Subject:
|
Re: Lego controller
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Tue, 31 May 2005 22:52:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1009 times
|
| |
|
|
On 5/31/05, Steve Hassenplug <Steve@teamhassenplug.org> wrote:
> 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
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 see here is that AFOLs may have reached the stage where
they are demanding the kind of flexibility you get in a serious
microcontroller - and must bear in mind that while the Hitachi H8 is
capable, the RCX is aimed at a younger, more experimental generation.
With this in mind, Steve also hit the nail on the head with
affordability. There is a lot I would like to see in a new RCX, but
then it may be down to chaps like Gabriel, Robobrix and those XPort
guys to come up with solutions for more advanced/demanding systems.
Taking existing Lego technology we could come up with something fairly
impressive. The cybermaster had wireless, and the spybot more advanced
IR position/proximity sensors (which would leave it backwards
compatible to use IR to communicate with RCX, spybot and manas). If we
then took the wired power connector, we could use the wireless for
programming and inter-RCX communications. Although I would advise Lego
to stay away from pre-moulded motors (in the cybermaster and spybot),
but supply a set of external odometry sensors based on the ones in the
cybermaster. Also - use some space on the sides or somewhere, and
provide two or three more inputs and outputs. (Put all the inputs on
top, and the outputs on the sides).
This does not mean going as far as bluetooth, but as a combination
would extend the RCX a great deal. I would then definately buy the new
one. I am drawing a visualization of how it could look and will post
it later. It might be great, but could it be done in the space, and
would it be affordable?
Orion
--
http://orionrobots.co.uk - Build Robots
Online Castle Building RPG -
http://www.darkthrone.com/recruit.dt?uid=V30311I30328J30379X30379E30260X30277
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
29 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
