...) (26 years ago, 14-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Robotics in Aussie —Peter Ljungstrand
|
| | | | | | (...) Yes, this appears to be so. There might be some secret sommand to gain more access to the CM, but I doubt that you can change the entire firmware in it, especially since the CM lacks a RAM chip on the circuit board, as the RCX does. (...) (...) (26 years ago, 14-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Robotics in Aussie —Laurentino Martins
|
| | | | (...) Yes, but you can always add two (?) extra batteries to the "non supported" sensors, and I think they'll run ok. :-) (...) About the firmware I don't agree. They only made it in ROM because they had lack of RAM with design they chose. I think (...) (26 years ago, 11-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Why legOS? —Markus L. Noga
|
| | | | | (...) This is definitely a general interest question. I'll try and summarize the pros and cons appropriately for the Powerpoint age. legOS cons: - System is unstable - this is beta. - gcc and binutils required. - C programming knowledge required. - (...) (26 years ago, 11-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why legOS? —Laurentino Martins
|
| | | | (...) I'm sorry if I offend you, but I think this is one the lowest quality arguments I've ever heard :-( Anyway, there were even worst choices for LEGO than making an OCX. At least it reaches a huge percentage of children/teenagers (remember we are (...) (26 years ago, 11-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why legOS? —Markus L. Noga
|
| | | | (...) That's not an argument. That's a passing joke. The arguments are the phrases that have a dash in front ;-) I'm very aware of the advantages of good Windows integration when trying to sell a product. I'm also quite conscious of the fact that (...) (26 years ago, 11-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why legOS? —John Donaldson
|
| | | | I think,if LegOS was usable from a Window's PC system, it would be far more popular. I for one would love to use LegOS, but I only have a Eindow's based PC. 1. I know I can get the GNU compiler for my PC, but from there how do I get it setup? 2. (...) (26 years ago, 11-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why legOS? —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | (...) You should try and fins a cygwin distribution, that'll allow most *nix software to run on Win95 based thingys, after recompile, I think. Sopmeone else'll have to tell you where to get it, I've forgotten :) HTH. Jasper (26 years ago, 13-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why legOS? —Ben Laurie
|
| | | | (...) www.cygnus.com Cheers, Ben. (26 years ago, 13-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
