Subject:
|
Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 1 Jan 1999 03:44:32 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Maurice Hilarius <(maurice@harddata.)IHateSpam(com)>
|
Viewed:
|
1503 times
|
| |
|
|
With regards to your message at 01:30 AM 01-01-99 GMT, Brett Carver. Where
you stated:
> Jakob Nebeker wrote:
> > 1. More connections. At least 4 outputs and 4 inputs.
>
> At the risk of being argumentative, I'd submit that no matter how many
> inputs/outputs they provide people will always want more. The trick is
> to "expand" what's available to do what you want to do.
>
> There are already various ideas and designs for running multiple sensors
> on a single input port. Three touch per port seems VERY workable and
> more is no doubt possible.
>
> Outputs are more of a "limit", but that just means one needs more
> creativity. I've got a robot about 2/3 built now as a prototype to
> expand output control. I use one motor to drive a transmission which
> will shift the other two motors between two different drive trains
> (each). I've pretty well finished the mechanical design and
> implementation, but still have all the coding to do (NQC). Of course if
> you can do it with two drive trains, you can do it with N (which would
> go a long way to solve the output limit).
>
> Don't see the 3-input/output as a limit, see it as a challenge to create
> a design that works within the limits.
It boils down to this:
If you want to build a _very_ simple 'bot, then this set and the RCX are fine.
If you want it to be complex enough to accomplish much it is severly
deficient.
All of the work people are doing on this front boils down mainly to "hacks"
to squeeze more I/O and control functionality out of the small number of
ports. This is really a waste of time and creativity. But we have no
choice, do we?
However, once these methods and hacks are done, it _is_ possible ( and
perhaps necessary) that we build a repertoire of methods and means to do
it, because, there is no better alternative (for now).
The key here is that we do _Not_ keep re-inventing the wheel (pun
intended) and establish some sort of library of means, methods, and
resources. Otherwise this list will be an endless rehash of the same
problems and solutions.
My $.02 worth, anyway.. ;^}
Best regards,
Maurice W. Hilarius Telephone: 01-403-414-9319
Hard Data Ltd. FAX: 01-403-456-1510
11060 - 166 Avenue email:maurice@harddata.com
Edmonton, AB, Canada - T5X 1Y3 http://www.harddata.com
NOTE: January 25, 1999, new telephone numbers _AND_ area code:
Telephone: 01-780-456-9771
FAX: 01-780-456-9772
--
Did you check the web site first?: http://www.crynwr.com/lego-robotics
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas.
|
| (...) I agree with most of what was said (especially the idea of a library of ideas which has been started on a couple different web sites). But... (...) I don't agree that the effort is a "waste". Personally, I've had a LOT of fun working on the (...) (26 years ago, 1-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas.
|
| With regards to your message at 07:06 AM 01-01-99 GMT, Brett Carver. Where you stated: (...) Sorry, I wasn't meaning to be critical! I was remembering back to very earley computer days. Back then I remember the great excirement about coming up with (...) (26 years ago, 1-Jan-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | RCX 2.0 -- ideas.
|
| Here are some things I would like to see changed for RCX 2. (if there is even one) 1. More connections. At least 4 outputs and 4 inputs. The way it is right now, a robot that drives around can't really do much else, given that there is only one (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)
|
46 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
|
|
|
|
