|
|
 | | Re: train precision
|
| (...) hi Steve, I think the problem is not exactly the same. The lego technic motors run always at the same speed so you need to use that kind of schema for speed control in robots. The train motors are different, they have a speed proportional to (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
| | | | | Re: train precision
|
| (...) Daniel, One problem you'll run into with most software is that it switches between power and float to adjust the motor levels. It works much better to switch between power and brake. Using most software, the train will continue to speed up, (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
| | | | | train precision
|
| A couple of years ago, i used brickOS. Then, i changed to Lejos... I have a moc where i use the RCX to control a train with a lego train motor. It is difficult to control the train with LejOS, because it only has 8 output levels. Two solve the (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
| | | | | Re: color sensor
|
| (...) Happy Christmas to you too! ... and yes, I have a bench prototype running using that TAOS chip. As per my previous attempts at a color sensor however, it is proving very difficult to make the sensor range and orientation independent. JB (19 years ago, 25-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
| | | | | color sensor
|
| hi all, first for all a happy christmas to everybody. I just ran into this nice looking color sensor TCS230, which might be useful for detecting Lego colors. (URL) Mientki (19 years ago, 25-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
| | | | | earlier version of binutils?
|
| Hi, I have been trying to get brickos to compile on my linux machine. I followed the instructions here: (URL) used binutils version 2.16.1, and gcc version 4.0.2. The cross compile seemed to work. However, when I try to compile brickos, I get the (...) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
| | | | | Re: Memory question
|
| (...) So what your saying is I should split my program into more functions not less, so that the local ints are destroyed and available for re-use. That's a great idea, it's the complete opposite of my question but fulfills my goal perfectly :-). (...) (19 years ago, 13-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: Memory question
|
| (...) Most functions in NQC are in-line functions, so in a sense they probably *are* in main(). One thing I do is place all my initalization code (as much as possible) into inline functions. That way, when the compilier runs through, it can allocate (...) (19 years ago, 13-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Memory question
|
| Say I had a program that has a very large block of start-up/calibration code that is run once at the top of the program. Does it make any difference if I keep it in the "Main()" task, or put it in a function? I mean from the point of stack space (...) (19 years ago, 13-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: avoid messaging
|
| (...) I'd agree that a physical block is the easiest, although there is a software solution. The RCX can not recieve a command while it's transmitting - so if you saturate the transmitter with things to do, it will not be able to "look" for any (...) (19 years ago, 5-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.robolab, lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
|
