Subject:
|
Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:26:30 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Kyle McDonald <KYLE.MCDONALD@spamlessSUN.COM>
|
Viewed:
|
1625 times
|
| |
|
|
Steve Baker wrote:
>
> 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.
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 many) kids who also are
turned off by these limitations. Maybe not all kids, I'm sure there
are some (maybe even a majority) of kids out there who don't have
the patience, imagination or inclination to put the time in to design
really cool robots with this stuff even if the RIS weren't as limited
as it is.
However I also believe that there is another type of kid out there.
One who is willing to put in the time, has the ideas, wants to build,
but only ends up coming to the realization that the RCX isn't easily
used for things you'd really want to make a robot do. Now all of
a sudden you need to complete a whole lot of non-LEGO side projects
with your multiplexing motor controller or purchase many RCX's instead
of spending your time on the mechanical and software problem solving
that you would if the RCX had say 16 motor outputs (with every motor
having a torque, RPM, and rotation sensor built-in) and 32 sensor
inputs, not to mention some sort of true digital expansion for
devices that output data and numbers not just a voltage or a
resistance.
I think many of these kids like the RIS/RCX but also see the
uselessness of the expansion packs (extreme sports? that'd be
interesting for all of 5 minutes!) These kids I think get turned
to Mindstorms through frustration of not being able to build what
they imagine are the same kids that are destined to grow up to
be AFOL's. They are US in training.
WHen I was a kid there were many kids who had LEGO at home. But
only a few were the kids that could play with it for hours on
end. Who wouldn't stop trying to build something until it became
obvious that they just didn't have enough parts.
I know I rarely finished a model as a kid that I started - I
*always* ran out of parts or had a new idea and started
something new. For me the 'play' was the building. I never got
to 'play' with my finished models, my imagination never let
me finish them. It was worst when a set had 1 or maybe 2
of some new part that every use I could think of want 4 or 8
of, and the only way to get more would be to buy more copies
of the same set. Parents and relatives don't want to buy kids
something they already have, so it always took me ages to
get those few extra new parts to build my idea usually only to
find that I was still short on some other part ;)
These kids still exist today. They are probably just as turned
on by mindstormas as we were originally, and they're probably
just as frustrated with it's limitations as we are today. (This
type of kid is probably also just as frustrated with the large
single use parts in all the new sets too.)
The question is, how much business is LEGO losing by allowing
this segment of the kid market to slip away. When I think of
the 20 kids in my neighborhoods growing up, only me and 2 others
had a significant LEGO collection. Only the 3 of us put it
on our christmas lists. Others had some, but I doubt even put
together they made up a significant part of the LEGO consumption.
As I said above these are the kids that *might* turn into AFOL's.
Instead of trying to target LEGO towards younger and younger
crowds, I think that LEGO should also be trying to keep this
segment of the true 'LEGO kid' hooked all the way through high school
and college, and *make sure* they turn into an AFOL. To do this
they really need to make a product that not only challenges
this mechanical and engineering oriented type of kid but also
something that doesn't frustrate them by limiting the possibilities.
I know an RCX with 5 outputs and inputs would cost maybe $50 more
, some sort of modular expandable RCX would probably cost even
more. I know even these future AFOL kids don't have the money
some of us have, but I think that most of the parents of kids
who are really into LEGO would spend the extra money. I think
the kids would save the money up even, if they weren't just
going to be frustrated by it's limitations.
> 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.
I plan on pursuing the JAVA based RCX replacement. (I think it's
called the JCX) If it had a plastic case with studs and tubes
and pin holes I'd probably have (at least) one already. Even it
is not really what I would have liked to see from LEGO it's what
I'm going to need to try to build a robot that will do what I
want it to do, and it's cheaper than multiple RCX's (especially
if they stop making RCX's)
> 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.
Yes, that's a great analogy, and even kids can see those
limitations for what they are.
-Kyle
--
_
-------------------------------ooO( )Ooo-------------------------------
Kyle J. McDonald (o o) Systems Support Engineer
Sun Microsystems Inc. |||||
Enterprise Server Products Kyle.McDonald@Sun.COM
1 Network Drive BUR03-4630 \\\// voice: (781) 442-2184
Burlington, MA 01803 (o o) fax: (781) 442-1542
-------------------------------ooO(_)Ooo-------------------------------
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory?
|
| -snip-. (...) -snip- (...) -snip- (...) -snip- (...) I'm an AFOL in training :-). Seriously, I've been angry at what Lego's been pumping out since I was in 5th grade (I'm going into 10th now, but still the same matter), and I really think they need (...) (21 years ago, 21-Aug-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Robotics
|
|
|
|
|
|
