 | | Re: LNP Repost
|
|
(...) I'm not sure you can construct a sensible CRC16 that has a CRC8 as one byte. Cheers, Ben. -- (URL) grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jul-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: LNP Repost (Me banging on about checksums)
|
|
(...) You will miss about 1 in 256 errors that you do not catch earlier using collision detection. I think your error rate per message will be much less than 1 in 256 if you (can?) get the collision detection code right. But we shouldn't argue the (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jul-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: LNP Repost (Me banging on about checksums)
|
|
(...) With much respect, I would suggest that CRC8 is probably not sufficient, especially if we go for a broadcast (Ethernet) solution, where lots of collisions, and hence errors, will probably occur - with CRC8 you will probably miss about 1 in 256 (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jul-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: New pbFORTH 106 release
|
|
Hi Ralph, Thanks for the new release. I have a couple of questions: 1. How do I use BUTTON_GET? The documentation says it just expects to find an address on the stack, but I get this: RCX_BUTTON BUTTON_GET BUTTON_GET ? stack underflow 2. What (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jul-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | Re: rcxhttpd?
|
|
I love the idea, I think it would be great to see hundreds of little bots whizzing round my house comunicating with each other. Its a bit like teaching your dog to fetch the morning mail. Alan Bell. (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jul-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: Laser Pointers
|
|
(...) Laser pointers were legal in the uk but to my knowledge have been banned because kids were misusing them, in one incident a Bus nearly crashed and the driver was in hospital for a while after a school kid bounced the laser beam of the rear (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jul-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: LNP Repost
|
|
(...) My only thoughts are that not everybody will need or want the generality of port support in the protocol. I would suggest reordering the first four bytes, moving the payload length up toward the front, and defining it to explicitly include the (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jul-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: legOS and Markus in Forbes
|
|
(...) Me, too ;-) Markus. (25 years ago, 28-Jul-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: LNP Repost
|
|
(...) As am I - it looks interesting, but looks like it may have died. Hopefully not! (...) election process. I had wondered about this. My big suggestion is for us to come up with a software API for both the RCX end and PC (or whatever) end. This (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jul-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: LNP Repost (Checksum algorithm)
|
|
This has little (Err... nothing in fact) to do with Lego, but worth noting as it is handy when you need a good SW checksum! (...) Indeed, as you say the standard I mentioned does use mod 255 (See Annex C ISO/IEC 8473-1 : 1994 [(URL) As far as I can (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jul-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
