Subject:
|
Re: More Speed? Re: Mindstorms 3.0 Wish List
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Nov 2003 21:29:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
808 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, "Rob Limbaugh" <RLimbaugh@greenfieldgroup.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
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 to every sq-in of floorspace, John might move into a bigger house
someday.
But the issue that is in danger of being trampled here is that many people tend
to underestimate the capabilities of the RCX that they already have. More
horsepower is not always the answer, and sometimes we learn a lot more by
learning to accept some limitations and work around them than we do by just
throwing more hardware at the problem.
Steve originally asked what programming problems people had found that were
beyond the capabilities of the present-day RCX hardware, and I was merely trying
to point out that John's problem was not necessarily in that category.
- Chris.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
5 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
|
|
|
|
