Subject:
|
Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Jan 2003 04:50:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1545 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, Steve Baker <sjbaker1@airmail.net> writes:
> 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.
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!
> 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.
I see.
> 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.
That's cool. Infact, I am starting to open up to the possibilities because I
am realizing and encountering some inherent limitations to my own designs
and I think it would be cool to work with someone on improving the
difficulties the Robot encounters. Ie.. positioning, constant multiple RCX
inter communication.
I need 4 RCX to contol both the Arms on my Robot. The fact that they can
work together to control the arms is a testament to the
feasability/capability of the RCX.
However, you raise interesting new questions. Some people are encountering
the limits and obstacles of the RCX. These thoughts should be considered by
the powers that be for the next round of Great Products sure to come.
> 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.
True, I hear ya, this is the tough part. And yet the system is not limited
to just 3 motors and sensors. The RCX can communicate and work together.
That rasies the complextity factor. In of itself 4 RCX that control 12
motors is my solution for the time being. Would I design it like that? NO!
I need a centralized control plaform. Makes more sense. So is that more like it?
> 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.
Good deal. I like the idea of 1 motor on a sensor and one port for each.
But people are always gonna tinker or discover cool stuff.
> 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.
But you have figured out some great stuff, I personnaly have checked out
your refference on Solar pannels. I was playing with them last night.
I LOVE SOLAR PANNELS!!!
> > You speak of great concepts yet admit to not carrying them out.
Ahh for get I said that.....!
> 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!)
One RCX as the base count unit.
This is where I feel you pain. Perhaps if a Lego Robot is "that kick-@$$"
you (I) should cash in my chips and get a Super computer and real electonics
to manage its systems. At that ponit Lego would only be the Structure of the
Robots making. Hmmm,,, Does anyone wanna build one of these with me?
ie I build the Skeleton and we incorporate strong motors and sensors into it?
:)
> ...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.
That's cool, maybe you can teach me some of those things when my Robot is
ready to walk around the room! That would be great!
> > > 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.
Gotcha.
If I could say, I although I do see some of the limitaions, they at least
*do* work together. And to show support for your point, that isn't always
practical.
Oh Wait! So here it is: we need a more dynamic support system that can be
contained in one spot. The RCX is good for spreading out smaller Robots, but
we still need a more Powerful base to make a more Dynamic Prime Robot!?!
> 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.
I'm really more reserved, I try not to get into talk like that.
Fact is you are a great member of the Robotics group and I would have it no
other way!
> > 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.
:) Check me out defending Lego Freaks everywhere! :)
> > > > 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.)
I know, I just heard the partnership was only set for the first three movies
w/ the Lego sets.
Yo, BTW, isn't that your pic with George Lucas and you guys standing together!?
I love that picture!
> ---------------------------- 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 is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
33 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Robotics
|
|
|
|
|
|
