 | | Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory? —Steve Baker
|
| | | (...) 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? —John Barnes
|
| | | | | (...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 7-Feb-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory? —David Schilling
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 7-Feb-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory? —Rob Limbaugh
|
| | | | 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 (...) (22 years ago, 7-Feb-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
