 | | Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory?
|
|
Steve You're really putting me on the spot aren't you? OK ... (...) Before a download begins, the PC checks whether the named motors exist in the model. If they don't, it offers you the chance to set up a new alias table (which is probably local to (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory?
|
|
(...) It's not just a matter of distance - it's a matter of the electrical load on the output of a single device. TTL-type devices have a suprisingly low limit on the number of inputs they can drive. With a 'bus' type device, that would limit you to (...) (21 years ago, 7-Feb-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory?
|
|
Despite this thread having become strangely fractured within the lugnet system of threads, and despite the intriguing "what if's" that always get aired when threads like this are allowed to take wing, I have a couple of rather down to earth (...) (21 years ago, 7-Feb-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory?
|
|
What about adapter bricks to make the current motors and sensors useful? The command handling is done in the adapter brick, and regular "commands" (those already sent to a motor or sensor) are output to the target device. If enough interest is (...) (21 years ago, 7-Feb-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory?
|
|
(...) That's a good point...providing Lego carry on making them. It comes down to who makes this wonderous hypothetical system. * We'd hope that Lego would make it...then the motor design is a non-issue. * If not - then I suppose we'd need a 'legacy (...) (21 years ago, 7-Feb-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory?
|
|
(...) Is it going to be honking huge? A 12 x 8 stud box can support the required number of I/Os. Compare with the RCX. I understand the modularity issue. I am guessing my ideal basic module is just bigger than yours which economizes on CPUs, power (...) (21 years ago, 7-Feb-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory?
|
|
(...) This is sounding a lot like the DCC system used in model train layouts. You're looking at fitting a DCC-like controller into a programmable brick, with each device having a programmable address? ROSCO (21 years ago, 7-Feb-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory? - replacement for RCX
|
|
(...) Please, no. HandyBoard is fine, but it is 20+ year old technology. If you can all hang in there another two months the answer will be JCX: (URL) KBytes SRAM (this can be used just for heap - working data space) 512 KBytes to 2048 KBytes Flash (...) (21 years ago, 7-Feb-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory?
|
|
(...) It doesn't need to be huge! You can easily fit 6 inputs and 6 outputs into a space the size of the current RCX. But don't forget that the pads don't have to be spread out on TOP of the RCX, you could easily place them along the sides, or along (...) (21 years ago, 7-Feb-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory? - replacement for RCX
|
|
I haven't really looked into HandyBoard, since I found it to complicated compared to the RCX. 20 year old tech works fine on the Space Shuttle and other NASA projects BTW. JCX seems nice, but $500 for a replacement is getting a bit steep for the (...) (21 years ago, 7-Feb-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory?
|
|
Here are some of my thoughts (some are new, some are old...): * Use a wire-frame model to design a very basic conceptual overview of the bot and where different sensors, actuators, and chassis segments are. (Think shapes like a basic wooden block (...) (21 years ago, 7-Feb-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory? - replacement for RCX
|
|
For under $100 one can tap into more power and features from the guts of a laptop that has a cracked screen. Sorry to rain on the JCX parade, but I don't see $500 worth of features or value for me. (...) works (...) allowed (...) allowed (...) CPU, (...) (21 years ago, 7-Feb-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory?
|
|
Great comment. My original vision was much closer to the system that we have now, only made into a modular form. The CPU, Batteries, memory, and tranceiver would each be seperate units, and the sensor/motor IO would be in six- or twelve-port -daisy (...) (21 years ago, 7-Feb-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory?
|
|
This is an interesting idea-- use a Palm (Ipaq's are to expensive!) in place of the RCX. You'd still be stuck with IR for communications, but it should be relatively cheap to build a breakout box to connect the IO to, & a $100 palm should give many (...) (21 years ago, 7-Feb-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory?
|
|
(...) OK, I'm not an electronics expert by any means, but instead of addressing the motors or sensors, why not address the ports on the bus? If you designed the bus correctly, you could have some number (7, 8, whatever) of addressable ports on one (...) (21 years ago, 7-Feb-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory?
|
|
I have putted out the question before with Ipaq handheld computers - now maybe with Xbox i could be possible..even if microsoft states its a game box... ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Barnes" <barnes@sensors.com> To: (...) (21 years ago, 7-Feb-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | RCX: JCX Super replacement, HandyCricket, New Technologies
|
|
(...) It's a fine board (and my 286 PC/AT was wonderful in its day too). I have tremendous respect for Fred Martin and have had the pleasure of meeting him briefly. He actually is no longer focused on the Handy Board but is working with something (...) (21 years ago, 7-Feb-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
