 | | Re: How advanced can RCX programming be? —Tobias Möller
| | | | In lugnet.robotics.rcx, David Leeper writes: I´m no computer programmer, but I´ve downloaded NQC but haven´t installed it yet. If I´ve understood this multi-tasking right, then it means that you can have one program running for the motors of a (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: How advanced can RCX programming be? —David Leeper
| | | | | | (...) That wasn't me! David Leeper (has been a computer programmer for 17 years! :^)) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: How advanced can RCX programming be? —Johannes Keukelaar
| | | | | | "TM" == Tobias Möller <tobias.moller@telia.com> writes: TM> If I´ve understood this multi-tasking right, then it means that TM> you can have one program running for the motors of a robot, and TM> another for the sensors, but at the same time. It (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: How advanced can RCX programming be? —Roger Hamlett
| | | | | (...) but (...) More than that. You can (for instance) have a 'command' thread, which looks at a variable, and decides according to the values on this whether to turn left/right or issue some other response, and does this by changeing other values. (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | | |
