 | | Re: Lego Technic: R.I.P. ? —John Barnes
|
| | | Even if Lego withdrew 50% of Technic parts, Technic would still be a richer "medium" to work in than Knex IMHO. I'm not sure why people are so worried about Technic going away. The name is obviously obsolete - I think it's a poor name in the current (...) (22 years ago, 14-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Lego Technic: R.I.P. ? —Jack Gregory
|
| | | | | "John Barnes" <barnes@sensors.com> wrote in message news:H5KFuv.27n@lugnet.com... (...) toy (...) I think it is clear they blew the price point on this set. I think the 50% off price that was on SAH for awhile (still?) is a sign that they are aware (...) (22 years ago, 14-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | RE: Lego Technic: R.I.P. ? —Marco Correia
|
| | | | | | (...) year. I strongly hope so... I think I'll buy this Xmas a Spybotics (at least one) simply because it'll fit my own LEGO collection buying rule: "Any LEGO set with electronics inside and some kind of memory or CPU, preferably PC linkable, usable (...) (22 years ago, 14-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Lego Technic: R.I.P. ? —The Gaff
|
| | | | | (...) for (...) I think that's because many of the people who got excited about Mindstorms share my total disinterest in Spybotics. I wanted more sensors, more actuators, and more support parts (planetary gears, etc) for my Mindstorms robotics... (...) (22 years ago, 14-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | RE: Lego Technic: R.I.P. ? —Marco Correia
|
| | | | | | (...) Only if the lesson learned was: "hmmm... ok, let's see what happens if we put a few more basic sensors, another motor, some leds, some more memory and maybe a PC link... just in case someone might want to actually program these little things." (...) (22 years ago, 14-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lego Technic: R.I.P. ? —Steve Baker
|
| | | | | | | (...) I think we all agree on that point - a more modular computer with as few limits on expandability as the technology can manage. RCX is OK - but you immediately run into three problems: 1) Not enough motor and sensor ports. No matter how many (...) (22 years ago, 14-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | RE: Lego Technic: R.I.P. ? —Marco Correia
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Yep. (...) Yep. At least, separate the CPU power supply from the motor output power supply. We already have those power supply boxes: the 6xAA or 1x9V batt box :) (...) Yep again :) IR's ok for local, short range comms... but radio is a must. (...) (22 years ago, 14-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Modular advanced RCX - yes, it's called JCX —Bruce Boyes
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Well, that's the idea behind JCX ((URL) which has now been in beta test for over a year. We are nearing the final stretch and hope to release early 2003. A student class at the University of Utah is using them, here's a link to the team page: (...) (22 years ago, 14-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lego Technic: R.I.P. ? —John Barnes
|
| | | | | | I recall that construction toys (like Meccano or Lego et al.) of some years ago were not based around specific models as they are today, but based around a certain collection of parts. Books were provided to encourage a certain level of initial (...) (22 years ago, 14-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lego Technic: R.I.P. ? —Steve Baker
|
| | | | | | (...) Yes - I always remember looking at the 'Number 1' Meccano set (AKA 'Erector set') that came in a massive wooden trunk with layers and layers of felt-lined trays to hold the parts. It was more like a piece of Victorian furniture than a kids (...) (22 years ago, 14-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lego Technic: R.I.P. ? —Allan Bedford
|
| | | | | | (...) Not to nitpick, but remember that Meccano and Erector were two distinct and different companies. The latter being somewhat of a clone of the first. That said, and in the context of this thread, there are a number of lessons the LEGO company (...) (22 years ago, 15-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lego Technic: R.I.P. ? —Steve Baker
|
| | | | | | (...) Really?! I always thought the Meccano company made both sets - simply *calling* them 'Erector' in the USA and 'Meccano' in the UK. I have both Meccano (carefully saved since I was a kid) - and Erector sets purchased in the USA several years (...) (22 years ago, 15-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lego Technic: R.I.P. ? —Allan Bedford
|
| | | | | | (...) Meccano was started in England by Hornsby... Erector followed years later in the U.S. For many years they were each other's competition. (...) If you look at the bottom of that 3-year-old posting I mentioned, you'll note that the eventual (...) (22 years ago, 15-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Lego Technic: R.I.P. ? —Stef Mientki
|
| | | | (...) Or maybe we should take a look at Fisher Technic ? Stef (22 years ago, 14-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
