| |
In article <FB13Lw.2y2@lugnet.com>, kekoa@pixel.Stanford.EDU (Kekoa
Proudfoot) wrote:
> Dave Baum <dbaum@spambgoneenteract.com> wrote:
> > In article <FB0GKF.3s@lugnet.com>, "Mike Moran" <mm@ee.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > - In general, I was wondering what the low-level protocol details were,
> > > apart from the frame/segment details that I have seen?
> >
> > Transmit whenever you feel like it and hope you didn't obliterate data
> > coming from the other direction. Rudimentary, but still quite effective
> > given the typical use pattern with is host driven command/response. With
> > RCX to RCX communication you're just taking chances on missing stuff
> > unless you implement a specific master/slave relationship on top of the
> > basic messages.
>
> Dave, did you catch the crosspost from lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos? I think
> there were details discussed there that may or may not have amounted to a
> fairly specific proposal for a protocol for LegOS. Anybody care to
> summarize whatever was decided? I'd be interested in hearing also, I
> skipped a lot of the discussion. Specifically, I would like to find out
> what was decided about the underlying packet format, down to the 55ff00s of
> the protocol.
Oops, I must've just caught the tail end of the conversation. I assumed
the standard [lame] lego protocol was being discussed, not a custom
protocol. Sorry.
Dave
--
reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
15 Messages in This Thread:
  
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Robotics
|
|
|
|
|
|
