|
|
 | | RE: The grand challenge
|
| Yeah... The only two team got the farthest, ~ 7 miles from the starting point. They both got stuck in gravel embankment, front wheel spun and could not get out. According to some insider info, speculation indicates the possible errors in the GPS (...) (21 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.robotics.rcx)
| | | | | OutputStatus
|
| Hi! I think many of you wonder what results you get with the command OutputStatus(OUT_x). I have tested it and here are the results: SetPower | Float Fwd | Float Rev | Off Fwd | Off Rev | OnFwd | OnRev ---...--- 0 | 0 | 8 | 72 | 64 | 136 | 128 1 | 1 (...) (21 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: The grand challenge
|
| In lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, "Elizabeth Mabrey" <emabrey@storming-robots.com> wrote: (snip) Looks like nobody won. I was watching via the tracking app and no one got farther than 7 miles... According to this article many competitors did not get (...) (21 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | (canceled)
|
| | | | | | RE: The grand challenge
|
| By the way, look at the TerraMax from Ohio-State (well, seems that part of the team members from companies, some graduate students). It looks a gigantum RCX brick :-) (...) (21 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.robotics.rcx)
| | | | | RE: The grand challenge
|
| It is conducted by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Participants from across United States invented and built their own autonomous grand vehicles to compete by being the first one to complete the designated route, dessert like (...) (21 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.robotics.rcx)
| | | | | Re: The grand challenge
|
| (...) I'm sure a LEGO Mindstorms robot would have won, if they only had let them participate ;-) Jürgen (21 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.robotics.rcx)
| | | | | The grand challenge
|
| Hi all, I'm sure some of you may have already watching this. Check out the Grand Challenge taken place in CA. The Grand Challenge Events - Autonomous Ground Vehicles, www.grandchallenge.org. I wish they would boardcast this, or have them (...) (21 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.robotics.rcx)
| | | | | Re: NQC ideas
|
| (...) Not me in any case, see my other post. Jürgen (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: NQC ideas
|
| (...) Who says NQC has to be C99 compliant? Thanks for the update though. I've not been following C updates. (...) Kevin (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: NQC ideas
|
| (...) As of C99 that is no longer true, though still current usage to support older compilers. Jürgen (21 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: NQC ideas
|
| (...) I'd say go for it, it is still quite uncommon for C programmers to put their variable declarations elsewhere. Jürgen (21 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: NQC ideas
|
| (...) Hi John, C is more restrictive than C++ when it comes to variable declaration. In C, you can only declare variables at the beginning of a block before any executable. Well, lets see..... any variables declared outside a function are by (...) (21 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | NQC ideas
|
| NQC is definitely sticking with its C heritage with respect to semi-colons. Elisabeth mentioned fancier math and IP features. Neither of those seem possible when you consider that the compiler has to generate code that runs on the LEGO firmware (...) (21 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | RE: Ideas for NQC
|
| (...) I could not agree more with Kevin. Adding a feature, such as adding in more intricate math functions, or add in tcp/ip socket support, etc. is more fruitful than making the language syntax more like others just because someone is not used to (...) (21 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: Ideas for NQC
|
| (...) I object to this proposed change. Lack of knowledge of a language's syntax does not justify changing the syntax. (...) [SNIP] Kevin (21 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: Ideas for NQC
|
| (...) Well, it won't be easy. It doesn't help that I've been working long hours at my day job either. But I'll do my best. (...) [...] (...) In C & C++ it is not optional to use a semi-colon at the end of a line. The same goes for Java, C#, and (...) (21 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | RE: Ideas for NQC
|
| (...) ...a bit like NQP (Not Quite Pascal) :D ? (...) That would have to be called NQB (Not Quite BASIC) ;) Ok, now, seriously, this could be usefull for lazzy typists like me, but remember that C is case sensitive, so, how could BricxCC decide (...) (21 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Ideas for NQC
|
| Hi John, Now that Dave Baum has given you the control under NQC, how will you manage to work both on NQC and on BricxCC??? I recomend the following changes: For NQC, something that you can add is optional use of semi-colon. It's a pain when I do a (...) (21 years ago, 8-Mar-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: Controlling events
|
| (...) Catching up on LUGNET after a busy couple of days, I notice that John is moving the BricxCC page to: (URL) (See (URL) for more details.) John, the LEGO website also has a link to your AOL page here: (URL) so you might want to contact them so (...) (21 years ago, 12-Feb-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
|
