Subject:
|
Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 7 Feb 2003 06:12:19 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Mike Payson <mpayson@dawgdayz.com&nospam&>
|
Viewed:
|
694 times
|
| |
|
|
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 chainable- IO modules. This would give
you easy expandability & upgradability and automatic compatibility with
current elements. In addition, properly designed, this system would be
compatible with existing software, whether coded in RCX, NQC, Lejos, or
whatever (assuming three motors, three sensors, etc. You would obviously
need to update the software to work with more complicated
implementations).
Ideally, the IO modules should not differentiate between input & output,
so you could use any port for any purpose. This should be easy, but
would probably not work with existing elements. I can think of a few
workarounds for this, however.
In addition to making the system compatible with existing elements, this
also has the benefit of being -relatively- cheap to engineer, since the
changes to the existing architecture are fairly simple (of course, I'm
not an electrical engineer, so I could be way off base on this
point...).
On Thu, 2003-02-06 at 17:03, John Barnes wrote:
> 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
--
Mike Payson * DawgDayz Dog Walking & Pet Sitting
mpayson@dawgdayz.com * www.dawgdayz.com * (206) 280-7295
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
