Subject:
|
Re: Lego controller
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Tue, 31 May 2005 16:17:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1240 times
|
| |
|
|
Steve (and others)
Read in-between the lines for comments
In lugnet.robotics, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
| |
Martijn,
Most of these are pretty clear. Of course, this discussion comes up every few
months. But I have a couple questions...
On Tue, May 31, 2005 5:44 am, Martijn Boogaarts said:
| |
“What do you think is important in a new RCX ?”
2) A Better handshake between the RCX and the IRtower. To reduce in a multi
environment overwritten of programs, or a switch to lock the programs
|
Do many people use the IR as a way to communicate between a PC and a moble
robot? Personally, I don’t think I’ve ever used the IR tower where I couldn’t
just use a wire, instead. How about everyone else? Would it be better to
just plug the robot into your computer?
|
Imagine you have multiple RCX units build in a large model then it is convenient
to not have to leave a place open for the connector to program it. During a
class session I found that many times the RCX programs were overwritten by
programs from other users.
| |
| |
6) Remote sensor Usage (IR or Bluetooth)
...
10) Internal IP-like number (same as the imprinted) so you can direct
address that RCX ! (using IR or Bluetooth)
|
I don’t know much about Bluetooth. How would this help?
|
Have a look here:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/bluetooth10.htm
Why is it called Bluetooth?
Harald Bluetooth was king of Denmark in the late 900s. He managed to unite
Denmark and part of Norway into a single kingdom then introduced Christianity
into Denmark. He left a large monument, the Jelling rune stone, in memory of his
parents. He was killed in 986 during a battle with his son, Svend Forkbeard.
Choosing this name for the standard indicates how important companies from the
Baltic region (nations including Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland) are to the
communications industry, even if it says little about the way the technology
works.
The advantage of Bluetooth sensors would be that they don’t need a sensor input
on the RCX, and you can configure them in your program as you would configure a
normal sensor, but link them to a virtual Input port. This makes the RCX small
(not more connections are needed on top of it) and extra modules can be a
connection for other sensors and those units then connect using Bluetooth to the
RCX.
| |
Would it really be useful to have Bluetooth to connect to a sensor? I mean
normally, I can just use a wire to connect. If I need more than that, I
usually need another RCX, anyway...
And, wouldn’t it be hard to configure that? Of course, if you need to change
sensors, you’ll have to reconfigure it, right?
What do you mean, here? Do you want the ability to add new sensors (like we
have now) or are you talking about something more?
|
Yes something more was the idée wouldn’t it be nice if TLG comes with their own
sound sensor ? nicely molded ?
| |
Steve
PS. Nice meeting you in Billund. :)
|
It sure was .
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Lego controller
|
| On Tue, May 31, 2005 11:17 am, Martijn Boogaarts said: (...) Ok, I'm not sure what you're in favor of, here. :) First, with the current setup, don't you have to leave the front of the RCX clear, so the IR can flow in? And, if the RCX used a wire, (...) (19 years ago, 31-May-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Lego controller
|
| Martijn, Most of these are pretty clear. Of course, this discussion comes up every few months. But I have a couple questions... On Tue, May 31, 2005 5:44 am, Martijn Boogaarts said: (...) Do many people use the IR as a way to communicate between a (...) (19 years ago, 31-May-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
29 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
|
|
|
|
