 | | Re: Robolab, byte codes and assembler
|
|
Thanks for the response. (...) It seems to me it's a design flaw in the entire method of counting rotations, which relies on the theoretical ideal of "instantaneous" voltage changes, which can't be produced. You can't go from 2V to 5V without (...) (21 years ago, 27-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.robolab)
|
| |
| | Re: Robolab, byte codes and assembler
|
|
(...) Yes, I did read your information. It was very helpful - the best stuff I found on the subject. But as you said, modifying the sensor would probably disqualify. But, that does make me think again about the recent unavailability of the part . . (...) (21 years ago, 27-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.robolab)
|
| |
| | Re: multiple motors
|
|
(...) Rather well... (...) ...but it was beaten by a simpler but slightly heavier 'bot! And it sometimes committed suicide too :-(( Philo (21 years ago, 27-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: Robolab, byte codes and assembler
|
|
"Don Stauffer" <BrainChild@Skyler.com> wrote in message news:Hoz4Gp.1zto@lugnet.com... (...) <<SNIP>> (...) The rotation sensor bad counts cannot be fixed at the byte-code level. The problem is "native" to implementation in the underlying firmware (...) (21 years ago, 27-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.robolab)
|
| |
| | Re: Robolab, byte codes and assembler
|
|
Hello Don, Did you had a look to my analysis of this problem ((URL) But unfortunately I don't think that my modification is "competition-legal"... I agree that sampling can occur at the wrong time, but this should not occur more often at low (...) (21 years ago, 27-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.robolab)
|
