Subject:
|
RE: What about this for a new RCX 2.5 setup?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 May 2002 10:56:39 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
<marco@(Spamcake)soporcel.pt>
|
Viewed:
|
5600 times
|
| |
|
|
I'd be happy with a good "official" LEGO SONAR sensor and a fixed version of
the LEGO Rotation Sensor (without the lost "clicks" bug)
On the RCX side, I'd like a RCX 3.0 with 6+ sensor inputs and more outputs
(and more RAM.
I'm using MANAS sets to expand the outputs. Not a perfect solution, but it's
better than nothing.
If not a new RCX version with more inputs/outputs, then at least they could
do an expansion module like a brainless RCX, with only:
- ID selector (much like the MANAS sets)
- 3xInput
- 3xOutputs
- batt.case
- InfraRed (receive ON/FLOAT/OFF motor and Sensor query cmds and send back
sensor data to the RCX).
This way it'd be possible to expand the I/O capabilities of the RCX through
the IR with (hopefully) cheaper modules than buying more RCX's.
These modules could be used for sets like simpler versions of the
soon-to-be-released Spybotics.
Even lower versions of these "brainless" RCX-modules with no Input
capabilities could be used with IR-RemoteControllers much like the MANAS
sets.
All these would use the traditional LEGO electrical wires and LEGO Technic
Motors.
I'm sad that TLC can't respect the LEGO tradition of modularity and
limitless open mix-match possibilities true to the original spirit of LEGO
(as I see it).
What I see is even more "integrated" modules with everything inside, motors,
sensors, with less and less freedom of mechanical/structural design like
the Scout (LED and light sensor inside but CPU, RAM and IR),
the MicroScout (motor and light sensor inside and weak VLL control),
the MANAS (2xmotors inside at least possible to control with RIS2.0) and
the new Spybotics modules (2xmotors?, touch and light? sensors inside).
One thing is to evolve, making things a bit better like the evolution seen
from the Control Center to the CodePilot, the CyberMaster and finally to the
RCX (one VERY good thing about the CyberMaster was the RF comms to the PC
instead of IR and the tachometers on each motor)
This line of evolution would indicate that the next RCX would have more
memory, more I/O, better firmware and would still have the IR for inter-RCX
compatible modules comms, win a RF comms to the PC (like the CyberMaster)
for wider range comms and have better, more evolved sensors. ...but no :(
The jump from RIS 1.0 to RIS 1.5 (and 2.0) even lost the AC plug.
I think that we'll never see anything better than the present RCX "box".
The way TLC is going is to make *cheaper and less capable* (juniorized?)
versions of what they achieved with the RCX. That's why the Scout was
released next, then the MicroScout and from what I can see, the Spybotics (I
see the Spybotics modules like something between the Scout and the
MicroScout... hmmm... or more like a Mini-CyberMaster version with IR
instead of RF).
oh well...
mc.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: news-gateway@lugnet.com
> [mailto:news-gateway@lugnet.com]On Behalf
> Of Jeff McClain
> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 10:32 PM
> To: lugnet.robotics.rcx@lugnet.com
> Subject: What about this for a new RCX 2.5 setup?
>
>
> Seems to me that the BEST implementation of the RCX would be
> for some CORE
> changes and feature sets to be built in. I realize that
> these would be
> somewhat expensive, but I would pay pretty good money to have
> an RCX with
> the following specs (built in). These aren't really in order
> of desire or
> ease of implementation, so please be understanding on these
> "dream" ideas
> (smirk):
>
> 1) I REALLY want some sort of sensor unit that provides
> gyroscope data (for
> level movement of a 6 legged climbing rough terrain robot).
>
> 2) I REALLY think a builtin compass sensor would be useful.
> If you coupled
> this with the gyroscope, it would seem to me like you could
> build this into
> a self contained cool addition to the RCX (like a 2"
> extension box that
> plugs into the bottom of an RCX 2.5 or something). Call it
> the RCX 2.5
> Expansion or something. Anyone know if Lego had any ideas/plans for
> something like this? Heck, throw in a temperature sensor as well, and
> charge me $200 for it...I'd pay it.
>
> 3) GPS chip built in. GPS chips are getting VERY cheap
> these days. Most
> of the cost for hand held GPS units are in the casing and LCD
> display. For
> pretty rich features, you could natively include GPS support into an
> expanded RCX+ device. Guess the antanae for indoor use would
> be the only limit.
>
> 4) As long as you are going to do this on a nice new
> upgraded RCX, why not
> go ahead and throw in floating point functionality and
> builtin support for
> trig functions?
>
> mmmmm....built in functions for gps tracking, magnetic
> compass, temperature
> sampling, gyroscope, trig...gahhh...
>
> -Jeff McClain
>
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | What about this for a new RCX 2.5 setup?
|
| Seems to me that the BEST implementation of the RCX would be for some CORE changes and feature sets to be built in. I realize that these would be somewhat expensive, but I would pay pretty good money to have an RCX with the following specs (built (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
