 | | Re: another comparison
|
|
(...) Perhaps a good benchmark would be to write a PID controller and measure the number of control loop iterations per second that can be achieved under each environment. This incorporates sensor input with motor output, and uses a moderate amount (...) (18 years ago, 21-Jan-07, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: This is the cancer that is killing Lugnet (Was Re: Apology)
|
|
(...) Umm... the only person arguing here is you: the original posters had a problem with each other, that they resolved; argument ended. Period. If the two principles have moved beyond this, well... (18 years ago, 21-Jan-07, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.nxt, FTX)
|
| |
| | RE: Another Challenge. Performance Comparison
|
|
(...) Here's my distilled summary of relative execution speeds of various Mindstorms products / environments. All data is normalized to the fastest performance. Relative Platform Product Speed 1X NXT RobotC 2X NXT Robolab 15X NXT NXT-G 5-10X RCX (...) (18 years ago, 21-Jan-07, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.nxt)
|
| |
| | Re: another comparison
|
|
(...) I'd love to make some other comparisions; actually, some of us have been trying to figure out a good way to do this. Part of the problem is defineing specific "goals" for a battery of tests. A DFT (while impressive), is propably not the best (...) (18 years ago, 21-Jan-07, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | RE: What do these macros do? [IOMAP Access Execution Times
|
|
(...) You're right. IOMapRead and IOMapWrite are very slow functions. They're slow because you pass a character string for the name of the module you want to access; the NXT-G firmware runs through the list of modules looking for a match on the (...) (18 years ago, 21-Jan-07, to lugnet.robotics.nxt, lugnet.robotics)
|
