 | | Re: Very strange problems
|
|
(...) We have not done anything to ensure that whatever is transmitted is received correctly (i.e. without errors). What we have done is a build a system which will work even if one (or several) of the RCXs are temporarily blocked for some reason. (...) (25 years ago, 21-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Very strange problems
|
|
(...) Redundancy is good :) (...) Good. It's generally solid, but can cause some issues from time to time. <snip lots of monkey talk :) > (...) Distance of movement or consistency (i.e. always forward) or both for fitness? Sounds really cool. Good (...) (25 years ago, 21-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Very strange problems
|
|
(...) What sort of "issues" are these? Are you referring to the normal issues of multithreading (synchronization, deadlock, etc.), or specific legOS-related problems with it? I have a program that uses a decent amount of multithreading, and I'd hate (...) (25 years ago, 21-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Very strange problems
|
|
(...) Probably movement since it is easier. Our fitness function may have to change once we see the result though. GA tends to give you individuals that cheat every chance they get :). (...) It will be found at (URL) Right now we have our (...) (25 years ago, 21-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Very strange problems
|
|
(...) Neural nets do similar things. Our class had some very interesting cheaters. I actually thought the students learned as much from watching their robots cheat as they did from any other single component, since figuring out the "cheating" forced (...) (25 years ago, 21-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Very strange problems
|
|
(...) That seems very likely. (...) Great :). The complete rules for the tournament can be found on the course web page, which is linked from our page. Tobias (25 years ago, 21-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Very strange problems
|
|
(...) Just that it is not pre-emptive. If you don't msleep() at the appropriate places in your code, you'll never go back to the scheduler or the other threads. This can come as a surprise, since you'll only notice it when one thread never executes. (...) (25 years ago, 21-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Very strange problems
|
|
(...) Ack! I knew that it was cooperative in the 0.1.x series, but I had thought it was preemptive in 0.2.x. Drat. Well, I don't think it's a major problem for me, since I call msleep() religiously, but it's something to look into. Thanks. -- "Our (...) (25 years ago, 21-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Very strange problems
|
|
(...) I have not done large-scale "production" work with 0.2.x, really, so I may be vastly incorrect. Ah-hah. The legOS homepage (at least) indicates that you are correct. My fault for scaring people... sorry. Luis ---...--- "Going to California (...) (25 years ago, 21-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Very strange problems
|
|
(...) Ah, that's all right, happens to the best of us. :) I'll go back to my happy little preemptive world. -- "Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt." - William Shakespeare Mike Ash - (URL), (...) (25 years ago, 21-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
