 | | IR-based proximity measurement
|
|
I'm changing the subject line in the middle of the thread. Wonder what the server will do with that... I tried out Brian's "Max-picking" ping method, as well as a few other things. Here's a summary of what I found: 1) If the active sensor readings (...) (19 years ago, 16-Sep-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: direct manipulation of bits in RCX registers using NQC
|
|
(...) Correct. A NQC command (say, "Wait(10);") is converted to one or more "bytecodes" (in this case, one bytecode, namely a string of 4 bytes (0x43 0x02 0x0a 0x00), the first of which is a command (0x43) while the following three are information (...) (19 years ago, 16-Sep-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: direct manipulation of bits in RCX registers using NQC
|
|
Hey, Thanks for all the helpful responses, everyone. Brian: (...) I guess that "firmware" must be the code that tells RCX how to interpret user instructions (NQC, C, IC, opcodes, or whatever), and convert them to binary machine-specific code. Right? (...) (19 years ago, 16-Sep-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: RCX to RCX NQC
|
|
(...) And that explains why I was having so much trouble with my custom Tcl based uploader in high speed mode. I fixed it a while ago by adding a slight bit of extra time between messages, but never got to the root of the problem. Thanks Dick! (...) (19 years ago, 15-Sep-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | RCX to RCX NQC
|
|
One last email on this topic. There's new opcodes in the Swan firmware to support many data bytes in a single "mailbox" message. The standard firmware supports "mailbox" messages with a single byte parm. I found this very restrictive in building RCX (...) (19 years ago, 15-Sep-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | RE: RCX to RCX NQC
|
|
There's another little problem that you may need to program around. There's a bug in the ROM firmware that could end up requiring a 30-millisecond delay between when a RCX sends out a message and when you should start sending the first character of (...) (19 years ago, 15-Sep-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | RE: RCX to RCX NQC
|
|
The message "toggle" bit was a good concept that has very limited value in practical use. I guess the intent was to prevent unexpected behavior when a PC program attempts retransmission after a message failure. Suppose the failure condition was that (...) (19 years ago, 15-Sep-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: RCX to RCX NQC
|
|
(...) I'm pretty sure, both the remote, and the send message commands only have one op-code, and are done differently from the rest. Steve (19 years ago, 14-Sep-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: RCX to RCX NQC
|
|
(...) Ahh, now I understand why it is called a "toggle bit" - I somehow misinterpreted this to mean a new command had the toggle bit set (to 1), and if the sending unit doesn't recieve a reply it should re-transmit the command with the toggle bit (...) (19 years ago, 14-Sep-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: 1.0 brick not responding
|
|
(...) Powerbook 5300 with MacNQC: After about 4 seconds "No response or bad response from RCX. Make sure the RCX's receiver is facing the IR device and the RCX is turned on." Palm 130 with PBrick Demo: play sound 1, play sound 2, and play sound 3 (...) (19 years ago, 14-Sep-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
