Subject:
|
RE: More Speed? Re: Mindstorms 3.0 Wish List
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Nov 2003 20:48:14 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Rob Limbaugh <rlimbaugh@[SayNoToSpam]greenfieldgroup.com>
|
Viewed:
|
759 times
|
| |
|
|
Both methods have their place. There are pro's and con's to each.
For John's purposes, his approach is quick, easy, and requires very
little programming to use. That would leave him free to focus on other
programming he's more interested in. The amount of memory needed to use
that approach would be one of the "cons".
The simplest compression method I could think of is simply storing the
coordinates of an obstacle. But, this now requires additional math and
programming when accessing/updating the information, especially when
there is no longer an obstacle. In John's method above, he could simply
toggle a bit (assuming each bit represented a square inch).
A computer screen is drawn the same way John is drawing his obstacle
map.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Phillips [mailto:drvegetable@attbi.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 11:47 AM
> To: lego-robotics@crynwr.com
> Subject: Re: More Speed? Re: Mindstorms 3.0 Wish List
>
>
> In lugnet.robotics, John Barnes wrote:
> > > This could be addressed on the existing hardware with a better
> > > programming environment.
> >
> > Are you sure? How many square inches are there in a 1600 • square foot
> > house? I don't think the resulting map array will fit in 32k memory.
>
> There are 230,400 square inches in a 1,600 sq-ft house. But
> you are assuming that you cannot somehow compress the
> information that you are trying to store. How many chair legs
> are in your house? Store the location and size of every
> obstruction and you don't necessarily need to have one byte
> (or even one bit) per square inch to completely map the place out.
>
> The RCX is roughly comparable in computing power (and 4-16
> times faster than) my old Apple ][ computer. Yet I look at
> the software that I used to run on that baby. Even some
> pretty decent chess programs, but how many possible moves are
> there on a chess board? Work smarter, not harder.
>
> I'm not saying that it wouldn't be great to have more memory
> and a faster CPU, and I imagine that this is a foregone
> conclusion in a redesigned RCX 3.0. But I agree with others
> here that I'd rather have an affordable RCX than one that can
> solve any computing problem that I throw at it. Part of the
> challenge of any LEGO modeling is to make do with what you've got.
>
> - Chris.
>
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: More Speed? Re: Mindstorms 3.0 Wish List
|
| (...) Again, there is nothing wrong with wanting more memory and a faster CPU on the RCX. And there is nothing wrong with John using any programming technique he wants to in his robots. And even if the RCX is capable of assigning one bit of memory (...) (21 years ago, 5-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
