To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.roboticsOpen lugnet.robotics in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Robotics / 1990
1989  |  1991
Subject: 
Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas.
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics
Date: 
Thu, 31 Dec 1998 15:05:22 GMT
Viewed: 
1177 times
  
Laurentino Martins wrote:

At 14:15 31-12-1998 Thursday , you wrote:
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.

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 (?)

I didn't know it was processor limited.  Maybe they can do some sort of
multiplexing.  (At least for inputs)  That way they could get 2 or more
in the space of one.  But you do see the need for more outputs right?  I
would LOVE 'em. :)

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.

RCX is HUGE? You should see a CyberMaster unit... that's HUGE!

Hehe, I have never seen that one.

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.

You also should weight a CyberMaster unit. That's HEAVY!
The two internal motors are the main reason for such size and weight.

As a first version, the RCX is pretty dang awesome, but I think there is
room to improve.  Any comments?

Something between a CyberMaster and a RCX would be ideal.
The radio link from the CyberMaster and the memory and software from the RCX.
Also, the two internal motors from the CyberMaster should be made external. That way we would have 2 external hi-torque
motors with rotation sensors integrated AND without the need for
connecting them to the inputs!
Yes, the CyberMaster motors only have two connections.

By the way, how can they drive a motor and receive feedback from it 50 times per rotation using only two wires ??? (have
I seen this wrong?)

That sounds too good to be true :)

I heard they couldn't have the radio link in the RCX becuase of FCC
regulations.  I agree that radio is MUCH better than this line-of-sight
IR.

-PV
------------------------------------------------------------
Purple Viking (Jakob Nebeker)   ____________________________
email: jakob@writeme.com       | the sentence below is false
ICQ  : 6245080                 | the sentence above is true
------------------------------------------------------------



Message is in Reply To:
  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 (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)

46 Messages in This Thread:























Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR