Subject:
|
RCX 2.0 -- ideas.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 31 Dec 1998 14:15:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1476 times
|
| |
|
|
Here are some things I would like to see changed for RCX 2. (if there
is even one)
1. More connections. At least 4 outputs and 4 inputs. The way it is
right now, a robot that drives around can't really do much else, given
that there is only one output to spare for a light or a motor. Another
inut would also be nice, but not as badly needed as the output.
2. Smaller size. The RCX 1.0 is HUGE!. A small robot with RCX 1.0 is
just impossible, the thing is so dang big. I would like to see the next
version half as thick and with a top 2/3 the size. This would allow for
some really neat, small robots.
3. Lighter. Right now the main thing weighing it down i think are the
batteries. Why doesn't LEGO get a custom lithium ion type battery, the
laptop kind, for RCX 2.0. That could make it REAL small. And it would
last longer between charges.
As a first version, the RCX is pretty dang awesome, but I think there is
room to improve. Any comments?
-PV
------------------------------------------------------------
Purple Viking (Jakob Nebeker) ____________________________
email: jakob@writeme.com | the sentence below is false
ICQ : 6245080 | the sentence above is true
------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Message has 11 Replies:
 | | Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas.
|
| (...) I don't think they are willing to change the main processor (and all the software involved) just to accomplish this... unless there are another versions of the H8 that have more inputs/outputs (?) (...) RCX is HUGE? You should see a (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas.
|
| The Version @.0 should have a way to allow multiply RCX's to used. That way one RCX could be used for just the motor routines, one to handle sensors, one to do number chrunching, and etc. John A. Donaldson (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas.
|
| (...) At the risk of being argumentative, I'd submit that no matter how many inputs/outputs they provide people will always want more. The trick is to "expand" what's available to do what you want to do. There are already various ideas and designs (...) (26 years ago, 1-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas.
|
| With regards to your message at 01:30 AM 01-01-99 GMT, Brett Carver. Where you stated: (...) It boils down to this: If you want to build a _very_ simple 'bot, then this set and the RCX are fine. If you want it to be complex enough to accomplish much (...) (26 years ago, 1-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas.
|
| (...) You forget that there are many of us (if not the majority) that neither have the means to build hardware, nor have the knowledge or know-how to build it. I personally know how good I am at destroying hardware. Is not uncommon to try to fix (...) (26 years ago, 1-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas.
|
| (...) Multiple ports are possible if you buy or build a Handyboard. Check out this URL. (URL) regards Rob Visscher (26 years ago, 2-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas.
|
| (...) agreed. right now you can work around it with two RCXs which talk to each other, or you can do it mechanically using a ratchets which make each direction from a motor drive two different outputs (of course this limits each output to one (...) (26 years ago, 3-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas.
|
| Hmmm... as long as we're playing "let's wish for.." I'd like to see at least twice as many as sensor inputs, half a dozen analog motor outputs, a couple of servo motor outputs, 8 or more digital outputs, a serial port interface, and a much more (...) (26 years ago, 3-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas.
|
| The only problem with this list is that LEGO never seems to *listen* to this group-therefor, to ideas won't get in an RCX 2.0 Jakob Nebeker wrote in message <368B8717.B8FB3CBC@w...me.com>... (...) (26 years ago, 3-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas.
|
| The only problem with this list is that LEGO never seems to *listen* to this group-therefor, to ideas won't get in an RCX 2.0 Jakob Nebeker wrote in message <368B8717.B8FB3CBC@w...me.com>... (...) (26 years ago, 3-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas.
|
| (...) More inputs, certainly. Lots more. Outputs could do with fewer additional, since there is less 'critical' need for more motions. (...) I like someone's idea of a separate battery box, so you can split the load. (26 years ago, 4-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
46 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
