Subject:
|
Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 7 Feb 2003 02:44:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
777 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, Steve Baker <sjbaker1@airmail.net> writes:
> John Barnes wrote:
> > - 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
>
> No - that would still be limiting:
>
> 1) If it's going to use existing wires - it's going to be **HUGE**
> just because of the need to have 18 2x2 stud connectors on it.
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 the bottom. In that case a new RCX with what John suggests
could actually be *smaller* than the current one!
I, for one, would be EXTREMELY pleased if Lego came out with something like
John suggested!
> 2) It's inflexible. If I just want four motors, I still have to
> haul this massive lump around. If I want two processors - I
> need two honking great lumps - even if I still need only two
> motors and one sensor.
See above. It doesn't have to be big.
> 3) It's *STILL* limiting and goes against the modularity that makes
> Lego mechanics so attractive.
Now you come to my biggest complaint about the whole motor-addressing scheme
that everyone's been talking about: as soon as you do something like this,
you loose the most important thing about Lego: the interchangeability if its
pieces -- its modularity.
Having to assign IDs to a motor is just *wrong* somehow. Try to explain to a
kid that the reason their robot doesn't work anymore is that they originally
built the robot with "this" motor. How many times have you taken a motor or
sensor out of one robot and used it in another one? Or borrowed a motor or
sensor to get a robot to work?
I have a dozen robots in various stages of completion. I keep the technic
parts together as much as possible, but the motors, sensors and RCXs are too
expensive to have enough of not to move them around from one creation to
another. It seems really silly that just because you borrowed a motor from
one of your robots that you'd have to reprogram it to use a different one.
> Most of the things I'd like to build wouldn't need anything like that
> complexity - but some things would need a lot more than that. Only
> a completely modular system would cover the range from the small/light
> robot that doesn't need even something as big as RCX - to the highly
> complex contraption that needs considerably more.
I think that with the current RCX, I can build about 10% of the robots I'd
like to. With the improvements that John suggested, plus a half dozen new
sensors that are very badly needed, and a new LEGO stepper motor or better
yet a servo I'd be able to build 99+% of the robots I'd like to. The
remaining <1% will require something besides LEGO anyway, so it'd be silly
to waste the effort in trying to make a toy be able to do them anyway. Maybe
in 30 years toys will come along far enough. But for now these types of
things should probably be custom built, or just forgotten about.
> > You only need one new part - the new RCX
>
> Well, yes. But it doesn't grab my imagination as a gigantic
> leap forwards - it's not *enough* better than the existing
> system.
What kinds of things do you imagine doing that would require so many more
motors and sensors? Don't forget that John is also proposing 'useful'
RCX-to-RCX communication. You can have multiple RCXs in your robot if 6
motors isn't enough.
> I would imagine there would be quite a few people who'd be
> interested in it though. I just want something that's as
> flexible and modular as Lego itself. The problem is that
> unless some largeish company comes up with the complete
> system, it's never going to happen. :-(
>
> It's fun to plan how you'd do it - but ultimately, I doubt
> it'll ever happen.
You're right; it is fun to think about these things as long as you don't
start torturing yourself about why LEGO doesn't listen to us. If the final
solution is too complex, LEGO certainly won't do it. However if a convincing
enough case can be made that something a little bit better would draw many
more people into the hobby, then LEGO might listen.
--
David Schilling
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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 (...) (22 years ago, 7-Feb-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
