 | | Re: Why NQC over Robolab? —Patrick Levy
|
| | | What is the limitations of the demo version? It´s possible to get it downloaded somewhere? Patrick Levy "Michael Obenland" <obenland@t-online.de> escreveu na mensagem news:I8Ev9K.1DCJ@lugnet.com... (...) you (...) support. (...) Robolab (...) like (...) (20 years ago, 8-Dec-04, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Why NQC over Robolab? —Thomas Johnson
|
| | | | (...) The only version I can find is here: (URL) This version is crippled and makes Robolab seem extremely limited. I seem to remember a more complete demo of version 1.5 but I can't find it. Another option is "Robolab for LabVIEW" found here: (URL) (...) (20 years ago, 9-Dec-04, to lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why NQC over Robolab? —John Hansen
|
| | | | (...) Here's a link to the "Robolab for LavVIEW" that Tom was talking about: (URL) is a ~50 MB download. This is version 2.5.2. You can download the patch (4 MB) to 2.5.3 here: (URL) tufts.edu site says that "Robolab for LabVIEW" has only been (...) (20 years ago, 9-Dec-04, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why NQC over Robolab? —Michael Obenland
|
| | | | | (...) Sounds great. But I run the nqc compiler on Linux and have no COM... (...) Sometimes I dream of a BricxCC written in Java, running on Win, Linux or OSX with Control Lab and all kind of features... something like an Bricklipse... (...) Well... (...) (20 years ago, 9-Dec-04, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why NQC over Robolab? —Thomas Johnson
|
| | | | (...) Oops. Thanks for the correct link, John. (...) debugging the existing ones. That said, version 2.5.4 is excellent. The event bugs have been fixed as well as a ton of others. Also, more (not all) of the underlying code is unlocked. This allows (...) (20 years ago, 9-Dec-04, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
