Subject:
|
Re: thoughts on gbc module reliability
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:51:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4406 times
|
| |
|
|
On Thu, June 29, 2006 4:11 pm, Dave Hurley wrote:
> I think the standard is always open for interpretation and revision, but I think
> it's written with enough wiggle room for most situations. I think it would be
> an accomplishment if we were able to get a large majority of people to follow
> it!
This may be where some people get into trouble. The height & placement of the in &
out baskets is a hard requirement. So is the minimum of 1 bps. People MUST follow
the standard, in order for the GBC to work.
Last year at BrickFest, every one of the modules followed the standard. Some
suffered reliability issues, but they still followed the standard.
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: thoughts on gbc module reliability
|
| (...) I was wondering the exact same thing. For BF06 planning purposes, I was tentatively planning on having "throughput zones" grouped according to balls per second. The faster modules would be grouped together just as the slower ones would be with (...) (18 years ago, 5-Jul-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: thoughts on gbc module reliability
|
| (...) Ahh the lamentations of the GBC slave...I feel your pain. After beginning my primary GBC module a week after BF'05, I am *still* testing it. It is extremely complicated and and I've had to make countless design decisions and tradeoffs. At one (...) (18 years ago, 29-Jun-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
43 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
|
|
|
|
