 | | Re: Scout vs. RIS 1.5
|
| I have been watching the Scout situation closely, and have been tempted, but if the $50 difference (less with the tower, obviously) I think the RIS is the better choice. It really comes down to whose toy it is. The Scout may be better for the (...) (25 years ago, 24-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: Scout vs. RIS 1.5
|
| I was favoring the Scout until Jack mentioned the RIS has more input and output ports than the RIS. Does the need for more input/output ports out weight the need or use of the added new features with the Scout: - advanced multitasking - subroutine (...) (25 years ago, 24-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: Scout vs. RIS 1.5
|
| From: "mlindsay" <mlindsay@linlink.com> (...) anyway? I think that (URL) 2+1 vs 3 rather well. The +1 input is a light sensor. The +1 output is a red LED (how exciting). I prefer the 3 inputs of the RCX because they can use any sensor. The Scout (...) (25 years ago, 24-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: Scout vs. RIS 1.5
|
| (...) I do not have the Scout, and have been reading its SDK document in order to decide whether I should get one. The new features in Scout's firmware are nice, but not essential. If you really need these features with your RCX, you can use an (...) (25 years ago, 24-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | RE: Scout vs. RIS 1.5
|
| I'm sure this has been brought up before, but by the time you add an IR tower to the price of a Scout, you can pretty much buy an RCX. Now, for those of us with RCXs, the choice is a bit trickier since we could either buy a second RIS or a Scout to (...) (25 years ago, 24-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: Scout vs. RIS 1.5
|
| Ah, one more thing that isn't mentioned too much. Most of the more interesting sensors on the RCX are powered (light, rotation). The Scout can't handle these. Consider a life restricted to touch sensing. Not unworkable, but the equation 3 = 2+1 (...) (25 years ago, 25-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| |
