 | | Re: reliability of quad speed LNP
|
|
(...) Probably depends on the make-up of the data you're transferring. ROSCO (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: reliability of quad speed LNP
|
|
So with inverting every other message byte were you able to work at 4x? Were you then also able to work at close range at 4x? It would seem easy to patch LNP to automatically do this inversion. I'll have to give this a try. thanks, mark (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: RFC: Creation of Version 0.2.6
|
|
(...) We asked our lawyers about this many months ago, when the whole issue first came up. It's okay with them if the name "legOS" is used in a "formerly known as" context. Just like what you describe, basically - to make sure people understand that (...) (23 years ago, 27-Feb-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: reliability of quad speed LNP
|
|
"Mark Falco" <falcom@onebox.com> wrote in message news:Gs44C0.MGL@lugnet.com... (...) <<snip>> I'm not familiar with LNP but I have also experienced similar messaging problems. I have an old RCX 1.0 (S/N 22751) with serial tower and a newer RCX 2.0 (...) (23 years ago, 27-Feb-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: reliability of quad speed LNP
|
|
I have found that between a rather old PC and a RCX I cannot use quad speed transfer of data as the RCX cannot keep up. When a different (faster) PC and the same RCX I can use quad speed transfer. I guess it comes down to protocol timing. LNP does (...) (23 years ago, 26-Feb-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
