Subject:
|
Re: Mindstorms 3.0 Wish List
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Nov 2003 23:01:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2140 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, Jordan Bradford wrote:
| |
So, please tell me what else the RCX needs and what other sensors would be
good to have. I’ll still take mechanical improvements, too. Thanks.
|
Well, this whole thread has been visited before as has been pointed out, but it
never hurts to air the subject again. And of course, I couldn’t resist joining
in ;)
As far as the RCX goes and in concert with most other respondees, more resources
are really what’s needed. In order of importance to me, I think I/O followed by
memory capacity followed by CPU speed would do it for me.
My opinion on sensors is probably well known - you need lots of different types!
But however many you make, someone will always come up with “yet another sensor”
:)
The other issues not touched on by others in this thread, so far as I am aware,
are;
Should Mindstorms 3.0 be backward compatible with earlier versions as far as
sensor interfaces go?
How much I/O is there room for on a modest sized brick - or collection of daisey
chained modules. I’ve studied this issue myself. Think of an I/O count you might
like - say 8 motors and 16 sensors. Each motor and sensor connector is a 2x2
site with one side not crowded by other connectors so there’s room for the wire
so call it 2x3. Try making a fake Ver. 3.0 RCX with 24 connector sites. You’ll
be amazed how big it gets.
How much power is there room for. If you have eight motor ports, your AAs won’t
last long. Try seeing how much space six C size batteries take.
I’ve been grappling with these challenges for a while. I’ve built monster bricks
with C cells, I’ve built “slices” which connect end to end and add motor and
sensor ports. I’ve never made more than a few prototypes of each kind since the
overall feel wasn’t right.
I, for one, would not like to be the guy at TLC who gets to have to finally
decide. ‘Cos I know 50% of the lugnet robotics community would jump all over me
whichever way I decided to go.
... which leaves me most intrigued to see what TLC do finally offer.
JB
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Mindstorms 3.0 Wish List
|
| (...) John, (and group) IM(very)HO, I've always felt a more distributed modular "brick" would be the way to go, AND still follow the original design of the concept of the core brick. these guys are my inspiration: (URL) a future RCX, some sort of (...) (21 years ago, 4-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | More Speed? Re: Mindstorms 3.0 Wish List
|
| (...) I can see the need for more I/O from the RCX, but I really don't understand why everyone thinks it needs more memory and CPU speed. I'm interested to hear about any projects that people have attempted which required more of either. Steve (21 years ago, 5-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Mindstorms 3.0 Wish List
|
| I'm giving a presentation about Mindstorms on Wednesday. I have a slide near the end that talks about all the stuff I know people want to see added. Here's what I have so far: RCX === RC communication (but keep the IR port, too) more I/O ports (...) (21 years ago, 3-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.technic, lugnet.trains, lugnet.dacta, lugnet.edu, lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.general, FTX)
|
44 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
|
|
|
|
