Subject:
|
Re: TachoSpeed.nqc
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:06:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
9234 times
|
| |
|
|
> The main problem with your approach is that the motors do not stall when the
> robot hits an obstacle so it will be hard for you to distinguish between the
> motor speed slowing due to low battery levels, increased load (like going up an
> incline), or pushing a moveable obstacle out of the way. Why not just use a
> touch sensor attached to a bumper mechanism?
I found again an old code I wrote for Cybermaster to do avoiding based on tacho
slowdown.
The trick is indeed to drive at a low power level, or the wheels simply sleep
and there is not enough slowdown to be reliable.
Philo
--------------------
task main ()
{
Drive (-5, -5);
Wait(50);
Drive (-3, -3);
while(true)
{
if(TachoSpeed(1) < 50 || TachoSpeed(2) < 50)
{
Drive (5, 5);
Wait(50);
Drive (5, -5);
Wait(50);
Drive (-5, -5);
Wait(50);
Drive (-3, -3);
}
}
}
--------------------------
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: TachoSpeed.nqc
|
| (...) I guess there is a define statement missing that goes something like #define Drive(l,r) SetPower(OUT_L, l); SetPower(OUT_R, r); On(OUT_L+OUT_R) although the Programmer's guide doesn't mention anything about negative values being a possibility (...) (20 years ago, 13-Mar-07, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: TachoSpeed.nqc
|
| (...) The question you need to answer for yourself is this: Do I want my robot to to potentially execute both if blocks in sequence or do I only want the second if block to execute if the first condition is known to be false? If you only want the (...) (20 years ago, 13-Mar-07, to lugnet.robotics)
|
13 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
|
|
|
|
