 | | Re: NQC vs Spirit communication speed
|
|
(...) I'm using AutoLink.Send for most things. Initially I was always closing the link at the end of each method (which mostly map to the Spirit OCX API). I've made that configurable and at present I'm running with it set to leave the link open. (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC vs Spirit communication speed
|
|
(...) I looked into this a bit more and the poll bytecode (0x12) didn't have a case in the PredictReplyLength() switch. If you add... case 0x12: // poll return 2; then poll will be a lot faster. If you run into other bytecodes that you use a lot, (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC vs Spirit communication speed
|
|
The retry timing for RCX_Link uses a dynamic backoff, which is a good general purpose solution if you're going to be sending lots of packets (like a typical NQC download) and the latency through the serial driver is unknown and/or unpredictable (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | NQC vs Spirit communication speed
|
|
This is more a general RCX communication question, actually. As I mentioned here previously, I've ported the NQC communication code to Delphi for the purposes of modifying RcxCC to not use the Spirit OCX. At present I have a version of RcxCC that (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: API changes
|
|
My only concern with these proposed changes is possible increased memory usage. Encapsulation, error reporting, thread synchronisation etc are nice; but with just 32k of RAM I would question whether these are appropriate for some applications. For (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Data-transfering RCX -> PC in LeJOS
|
|
I hope you can solve your problem; I would be very interested in finding out how you did it. I also would like to upload large chunks of data from the RCX to calibrate the light sensor for example. (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.java)
|
| |
| | Re: API changes
|
|
(...) These seems to me good ideas. Adding errno would also be useful. bye Bernardo New e-mail: dibbe@freestation.it (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: new features
|
|
(...) I think it'll be very useful. (...) I worked on a reliable transport protocol written on top of LNP for my thesis a few months ago. It was my intention to make it available on the Internet, but I wasn't very happy with the implementation, (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | API changes
|
|
In using legOS, I've found that many of the design decisions seem somewhat backwards, and I think that this is due to a desire to keep the interface as similar as possible to NQC. I was wondering what people would think about changing the core API (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | new features
|
|
I just checked in a change to CVS which adds a new feature. Let me know if you have any problems with this: /* When no program is running, pressing the "view" button cycles through * a display of the amount of the amount of free memory (in decimal (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Problem with Lejos 1.0.0Beta3
|
|
C:\>lejosfirmdl --tty=com2 Use --help for options. file://f/work/lejos/...josfirmdl: bad ir link what does this error mean? I did everything to work lejos, but I got that error all the time. There's nothing wrong with serial connection, nor tower (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.java)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.4 beta test
|
|
(...) Great! Thanks for all your hard work, Dave. - Rik. (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.4 beta test
|
|
(...) Sorry, NQC doesn't have anything like that right now, but its a good idea. I'll make sure it gets added before 2.4 goes final. I like __NQC__ taking on a numeric value, and I'd want to leave room for more than 10 minor versions per major (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC, what gives the fastest code ?
|
|
Thanks Dave !! That was a very good explanation! In return a problem (and solution) with the serial data transmission (not an NQC error, but you could add it to your documentation). In doing fast data transfer from RCX to PC, there seems to be a (...) (23 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | NQC for PocketPC (Win CE) Arm processor
|
|
I just acquired a 64meg iPaq 3670 for use with Mindstorms and NQC but I haven't been able to find a ARM build of any of the software. Does anyone know of any or can they compile it? (URL) it for the SH3 and MIPS but not for the new generation of (...) (23 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.palm, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.4 beta test
|
|
Dave, does NQC have version specific #defines? I want to write some code that would compile differently depending on the version of NQC. Something like: #ifndef _NQC24_ ...or... #if (_NQC_ < 24) #include "bitShift.nqh" #endif #ifdef _NQC24_ ...or... (...) (23 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | NQC 2.4 beta test
|
|
NQC 2.4 a1 is in beta test, at the usual place: (URL) some of the constant value restrictions on some operators, added an option for merged source/assembly listings, added the ternary operator, added variable names back into code listings. Dave Baum (23 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC, what gives the fastest code ?
|
|
It has very little to do with C itself - its really a question of compiler optimization. NQC doesn't have any explicit optimization passes, and there is no data flow or variable lifetime analysis, so often the assembly will be a bit inefficient. (...) (23 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | NQC, what gives the fastest code ?
|
|
hi All, I'm not a C-programmer, so maybe I'm asking a (very) stupid question. In searching for the fastest algoritme, I looked into the code generated by NQC (through RCXcc-orginal ;-)). I noticed that when you write your code in basic elementary 2 (...) (23 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: RCXCC or Visual NQC 2001?
|
|
"John Hansen" <JohnBinder@aol.com> wrote in message news:GCtr1y.Fvr@lugnet.com... (...) files (...) I don't know witch of the betas you tried but the only thing you mention above is that Edit menu dissapears, witch there is different opinion about. (...) (23 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
