 | | RE: time sampling under the rcx standard OS
|
|
Here are some comments on how to improve your code for real-time performance. 1. Move the "SetUserDisplay" out of the loop and put it just before the loop. 2. I think the "OnFwd" macro is actually two instructions: "Fwd" and then "On". Replace this (...) (19 years ago, 17-Sep-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: time sampling under the rcx standard OS
|
|
(...) From what I've seen, the standard firmware takes about 3ms per command, and the same program will run on BrickOS about 100 times faster. I usually set up my BrickOS programs so they use the internal timer, and only update the motor setting (...) (19 years ago, 17-Sep-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: time sampling under the rcx standard OS
|
|
(...) Francois, I think you should be able to get much faster sampling. I can easily get 10-20 Hz, and others have claimed to get down to 3 ms. Whether it can be done at a constant rate, I'm not sure, and think it probably depends on what else is in (...) (19 years ago, 17-Sep-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | time sampling under the rcx standard OS
|
|
Hi list, I'm trying to implement a position regulation (using a motor and a rotation sensor), using for instance a PID (Proportional-Integr...erivative) regulation. I tried to code it in NQC, using the standard OS, but it seems that the RCX loops at (...) (19 years ago, 17-Sep-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | time control : BrickOS versus the RCX standard OS ?
|
|
Hi list, I'm trying to implement a position regulation (using a motor and a rotation sensor), using for instance a PID (Proportional-Integr...erivative) regulation. I tried to code it in NQC, using the standard OS, but it seems that the RCX standard (...) (19 years ago, 17-Sep-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
