 | | Re: Transmission Problems
|
|
(...) After doing a bit of debugging, I have determined it's all characters between 127-255, most often 127 or 255. If anyone has any ideas on what's causing this, please reply... (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: (Failed) Getting LegOS 0.2.2 working on Windows
|
|
(...) I hadn't fixed that - but it doesn't appear to make a difference. I patched both the original sources and the post-WINNT-specific-patches, but no change in behavior: the RCX answers are never heard using the original sources, and the (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: (Failed) Getting LegOS 0.2.2 working on Windows
|
|
(...) i dont´t know if you have already fixed this, anyways, there is a bug in sigio_handler. The struct timeval last is used uninitialized and should be static. Today i sent the following little patch to Markus. ------- schnips schnips -------- --- (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Tasks in RCX
|
|
(...) <chuckle> 10 seems like a small number (yes its limited by the firmware) until you try to use them all. In my experience only email and webserver type applications kick off more than 4 or 5 threads at once. DLC (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Tasks in RCX
|
|
Hi, I read somewhere that the RCX is limited to only 10 concurrent tasks. Is this limitation in the firmware? If so, can I use a replacement firmware like legOS to overcome this. I basically want to have an unlimited number of tasks so that I can (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: (Failed) Getting LegOS 0.2.2 working on Windows
|
|
(...) Hey -- More info about this odd bug. Installed 0.2.3, and the bug is still there. A bit more tweaking revealed: * Compiling with the original (.orig, pre-patch versions of loader, lx, and rcxtty) yielded - after changing O_ASYNC to FASYNC - (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Powering trains w/ RCX
|
|
(...) Well I can't say I have the RCX plugged in when I'm running a vehicle, I *ALWAYS* have it plugged in when it's not in use. I've actually only had to replace the batteries in it once in the past year. Removing the jack was a mistake, IMO... As (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: Powering trains w/ RCX
|
|
I was talking more in a sense of replacement/repair of damaged units. I would not be surprised if the retail price of each starts to change with shifts in demand. And due to the "apparently common" replacement of the brick with AC, that would have (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: Powering trains w/ RCX
|
|
Yes RIS 1.5 costs $20 MORE than RIS1.0. It's a good thing I bought 9 RIS 1.0 and the 1.5 upgrade ;-) (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: Powering trains w/ RCX
|
|
Even if it was $0.20 by the time it is productized it is maybe $1.00. Multiply this by the quantity sold and you just save ~$500,000 (whatever the quantity is). When designing computer mother boards there will be large debates over $0.05 BOM (bill (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
