Subject:
|
Re: RCX & RIS, a fading glory?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 7 Feb 2003 13:43:09 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Brass Tilde <BRASSTILDE@INSIGHTBB.COMstopspam>
|
Viewed:
|
633 times
|
| |
|
|
> > 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.
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 bus, and another port, the sole purpose of which
was to connect another bus. Even if they are virtually identical
electrically, different plugs on the ports could maintain the
differentiation that makes the use of the system simple.
Buses could be daisy chained, which is perhaps less flexible than being able
to plug a new bus into any existing port, but it keeps it simple. Ports on
the new bus would simply be numbered starting from where the "parent" bus
leaves off.
I realize that for complex operations, a daisy chain could become quite
long, but an addressing scheme that allows connecting a new bus to any
existing port, while certainly possible, might be a tad confusing to some
beginners. Maybe since the type of device would have to be specified
anyway, some type identification for another bus could implemented as an
option.
By addressing ports though, you could switch motors or sensors all you want;
the program would be addressing ports on a bus, not individual motors,
switches or sensors. The program would still have to know what type of
device is connected to any particular bus port (but it has to know that now
in the case of sensors), but wouldn't be dependent upon identifying any
particular individual device beyond it's type.
From the very simplistic perspective of someone who is using the RCX, this
is the way the device works now. The three sensor ports are one bus, and
the three motor connections are another bus. The main problem I see people
talking about is the lack of extensibility. You can't plug another "bus"
into one of the sensor ports to get more sensors. Addressing ports on a
bus, rather than the things that are connected to those ports, could be one
possible solution.
Thoughts? Good, bad or indifferent?
Brass
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
