Subject:
|
Re: RIS SDK - Comments and questions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:33:59 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Harley Myler <h.myler@mylerSTOPSPAM.org>
|
Viewed:
|
479 times
|
| |
|
|
> Matt Silver wrote:
> >
> > I have just started to try this - is it ever cool.
> > I notice that the Brick options are RCX, Scout and MicroScout
> > - Does this mean that I can program the MicroScout using the RIS Tower ?
>
> No. The Microscout doesn't have an IR detector.
>
> The microscout really is a piece of junk. The business of having the
> motor inside the computer makes it hard to build into things, the
> pre-built programs are not at all well thought out (where is the "Go forwards
> forever" option for example?), it's programmability is limited to essentially
> stringing eight (I think it's eight) of the preprogrammed commands together
> with a lot of annoying beeping and time wasting in between. You can't send
> it commands via IR link like the Scout and RCX - it uses a different
> protocol (VLL - Visible Light Link).
Interesting comment, frankly I am surprised. The MicroScout (MS) is
far from a "piece of junk" considering the fact that you can get the
DDK for $40 (I might modify my opinion if the price jumped much
higher than this). Irrespective of good vs bad design issues, the MS
is an "intelligent motor". This follows a foundational principle of
robotics and machine intelligence. If you are familiar with Saridis'
increasing complexity with decreasing precision theory you will
recognize the MS as a key element in the control hierarchy. However,
I doubt very seriously that the Lego designers had Saridis in mind
when they designed the MS. Their motivation was simplifying the
robotics concept down to a plug (legos together) and play system. The
real complaint should be the moronic R2D2 model that is built around
the MS--of course, this gives credence to the design by market demand
theory.
> To program it, you need a Scout to send the VLL commands. Unfortunately,
> to get the Scout to send the VLL commands you want, you have to program
> the Scout to make it send them.
So, the Scout commands the MS. I rest my (hierarchical control) case.
>
> Unfortunately, the RDS set that includes the Scout doesn't include an IR
> tower - so you need an RIS set as well (or at least you need to have
> bought the tower separately from shop@home or something).
Of course. You need the tower, which also gives you another key
player in the control hierarchy, the RCX. I see an elegant evolution
here. Again, I confess that the Lego folks probably were not thinking
explicitly in this way--the market is a cruel master.
> So, to review: We have an unweildy motor that we can't really control
> all that well (because of the beeping) and only a minimial amount of
> programmability. In order to program it, we need not one but BOTH of
> the more expensive Lego Mindstorms sets. By the time you have both of
> those, you already have four motors and two perfectly good computers...
> tell me why I want the Microscout again?
Again, very good value and an opportunity to experiment with a higher
level of robotics, machine intelligence. The MS also evokes the idea
of cooperative robotics--a very dynamic field of study right now,
albeit with this setup the capabilities are limited.
> > We were out on Sunday and found the DDK at a good price ($40 / Toy-R-Us)
> > It seemed worth it if just for the Lego parts with the added bonus of the
> > MicroScout,
> > as well as a fast non-programming jump into the robot world for him.
>
> I think the parts are worth having - but the Microscout is just a waste of
> time. I'd have preferred a standard Lego motor, a battery box and some
> switches.
Let's see: standard Lego motor and battery box (Technics) were going
for $18. For twice that you get a programmable motor and a (big) bag
of parts. The math seems to sway in favor of the DDK.
> If you want to get your kids into making simple robots without programming
> effort, use the regular Scout - you can do quite a lot of interesting things
> with it even without programming it because it's built-in logic is well
> thought out.
>
> Also, get a Lego remote control...those work *great* with small kids and
> either Scout or RCX (but *not* with MicroScout)
> --
> Steve Baker HomeEmail: <sjbaker1@airmail.net>
Surely you don't recommend stopping there? My advice is to get a kid
the DDK. Gets them used to Lego, motion and programming under the
aegis of a popular theme robot (R2D2). When that game is exhausted,
get the RDS and evolve to a higher level with the Scout. I agree with
Baker, pick up a remote control by buying the enhancement set. It has
an extra touch sensor and a light bulb in it--lots of extra fun. When
your kid asks what the position sensor is for just say, "later". When
you are ready, get the RIS (but wait for 2.0) and now you have the
makings of very sophisticated robotic development between the MS,
Scout and RCX.
--
Harley Myler
http://macmyler.engr.ucf.edu
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: RIS SDK - Comments and questions
|
| Harley Myler wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> I would hardly call the Microscout an intelligent motor...in technical definition, perhaps; in practical usability, far from it. In fact, I would say that the Microscout is *less* intelligent than a plain old (...) (24 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: RIS SDK - Comments and questions
|
| (...) It's *far* from an intelligent motor! It's a pain to use even as a simple motor. You can't even tell it "turn on and keep running forever"... which seems like a pretty basic operation for any motor! The darned thing runs for a few seconds, (...) (24 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Robotics
|
|
|
|
|
|
