 | | Re: NQC 2 Request
|
|
(...) No, that's not a big deal, I don't mind a "superset". Most of the NQC 2.0 changes were to make terminology consistent between RCX Code and NQC, etc. Dave (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2 Request
|
|
That's all that really happens when I add new calls anyway. Anything that even remotely looks like a function call is either an inline function of a macro, and not part of the language itself. I guess the real question is if its appropriate to (...) (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2 Request
|
|
Dave, I like the finite coltrol of the motors myself but can understand the request. It may encourage the "younger" programmers to use the language. Does adding the commands go against your move to get closer to the API? The user could always create (...) (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2 Request
|
|
Why not just use a macro instead of expanding the language? (...) Joel Shafer joel@connect.net (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2 Request
|
|
Its a little too late to add to the NQC 2 API, but I can add it in a later release if people really want it. Anyone second the idea? Dave Baum (...) (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | NQC 2 Request
|
|
Hi, I just wondered whether it might be handy to add OnFwdFor(motors) and OnRevFor(motors). Regards Dave (25 years ago, 14-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: RcxCC downloads
|
|
I wrote first something like "It seems that this NQC newsgroup is not very active, but that's probably because NQC is 99.999% bug free and so is RCXCC...". So i was definitely not asking more traffic or so, simply looking at what has already been (...) (25 years ago, 9-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: RcxCC downloads
|
|
(...) I want to second that. I missed the NQC online help in version 3 also. It's nice to have a quick reference guide handy. Joel Shafer joel@connect.net (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: RcxCC downloads
|
|
(...) Your version 3 is also great! When NQC 2 is released will the NQC help be put back in? I thought it was real handy addition on those long nights. --- DonC donc@cccd.edu (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | RcxCC downloads
|
|
Just because people want some more traffic in this newsgroup and to quantify the statement of Dave Baum, RcxCC version 2.3 was downloaded close to 3000 times from my web site up to now. Mark Overmars (...) (25 years ago, 6-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: decoding a message sent by an RCX
|
|
(...) I second that! I tried using the "native" language and its limitations baffled me. I never got a program downloaded. I jumped straight to NQC and have done several now. Good work Dave! DLC (25 years ago, 5-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: decoding a message sent by an RCX
|
|
Dave Baum wrote: [snip] (...) Better yet, make it generate the code that I want it to generate, not what I tell it to generate. Thanks for giving us all such a great language ... without NQC I most likely would have an RCX collecting dust. - Nick - (25 years ago, 5-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: decoding a message sent by an RCX
|
|
(...) I wondered about that - hardly any traffic in the newsgroup despite numerous downloads of NQC. I hope its because people are just too busy building stuff and programming it with NQC and RcxCC. Perhaps I should add a few more bugs to NQC just (...) (25 years ago, 5-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: decoding a message sent by an RCX
|
|
(...) [...] I think something like this was already made by LEGO itself in the lab while creating the RCX/CyberMaster software. I say this because they seem to have forgot to remove the CABLE mode of transmission from the Spirit.ocx when deploying (...) (25 years ago, 4-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: decoding a message sent by an RCX
|
|
Woaw ! This could be great to have a full featured rcx expansion board... It should however be not too expensive, and in my opinion very basic to allow anything to be made. A "simple" (hehe :-) 8 bit Input / Output expander would be very, very nice. (...) (25 years ago, 4-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | RE: decoding a message sent by an RCX
|
|
Dave wrote... (...) Remember, you can send arbitrary ASCII data using pbFORTH. For example, to send "Hello World" you just use... : HELLO ." Hello World" CR ; Or to identify your RCX, you could use something like... : WHOAMI ." I am RCX number " (...) (25 years ago, 4-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: decoding a message sent by an RCX
|
|
(...) Yes, you are correct - 11 bits total per byte. And yes, this is very non-standard. I believe the signal is inverted - meaning that IR light is present for "0" bits, and no light for "1" bits. But I'm going from memory here and haven't looked (...) (25 years ago, 4-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | decoding a message sent by an RCX
|
|
hiya, I have been working on an idea to extend the number and type of devices that the RCX can control. I started with the idea of encoding serial data on one of the motor lines and decoding that in a PIC to do <stuff>. However, because working at (...) (25 years ago, 3-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | MacNQC in beta test
|
|
MacNQC is a GUI based version of NQC for the Macintosh. You can read more about it here: (URL) course, you can also find it from the main NQC site: (URL) Baum (25 years ago, 23-Aug-99, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Rcx Command Center version 3.0 beta avaialbe
|
|
Dear All, I am happy to announce that on the RcxCC web site there now is a beta release of RCX Command Center version 3.0 available. (URL) version uses NQC 2.0 (beta). Note that NQC 2.0 is not compatible with previous versions. RcxCC 3.0 includes a (...) (25 years ago, 16-Aug-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
