Subject:
|
Re: Mindstorms 3.0 Wish List
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Nov 2003 18:52:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2282 times
|
| |
|
|
John Gerlach wrote:
| |
But I feel the need to point out that the 3.0 has to still
be ‘kid friendly’. The RCX is designed for ages 12 and up,
the 3.0 should be in the same age range, otherwise Lego
loses a huge part of their target market.
|
Agreed. This is critical for LEGO (while I would, of course, prefer that a major
corperation design products specificly aimed at *ME*, that might be, well... a
tad unrealistic).
| |
One idea I haven’t seen is non-volatile memory!
|
Perhaps. Personally, I’d like to see a true “sleep” mode (low power; I use it
often as a datalogger, even with kids... and the idea of a robot skulking around
your room for a week, waking up out of low-power mode to hunt the cat, for
instance, just seems... perfect grin).
| |
DCC? Nope, too small a target market.
|
A problem across the board. Although having a year or so of Mindstorms under my
belt, a pin-based wiring harness does seem like a good step, allowing more
input/outputs, while being backward-compatible with current sensors using a very
simple 2x2 conversion brick. Personally, I’d like more I/O first, but the space
on the RCX (& I don’t feel it should be bigger) is an issue. I could see 4 in /
4 out, but more than that would be pushing it with the display & buttons (again,
you likely need these, and built-in, not as a seperate unit... based on who the
target market is (ie, not all of us who are writing to this thread). A pin-based
connector system would lift this space restriction, allow a way of piping in an
external DC power source, etc.
| |
Faster processor and/or more memory? You bet!
|
Although I suspect this could be addressed with firmware (not hardware) changes.
Does it need new hardware? The performance of 3rd part firmware suggests not to
me (although I’m limited to NQC - I’d *love* more variables and a higher speed,
but what limits me is my chosen platform (Mac & NQC) and the firmware, not the
hardware).
| |
A/C adaptor jack is a must.
|
I like it (and you can still get these units, BTW), but is it really needed for
the 12-year-old market? The fact that they removed it from the 1.0 (and that
true 1.0 RCX’s do not go for much more than 1.5 or 2.0 bricks on eBay) suggests
otherwise.
| |
I’d really like to see some sort of switch that allows an RCX to control a
motor, but have the motor drawing power from something other than the RCX.
|
You can do this with the current (motor) outputs. A LEGO servo might make things
cleaner and easier, and might be *cheaper* that a standard geared motor
(offering more options at a reduced cost with little complication to the output
scheme). Would I like this? Yes... and it might be cost-effective for LEGO.
Let’s hope.
| |
Some sort of ‘bus’ technology...
|
Would be great. But for the proposed market? hmm...
Given the number of 3rd-part solutions to a good range-sensing sensor (IR or
ultrasound; and the fact that LEGO has already moved in this direction in the
Spybots) makes me hope that becomes a standard sensor option.
--
Brian Davis
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Mindstorms 3.0 Wish List
|
| (...) Lots of interesting ideas in this thread! But I feel the need to point out that the 3.0 has to still be 'kid friendly'. The RCX is designed for ages 12 and up, the 3.0 should be in the same age range, otherwise Lego loses a huge part of their (...) (21 years ago, 5-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
44 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Robotics
|
|
|
|
|
|
