Subject:
|
Re: Struggling with encoder wheel
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Apr 2001 21:20:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
963 times
|
| |
|
|
In article <3AD53475.9F8ABD16@airmail.net>,
Steve Baker <sjbaker1@airmail.net> wrote:
> If it's not faster (because of it doing 64 comparison/if's in the
> worst case) then you can use a binary 'if/else' tree:
Hey, that was a great idea! I couldn't use ?/: to do it (NQC doesn't
know those operators), had to actually write out all the if/else, but
I actually just added it into my wheel generation program, so it
printed out the function for me and I cut&pasted. That's a *lot*
faster than looping through the array like I was doing before.
Now to figure out why it still isn't turning like I want it to. :-)
--
Chris Osborn Full System, Inc.
fozztexx@fullsystem.com 2160 Jefferson St., #240
http://www.fullsystem.com/ Napa, CA 94559
Webhosting that *works* - 99.99% uptime - First 3 months free
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Struggling with encoder wheel
|
| (...) Can't you just use a large switch() statement inside a function to simulate a 64 element array? If none of the values in the array ever change: int array ( int x ) { switch ( x ) { case 0 : return element_0 ; case 1 : return element_1 ; case 2 (...) (24 years ago, 12-Apr-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Robotics
|
|
|
|
|
|
