Subject:
|
Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Jan 2003 04:08:00 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Steve Baker <sjbaker1@airmail*AntiSpam*.net>
|
Viewed:
|
1318 times
|
| |
|
|
Eric Sophie wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, Steve Baker <sjbaker1@airmail.net> writes:
> Whoa, how about checking that attitude right there. Your inflection:
> "That guy has *way* too much time on his hands!" is a little offending.
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 don't"...and
that's the sense I intended here.
There are two approaches to this as a hobby - one is to see just how
far you can push a limited technology to do something much more than it
was ever intended to do. The Lego Typewriter is a classic example of
that. It's pretty awful as a typewriter nobody would deny that - but
that's not the point. It's an amazing achievement to build such a thing
at all with just three motors and three sensors.
But there is another approach to the hobby - to actually want to build
robots that can do meaningful things - that push the envelope of what's
possible in robotics - not push the envelope of what's possible with Lego.
For people (like me) who want to do those things, the limitations of the
RCX are not just an amusing problem to circumvent - they actually prevent
you from doing what you'd like to be able to do. It's extremely frustrating
to be in a situation where you could build a really interesting robot - only
to find you can't because of the arbitary limit of 3 motors and 3 sensors.
Nothing else in Lego is limited in that way.
These two approaches to the hobby are (in my opinion) equally valid
and equally worth-while. Personally, I like to admire creations like
the Typewriter - but I have no interest in creating them. I'd like
to build something like the robot vacuum cleaner that was mentioned
here a few days ago. Something that can navigate around a room,
whilst not falling down stairs, remembering where it's been, not
vacuuming the cat...etc. I have no interest in clever schemes to
share one light sensor between three different functions - I want
to just use three light sensors and get on with (for me) the interesting
part of the problem.
Arguably, I should give up on 'pure Lego' and go with Handiboard or
something - but then it's harder for other people to share my designs,
things don't work so seamlessly together, it's just generally less
convenient.
> You speak of great concepts yet admit to not carrying them out.
I've done some neat things - just nothing that stands out as a solution
to a clever - but arbitary - puzzle.
> > 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!
(Not with one RCX it won't!)
...and I can understand where you are coming from. It's an interesting challenge
to work within limits to make something that seems superficially impossible
- it's just a different *kind* of problem than I'd like to solve. I'd like to
spend my time figuring out how to make robots that navigate accurately, know
where they are and can cooperate to achieve a goal. Those are problems enough
without having to jump through arbitary hoops in order to get an extra sensor.
> > 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 have *enormous* respect for those creations...just that those things
are limited to being artistically wonderful - they can't be wonders of
software and robotics because Lego have decided to make those subsystems
horribly limited.
It's like you wanted to create a gorgeous Lego sculpture - but there were
arbitary rules like "No matter how many bricks you have, you can't stack
them more than three high - oh and by the way, yellow bricks won't stick
to blue ones". A Lego system that wouldn't let you build any structure
more than three bricks high wouldn't be anything like as interesting.
> I'd buy your argument if you didn't put it in such a distateful way.
I'm truly sorry it came out that way - email is a poor medium for expressing
things like that.
> There people in this community that have done exactly what you have just said.
> That was a major diss and you should appologize.
I do - unreservedly.
> > > 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?
(There were orignally going to be 9 StarWars movies.)
---------------------------- 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
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory?
|
| (...) And I too appologize for calling you on that, I'm just sensitive to that because I fear that same perception has taken hold of a few. Your a sport thanks! (...) I see. (...) That's cool. Infact, I am starting to open up to the possibilities (...) (22 years ago, 30-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory?
|
| (...) I agree with this wholeheartedly. And I think that LEGO is missing out on great opportunities in this market because of these limitations. I know LEGO can't afford to cater to only the AFOL, but I believe that there are many (I don't know how (...) (22 years ago, 30-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
