Subject:
|
Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 7 Feb 2003 01:03:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
720 times
|
| |
|
|
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 questions/comments;
Since Lego doesn't make a modest sized mechanically compatible motor with
built in electronics to perform command decode and execution. (and you don't
want to investiagte the cost of producing your own!)
since there is a legacy of existing sensors out there
since there is a legacy of Lego two conductor wires out there
- shouldn't a possible RCX replacement try to maximise use of what is
already in people's hands?
What don't you like about the RCX? RCX-RCX comms speed and limited I/O.
What if you had a "good RCX" which had;
more motor outputs (6?)
more sensor inputs (12?)
more memory (512k?)
more CPU horse power (???)
RF based RCX-RCX comms
couldn't you build significantly more sophisticated robots with such a thing?
You only need one new part - the new RCX
as opposed to totally re-inventing everything and losing your current
investment.
Just my 2c worth...
JB
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
 | | 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 (...) (22 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 (...) (22 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 (...) (22 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 (...) (22 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: (...) (22 years ago, 7-Feb-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (22 years ago, 7-Feb-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
17 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
|
|
|
|
