 | | Re: Future Mindstorm Releases?
|
|
(...) Quite understandable (and understood). (...) I wish they would, too -- I'd love to see it! (...) Agreed. For structural work -- especially, the sort of tinkery rapid-prototyping structural work we all love -- LEGO can't be beaten. However... (...) (20 years ago, 1-Sep-04, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Future Mindstorm Releases?
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) Joe: I, too, love Lego for the mechanical aspects of robot building. However, when it comes to the sensors and effectors, I find the RCX to be too limiting. It was a good first try, but after 5 years on the market.... (Let me (...) (20 years ago, 1-Sep-04, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Future Mindstorm Releases?
|
|
(...) (I note that it seems to be spelled RoboBrix by robotstore.com.) (...) That's cool. I have several suggestions for you, as a potential user: 1. Get the robotstore folks to mention the LEGO compatibility in their descriptions; the one I looked (...) (20 years ago, 1-Sep-04, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Future Mindstorm Releases?
|
|
(...) The guy who sells them wanted a name that was less likely to be kicked out by the trademark examiner -- hence, RoboBRiX. (...) Good point; I'll mention it to Roger (he's the Robot Store guy.) (...) Documentation is a big problem. We need more (...) (20 years ago, 1-Sep-04, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Future Mindstorm Releases?
|
|
--- Joe Strout <joe@strout.net> wrote: {{ SNIP }} (...) I have to say that if you are concerned with the MPU and I/O, there is the option of using two RCX bricks, as I do. I am running three outputs just to make my robot move along the floor! The (...) (20 years ago, 1-Sep-04, to lugnet.robotics)
|
