Subject:
|
RE: Brainstorms
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 9 Aug 2002 01:40:33 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
<rhempel@bmts.comANTISPAM>
|
Viewed:
|
599 times
|
| |
|
|
> Ok. I've seen a similar ebb and flow of ideas for modularization in this
> newsgroup before. The difference, is that now, most people who are reading
> this a probably well familiar with the RCX, Mindstorms, etc etc.
<SNIP>
The more things change.....
It's funny, but if you look back at the rec.toys.lego archives around 1998
you will find a thread that is very similar to this, and then LEGO brought
out the RCX. Producing, selling, and supporting single board computers is
a quagmire that very few firms ever get out of.
As an old-time embedded systems guy, here's my take on improving the RCX....
1. The RCX by itself is VERY powerful. It has approximately the same
memory footprint and substantially more power than the on-board computer
on the Apollo 11 spacecraft. What it lacks is I/O. It does not need
a floating point processor, 50 Mhz clock, 512K of RAM, LCD touchscreen,
or voice synthesizer.
2. The standard firmware is very good for its stated purpose, which is to
introduce robotics to a population that is ill-equipped to deal with
the actual complexities of real-time operating systems.
3. Add-in firmware (like my pbForth) removes many of the limitations
of the standard firmware at the expense of complexity.
4. If we add a simple I/O expansion in combination with some additional
firmware we could increase the capabilities of the standard RCX. A
single sensor port could be used as a high-speed serial interface
with this custom firmware. The advantage is that the adder modules
could probably get their power from a standard bus and comms from
the RCX. I already have an additional driver that lets you control
up to two servos from one motor port.
5. Most of the likely purchasers of RCX expansions are Universities
or Colleges. They would also be looking at Basic Stamps or Handy Boards.
They probably already have RCXs. Why not leverage this and design a simple
adder for the RCX instead of a whole new device.
6. Designing a whole new device means providing support in the form of
a compiler, run-time library for peripherals, probably an IDE, and
of course a website and community for exchanging messages. This is WAY
more work than anyone thinks it is.
I'm rambling, and could go on and on. The biggest thing to understand is that
the vast number of hobbyists never get beyond a simple bumper car with their
RCX. The reason is that computer science, mechanics, and the required math are
very difficult subjects to understand. You can't put a GUI around it and make
it simple.
As I'm sure I've mentioned before, I teach embedded systems design seminars
and am generally dismayed at the level of understanding that most programmers
have of these systems. We need a robust way of adding IO to the RCX, not a
super-RCX.
Maybe I should rephrase that. *I* need a robust way of adding I/O. I don't
see a big enough market for a super RCX that would make it worth anyone's
time.
Sorry to douse the enthusiasm, I'll get my flame suit on now...
Cheers, Ralph
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Brainstorms
|
| (...) It doesn't need a voice synthesizer - it DOES need the ability to ADD a voice synthesiser. It's a pretty pathetic CPU by modern standards...if all you are using it for is turning motors on and off and reading sensors - then it's fine - but (...) (22 years ago, 9-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Brainstorms
|
| Ok. I've seen a similar ebb and flow of ideas for modularization in this newsgroup before. The difference, is that now, most people who are reading this a probably well familiar with the RCX, Mindstorms, etc etc. The subject of this post is intended (...) (22 years ago, 8-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
53 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
