To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.roboticsOpen lugnet.robotics in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Robotics / 24032
24031  |  24033
Subject: 
Re: Lego controller
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics
Date: 
Tue, 31 May 2005 19:02:24 GMT
Viewed: 
1178 times
  
On Tue, May 31, 2005 11:17 am, Martijn Boogaarts said:
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.

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, wouldn't that eliminate the possibility of programs
being overwritten in a classroom setting?

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)

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.

So, does this require any programming in the actual sensor?  And, how much would
something like that cost?  I'd think it would really raise the cost of a simple
sensor, wouldn't it?

Steve



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Lego controller
 
(...) Reading all of this, I would imagine having a few more wired IO ports, as well as an I2C bus would go a great deal. For those who really want to go bluetooth (including myself) are there not I2C/bluetooth devices on the market? One problem I (...) (19 years ago, 31-May-05, to lugnet.robotics)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Lego controller
 
Steve (and others) Read in-between the lines for comments (...) 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 (...) (19 years ago, 31-May-05, to lugnet.robotics, FTX)

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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR