|
|
 | | Re: Patched firmware to improve rotation sensor, was Re: Robolab, byte codes and assembler
|
| (...) Doesn't that mean that at any given count, you could still be off by 1, but now the odds of having an incorrect count are 50-50 instead of about one in 500? (...) There has been some discussion about whether this patch will work with Robolab, (...) (21 years ago, 30-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx.robolab)
| | | | | Re: Patched firmware to improve rotation sensor, was Re: Robolab, byte codes and assembler
|
| "Philippe Hurbain" <philohome@free.fr> wrote in message news:Hp4JAs.oK8@lugnet.com... (...) Much to my embarassment, I have to agree with Philippe that the patch doesn't work very well. I try to figure out what went wrong. (...) This is the expected (...) (21 years ago, 29-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx.robolab)
| | | | | Re: Patched firmware to improve rotation sensor, was Re: Robolab, byte codes and assembler
|
| (...) <snip> That would be disappointing! I discarded the RIS software very early on. Dick, can you clarify this issue? (21 years ago, 30-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx.robolab)
| | | | | Re: Patched firmware to improve rotation sensor, was Re: Robolab, byte codes and assembler
|
| (...) I think RoboLab uses its own firmware, so patching FIRM0328.LGO won't help you unless you use the RIS programming environment. (Or NQC, but that apparently isn't allowed by FIRST?) (...) I've used FIRM0328.LGO with older (version 1.0) RCXes (...) (21 years ago, 29-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx.robolab)
| | | | | Re: Robolab, byte codes and assembler
|
| (...) Should be legal, perhaps. But I was just suggesting that before sending him off to try to patch the firmware, he might want to make sure it was legal to do so. Although RIS and RoboLab may not use the same identical firmware, that doesn't (...) (21 years ago, 29-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.robolab)
|
|
