Subject:
|
Re: thoughts on gbc module reliability
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:27:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5414 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, Russ Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com> wrote:
> Often you'll find multiple modules which cooperate outside
> the specification. They can go anywhere in the layout that
> two or three modules can go in line.
If I understand what you mean, yes, you can make an arrangement of modules
that satisfys the GBC spec input/output as a whol, even though they don't
individually. That's fine (like Rafe's "supermodule", for instance). But then
the individual parts (submodules) aren't compliant, and so you end up with
effectively one very big module. No problem, although significantly more
difficult to fit into a large, complex, and every-evolving GBC (probably one of
the reasons I keep trying to make smaller yet more flexible modules - they are
*much* easier to use come set-up day).
--
Brian Davis
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: thoughts on gbc module reliability
|
| John Brost writes: > The idea of the spec was so that EVERY module could be put ANYWHERE > in the GBC and it would all work. In the past, this has been bent > so that modules that can't handle large batches are not placed > downstream of a batch- (...) (18 years ago, 10-Jul-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
43 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
