Subject:
|
Re: RCX simulator ?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sun, 15 Sep 2002 17:54:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1193 times
|
| |
|
|
hi Dave,
Dave Baum wrote:
> In article <H2FzCp.DB@lugnet.com>, Stef Mientki <s.mientki@ids.kun.nl>
> wrote:
>
>
> > Steve Baker wrote:
> >
> > > According to his notes, David hasn't released a new version of this
> > > code since 11/19/2000 so I suspect this is as good as it'll get. However,
> > > it appears to be OpenSourced so anyone could pick it up and work on it.
>
>
> I stopped working on it because there wasn't much demand.
I see your simulator every half year, searching the web for one.
But maybe I'm very stupid, everytime I download the sources (all there
is) and then I don't know what to do with them (my computer doesn't know
either). Because I've a computer-type that has about 80% of the home
market, I'm probably not the only one having this problem ;-)
Can I do anything with these files on a M$-computer ?
I never
> intended to write a full-blown simulation environment. I hoped other
> people would write appropriate front ends (GUIs that might let you
> interact with the RCX's sensors, or perhaps even set up a virtual
> environment for the simulated RCX to move around it, whatever).
Now I know there isn't anything, I'll try to build one.
I could
> then focus on the core of the bytecode simulator, which was something
> that leveraged my existing knowledge of the RCX bytecodes.
If I could use your core or your code it would be great.
But maybe our computer brands are too different to join efforts ??
>
> Anyway, there were a few efforts to build something bigger around the
> simulator (mostly class projects done by students), but nothing caught
> on, so I haven't touched the code.
>
> If a new project gets started to build something cool, I'll do my best
> to maintain/enhance the simulator core.
>
>
> > A few hours + a few evenings = 2 hours + 2 * 4 hours = 10 hours.
> > Total code size (including documentation) = 74,000 characters.
> > That's an average keystrokes/minute of (74,000 / (10*60))= 123
> > keystrokes/minute.
> > I think that's very fast, .....
> > even for a writer who knows every in and out of the RCX ;-)
>
>
> It was fast, but not quite that fast. I wrote that blurb on the web
> page after perhaps 12 hours of work on the simulator. At that point it
> could simulate some interesting programs, but was missing a lot of RCX
> 2.0 features.
>
> A lot of new code had to be written (and some new abstractions created)
> to get it to version 1.0 a2. I wasn't keeping track of time, so I don't
> have exact numbers. However, this wasn't hundreds of hours of work. It
> was probably around 15 additional hours, certainly less than 40 hours.
>
> Now allow me to step up on the soapbox for a moment...
>
> I think an important point is that incremental projects are more likely
> to get off the ground than the "big bang" project where you spend
> hundreds or thousands hours before getting to any meaningful release.
> There's a lot of positive feedback when you can quickly get to something
> that is useable.
Agreed,
I started with building a simple simulator, to test some algoritmes in a
PIC, because working with a scope is like "looking for a needle in a
haystack". So in this case, the positive feedback came from myself. (I
still find it very strange there isn't any "good" simulator available,
which also could be used by kids).
Although the simulator is still very premature, I test and debug all my
PIC programs with it now, I just add what I need. Talking with my son
the idea was born to implement the RCX, its actuators, its sensors, and
even rooms with obstacles. The major problem we see right now is the
traceback in NQC, during logging and single-stepping.
>
> NQC was an incremental project...the first version was basically a
> weekend hack using some C preprocessor code that I had written
> previously. Over time I added more and more features, and have put in
> many, many hours. But it was useful right after that first weekend.
>
> Same thing for the simulator. The first few hours produced the skeleton
> of something that could work, the next two evenings got it to the point
> of being useful on a small set of problems. After that it was just a
> matter of adding features one at a time (and occasionally refactoring
> the design when needed).
>
> Another important point is that programs are easier the second time you
> write them. In this case, I had previously written CPU simulators, and
> knew the RCX bytecodes very well, so writing an RCX bytecode simulator
> was rather straightforward. It wouldn't have been nearly so easy if I
> didn't have that experience.
>
> Dave
best regards,
Stef Mientki
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: RCX simulator ?
|
| Dave wrote it in Java, so youll need the Java Runtime Envrionment. You can find it at (URL) installing that, you need to unzip everything in the zip file from Dave to one folder. After that, I'm not sure how to proceed. (...) (22 years ago, 15-Sep-02, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: RCX simulator ?
|
| (...) You should be able to compile and run the files on a Windows computer. Even though Micrsoft would like to kill Java, Sun keeps shipping Windows tools and runtime environments for Windows. I wrote the simulator in Java specifically so it (...) (22 years ago, 15-Sep-02, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: RCX simulator ?
|
| (...) As someone who uses an operating system that has 80% of the OpenSource developers, I think I can explain how you can get this software to work even on a system with hopelessly inadequate OpenSource support. :-) ...If you use the (free!) Cygwin (...) (22 years ago, 15-Sep-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: RCX simulator ?
|
| (...) I stopped working on it because there wasn't much demand. I never intended to write a full-blown simulation environment. I hoped other people would write appropriate front ends (GUIs that might let you interact with the RCX's sensors, or (...) (22 years ago, 15-Sep-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
32 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
|
|
|
|
