 | | RE: More Speed? Re: Mindstorms 3.0 Wish List
|
|
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 (...) (21 years ago, 5-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: More Speed? Re: Mindstorms 3.0 Wish List
|
|
(...) Superficially, that seems true... but it falls apart as soon as you start dealing with dead-reconing errors. In practice, recovery from slew errors is significantly more difficult with a location grid-based mapping instead of an obstacle-based (...) (21 years ago, 5-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: More Speed? Re: Mindstorms 3.0 Wish List
|
|
(...) Ah hah! And the reason I don't want to waste time and effort making my memory map (excuse the pun) any harder to code than it has to be is because I am busy building special sensors and other gizmos to solve the short range navigation and (...) (21 years ago, 6-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: More Speed? Re: Mindstorms 3.0 Wish List
|
|
(...) OK, that's definitely a good reason to keep things simple. I'm far from convinced that _any_ sensor suite (advanced or not) will completely fix the drift problem, but if the sensors themselves return absolute coordinates (or even absolute (...) (21 years ago, 10-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
