Subject:
|
Re: Lego Compatible (was Re: JCX and Legos...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 9 Sep 2004 05:26:51 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Mr S <szinn_the1@#spamless#yahoo.com>
|
Viewed:
|
1013 times
|
| |
|
|
I think I must have sent this off-list?
I am of the opinion that LEGO time is theraputic. I
_WANT_ it to plug-n-play. I don't mind having to have
an 'extra' brick in place, or needing several battery
boxes, but I would like it to all work with standard
LEGO parts.
I don't necessarily agree with the less than favorable
opinion of LEGO sensors... that's just a design issue
:-) (get the joke please) LEGO offers 6 year old kids
the ability to do things that no other robotics system
does.... LEGO rocks!
System engineering and design is about making
disparate systems work together. This is why I am not
a LEGO purist, but I _FULLY_ support the LEGO
intention of no tools, or hardware designer
requirements. When you are ready to go beyond what
LEGO has provided, share what you develop!
Everything that you develop is more easily assimilated
and used if it is LEGO compatible.
Again, just an opinion
Cheers
--- "Wayne C. Gramlich" <Wayne@Gramlich.Net> wrote:
> Greetings:
>
> Mr S wrote:
> > Just an opinion:
>
> There is no right or wrong here; just opinions.
>
> > I'm not a LEGO purist, but I do like things to
> > plug-n-play as it were. Electrical and mechanical
> > compatibility of the programmable brick makes • absolute
> > sense for the target after-market group... people • who
> > chose LEGO because of the plug-n-play methodology.
>
> I am not a purist either. I love the no glue
> required
> philosophy of Lego. Nothing that is done can't be
> undone.
>
> When it comes to designing an "add on" "after
> market"
> system for people who are frustrated with the
> limitations
> of the Lego RCX, it is very hard to achieve Lego
> level
> of plug-n-play. This is largely due the cost of
> developing
> molds to stick everything in.
>
> My current thoughts are that a system that expands
> on
> RCX minimally needs to have the same sensors and the
> same ease of use, but not necessarily the identical
> RCX mechanical/electrical connections. Frankly, the
> standard Lego sensors are pretty meager -- a touch
> sensor (overpriced microswitch), a flakey rotation
> sensor, and the light sensor (easily replaced by the
> appropriate Sharp reflective sensor at a 10th the
> price.)
>
> My thought is that a system that easy to
> mechanically
> attach to Legos, but is completely different in its
> processor and sensor suite should be acceptable.
>
> > In my own personal perversion of the RCX, I'd like • to
> > see it as compact, accepting an external battery
> > source so that more electronics could be packed in • the
> > RCX like brick, and longer lasting battery packs • could
> > be used. That leaves room for more connectors, • more
> > h-bridges, more sensors, but that is MY personal
> > opinion. Sort of an RCX version 3.0.
>
> There is general agreement in the community that
> more
> I/O ports are needed. Separating the battery pack
> would
> be useful as well.
>
> > A parent, wishing to take their child's hobby • further
> > needs PnP LEGO compatability. What parent wants to • let
> > their 8 year old loose in a bedroom, unsupervised,
> > with tools and batteries? Some of us hobbyists • don't
> > need the PnP compatability, but the general LEGO
> > community does. One of the _BEST_ things about • LEGO is
> > the absolute lack of need for tools or skills with
> > tools.
>
> I suspect that the Robotics sub-community of Lego is
> on
> the high end of capabilities. I agree about the
> desire
> of no tools.
>
> > Just an opinion....
>
> Likewise, my opinion as well....
>
> Thanks for sharing your opinion,
>
> -Wayne
>
> [snip original thread]
>
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
