Subject:
|
Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Jan 2003 03:16:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1284 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, Steve Baker <sjbaker1@airmail.net> writes:
> Eric Sophie wrote:
> > In lugnet.robotics, John Barnes writes:
> > I was thinking that if a RIS 3.0 was made, I wonder if we have out grown the
> > RCX? I know the list of things one could quote or list. But frankly, I have
> > only seen a couple of hand fulls of Lego Robots that really use the RCX to
> > its fullest. Dont's get me wrong. I say that statement very carefully.
> > If one were to look at the range of RCX Creations. I would say it is far
> > more difficult to make a Robot or device that really uses the RCX to its
> > fullest,
>
> I strongly disagree.
>
> You can (with a lot of stupid messing around) push the RCX beyond anything
> reasonable. The awesome Lego Typewriter is a classic example. These
> are incredibly ingenious devices - and if you want to treat robot design
> like solving a crossword puzzle, then that's fine.
>
> However, some of us would actually like to design reasonably sensible
> robots that do useful things rather than just being something to point
> at and say "Wow! That guy has *way* too much time on his hands!".
Whoa, how about checking that attitude right there. Your inflection:
"That guy has *way* too much time on his hands!" is a little offending.
You speak of great concepts yet admit to not carrying them out.
I build what I think I can accomplish and have dedicated my life to pursuing
the next level of which I hope to obtain.
Perhaps you missed that fact that I live my life for creating. At this point
in time I have made my living building Lego as Art. I direct my energies in
a way that helps me create those devices which others cannot due to the
nature of their lives. For this time on until I decide, I build Lego as Art,
I am a Lego Artist.
Sir, I take pride in the hard work I have done in my life to bring me to
this point. The time I spend is purposful make no mistake.
Elaborate on possible RCX scenareos if you want. I build and elaborate little.
What's great about the cool systems you have discovered is that I'd love to
see them contained in a device or robot. If you have limitations that
prevent you by choice or fancy to construct a super robot. I have lifted
those constraints and set out to make them a reality.
Enter your reply as imediate disagreement, rather how about adding your
perspective. I lay down no concrete law. Your view is welcom. I offered my
view as a view. Not open for disagreement. It was not entered as a view for
yay or nay. I can only state one truth a time. My comment was offered, not
ment as a basis for a debate. Its how I feel. Want to say you disagree?
When really it just another way to see the issue. That's the clue we need!
Not, Oh I disagree, chime in and show me how Steve views it or what Steve
has to offer. Chime in with a disagreement and you miss the elegance of what
is being said. Offer another way and you become my teacher. We enter a
journey together, offering ideas. Learning from eachothers unique
perspective. That's what I want.
This Next part is great! This is awesome stuff! I like this kind of talk. I
really respect how you laid this out.
> Then, the equation is simple:
>
> 1) It takes a minimum of two controllable outputs to move a robot
> under reasonable control along a specific path or to a specific
> location. Two degrees of freedom - two outputs. That's for sure.
>
> 2) Ergo all the other aspects of the robot MUST be controlled with
> the single remaining output. That's a very serious limitation.
> There are sneaky mechanical tricks to get more out of what you have,
> and some people find it fun to look for those tricks. However, for
> many of us, that's a horrible pain in the neck. I want to build a
> robot that can drive around the room *AND* have a controllable
> robot arm on it - with at least three degrees of freedom. One
> RCX can't do that.
>
> 3) It takes a minimum of two sensors to measure how the robot is
> moving. Again, you have to measure your location in a 2D world,
> you need two numbers to describe that location - and hence two
> sensors...minimum.
>
> 4) Ergo, all the other aspects of the robot's perception of the world
> MUST be funneled through the one remaining input. Again, there are
> some dirty tricks that kinda help that - but still - if I want to
> know whether the robot bumped into something - and whether it's
> in the light or dark and what temperature it is and....whatever.
> One RCX can't do that either.
>
> 5) Whilst the RCX has enough RAM for many applications - it would be
> hard to fit a large neural network - or the progress of some evolutionary
> learning algorithm - or even a simple map of the area it's explored.
>
> 6) Whilst the CPU is fast enough for simple things - it's way too slow
> for image processing or anything like that.
>
> 7) Only being able to communicate back to base via a dog-slow IR link
> is a serious restriction...it relies on having a line-of-sight and
> it's *far* behind the state-of-the-art (IrDA for example). RCX needs
> a radio link.
>
> 8) Debugging complex programs using only the LCD panel is tricky. Having
> a pixel-addressable graphics display would be useful.
>
> ...I could go on.
Whew! you have a way better understanding of these kinds of things than I do.
I humble myself by just loving the fact that for *me* the height of these
kinds of ideas are channeled into one great effort to create a Robot that
contains the very best of what Lego can do. Incorporating all the tech that
Lego has to offer. Everything else to me is moot. I just have this focus to
make a robot with all these great capabilites. So I'm sorry to everyone if I
am strange to you or if I don't always express myself in the best terms
possible. It not easy to express your self sometimes. Is what it is I suppose.
> All of our robots solve a small piece of the problem. There are things
> like the LegWay - but it takes 100% of the RCX's resorces to just drive
> the thing around...if you wanted it to fetch you a beer from the fridge,
> you'd be screwed.
See where I fit in. That's funny you said that because when I am done, the
Super Mech-Bot will do just that!
My modo is "Whether its Plastic or Metal, its a Robot, and it does what you
tell it to."
> The trouble with all that is that 90% of the things I'd like to have in a
> Lego robot controller are NOT needed in order to sell Lego to 12 year old
> kids. Hence Spybotics.
>
> However, what makes Lego's mechanical system interesting to little
> kids, bigger kids and AFOL's is that it's open-ended and can be expanded
> infinitely. A kid can enjoy a $5 set - a $20 set or lust after the $200
> set - and an AFOL with *way* too much time and money can build an entire
> city or a life-sized dinosaur with tens of thousands of dollars worth of
> parts.
See there you go again. You need to learn a little respect for those
individuals that create such works.
I'd buy your argument if you didn't put it in such a distateful way.
There people in this community that have done exactly what you have just said.
That was a major diss and you should appologize.
Thing is, what you are saying is true. But do you really have to put it like
that. Come on look around, we are all Lego Nuts around here with lots of
time, some do and some don't. Miricle is some of us CAN and will continue to
build our Dreams!
-Legomaster-
> The computer system really needed to be designed on the same principles.
>
> A modular computer - each part in a separate Lego-brick-sized package with
> an inventive interconnection scheme and a plug-and-play scheme to enable
> the CPU to figure out what's connected to it...this could support everything
> from the very simple (1 CPU + 1 Pre-programmed-ROM + 1 Motor + 1 sound brick)
> which could control an R2-D2...through to 10 CPU's plus camera plus 1Gb RAM
> plus 40 motors and 50 sensors controlling an entire Lego train set.
Love it!
> Lego had the right idea when they came up with the infinitly expandable
> mechanical system - they just didn't take the intellectual leap needed to
> see that they exact same *IDEA* could be applied to the electronics and
> the software.
Whoa! that is an awesome statement! I love it!
> > I say let me see the MOCs!
>
> I can't build the things I want to create. I've tried - I have made
> robots with 1 RCX and four Scouts to get me a dozen motors and sensors,
> but then the comms system is too crappy, the enormous size of the
> computer bricks forces me to build an enormous robot - which can't
> drive fast enough because I can't get enough power to drive all the
> motors I need from the non-modular batteries...you name it!
Ahhh see, hey a little conjecture is to be expected, thats what drives us
and the like....IMHO to much is chatter above the dicipline of building.
Perhaps part of the scheme is that TLC knows only so many people can and are
willing to build elaborate constructions. So the 3 port set up on the RCX is
a balance to the average builder that can only make use of the device in a
limited way due to the sheer amount of parts larger constructions require.
That and the 9 volt compactablity ?
Anyway that's where we fit in, those of us that will use the additional
feature in logical ways, fun ways. Stuff that can amaze everyone.
> > I think that when the Star Wars movies conclude, as well as a couple of
> > other Market lifespans slow down, we'll see some more new interesting >>things.
> But that's not the trend.
All I ment was that Lego is partnered with the SW theme until the end of the
3rd movie. I just wonder what will fill its place. Will the Sci-Fi hype help
Sci-toys? Add to the feel of Sci-Fi with Sci-toys?
> We have Harry Potter Lego - Spiderman Lego...there will be more and
> more movie tie-ins - because they are (presumably) successful.
>
> As fast as one dies off, another appears.
>
> However, I don't think those sets are the ones to worry about.
> Aside from the god-awful micro-scout, the StarWars sets are actually
> rather nice. The larger Harry Potter sets are basically just
> castle stuff with a couple of specially themed MiniFigs.
>
> The things I rail against are the Spybotics, Galidor, Bionicles,
> Soccer and Basketball sets. These are useless for almost anything
> other than building the model on the box lid...and that's NOT GOOD.
>
> Spybotics *particularly* annoys me because it could so easily have
> been exactly the thing we need.
That's a good point. I can go with that. There are alot of good ideas around.
It would be nice to see some on the store shelves.
> ---------------------------- Steve Baker -------------------------
> HomeEmail: <sjbaker1@airmail.net> WorkEmail: <sjbaker@link.com>
> HomePage : http://www.sjbaker.org
> Projects : http://plib.sf.net http://tuxaqfh.sf.net
> http://tuxkart.sf.net http://prettypoly.sf.net
P.S. No hard feelings, I just can't hear talk like that.
Eric "Legomaster" Sophie
www.mylegomaster.com
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory?
|
| (...) My profound apologies - I didn't mean it to come out like that. It's dangerous to infer an inflection from an email. That expression frequently means "Wow - that's amazing - I really wish I had the time and patience to do that - but I (...) (22 years ago, 30-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory?
|
| (...) Hmmmm. I read that as Steve commenting on *other* people pointing as *his* work with that comment and the attitude "Well, it's really cool, but what's it good for?", and wanting to avoid that. Brass (22 years ago, 30-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory?
|
| (...) I strongly disagree. You can (with a lot of stupid messing around) push the RCX beyond anything reasonable. The awesome Lego Typewriter is a classic example. These are incredibly ingenious devices - and if you want to treat robot design like (...) (22 years ago, 30-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
33 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
|
|
|
|
