 | | Re: location of NQC group?
|
|
(...) Personally I like the move to robotics.nqc I don't like the idea of splitting it up. Cross posting would make reading the groups very annoying. I'd say make the current one archive only putting a LARGE message like the rules pop up to new (...) (25 years ago, 9-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC Ignores based on your pbrink
|
|
(...) I agree wholeheartedly. I don't want to see people selling their bot code. It's all about sharing and learning. Dean -- Coin-Op's For Sale!: (URL) Lego Workshop: (URL) Lego Club: (URL) (25 years ago, 9-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC Ignores based on your pbrink
|
|
(...) This seems reasonable to me. Plus, it has the added benefit of being inherently open: source is all about "here's how to do this"; binaries are "here's a thing that does this". It's nice to encourage the first attitude. (25 years ago, 9-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC Ignores based on your pbrink
|
|
(...) This first define (__RCX = 2) will happen automatically in NQC when you select RCX 2.0 as the target for compilation. Selecting an RCX 1.0 target will cause the symbol to be defined as 1. (...) I hope I don't have to add a __FIRMWARE symbol... (...) (25 years ago, 9-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC Ignores based on your pbrink
|
|
Have you considered adding the firmware build version to that symbol or to a new one? __RCX = 2 __FIRMWARE=3.21 This would facilitate creation of portable, work-around code that would accomodate an end-user who hasn't updated their firmware (or has (...) (25 years ago, 9-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: location of NQC group?
|
|
(...) Just a long term tickler. Long term, it should come to pass that this is not true, and that moving a group is not an impossible thing to do. ++Lar (25 years ago, 9-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: location of NQC group?
|
|
(...) Yes, I think that would be a good move. (...) I'd prefer not to proliferate too many newsgropus. Personally I don't think the nqc traffic is presently so high that people need to filter it based on target. Odds are that this would even cause a (...) (25 years ago, 8-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC Ignores based on your pbrink
|
|
(...) Yes, I agree with the approach to using __RCX for conditional compile - that's really why its there. I had thought about adding some of the functions (SetSensor() etc.) as no-ops in the Scout API, but this really didn't feel right to me. I (...) (25 years ago, 8-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC Ignores based on your pbrink
|
|
(...) Very True. Does anyone know when downloading to Scout with RCXCC will be ready? Dean -- Coin-Op's For Sale!: (URL) Lego Workshop: (URL) Lego Club: (URL) (25 years ago, 8-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: location of NQC group?
|
|
(...) Yah, DaveB & I were talking about this a while back -- and since then the non- RCX support has gotten even stronger. Dave indicated that he'd like to move the group up a level, which is possible but we'll have to actually start a new group (...) (25 years ago, 8-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC Ignores based on your pbrink
|
|
(...) Coincidentally, I think someone just posted the answer to your question a few hours ago.... (URL) (25 years ago, 8-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | NQC Ignores based on your pbrink
|
|
Dave Can you setup NQC to automatically ignore things a pbrink doesn't understand? For example The scout. I have a program that I use in my 2 RCX's and my 1 scout. But Constantly have to /* */ the offending code for the scout. Is there some way we (...) (25 years ago, 8-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: problem building bugbot3.nqc in cybermaster
|
|
(...) Why not do something like this? #ifdef __RCX SetSensor(...) ; #endif (25 years ago, 8-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC in Boston University Linux :)
|
|
(...) cool :) Heh, did you look at 6.2 yet? I installed it today, though I haven't noticed any major difference yet... :) Dan btw, since you're at BU, have you ever heard of Three Kingdoms, or more commonly, 3K? ;) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | NQC in Boston University Linux :)
|
|
So, when we release BU Linux R1 next Tuesday [1], it will be the first [2] Linux distribution to ship with NQC included. (URL), if you care. [1] or maybe Wednesday or Thursday. Hopefully Tuesday. Depends on the wheels of bureaucracy. [2] not (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: problem building bugbot3.nqc in cybermaster
|
|
(...) Just delete the SetSensor() lines. CyberMaster only supports touch sensors, so the entire sensor configuration thing isn't needed...in fact CyberMaster doesn't support some of those bytecodes (which is why many of the constants and functions (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | problem building bugbot3.nqc in cybermaster
|
|
When I try to compila bugbot3.nqc (the code of the Dave's wonderfull book) using my cybermaster as target, the compiler return twice the following error: SENSOR_TOUCH not defined I used the command line nqc -TCM bugbot3.nqc with NQC 2.3 thanks in (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: sending output to LCD possible?
|
|
(...) Not possible with the existing RCX firmware. However the RCX 2.0 firmware (currently in early-alpha) does support displaying a variable (and almost anything else) on the LCD. These operations will be available in NQC...but only when targetting (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | sending output to LCD possible?
|
|
I skimmed through the NQC docs but I didn't see anything about sending messages to the display on the RCX. Is it possible? More specifically, sending the value of a variable to the display? I have a little robot that I plan to use to count things, I (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC and RIS2.0 Firmware
|
|
(...) I found the problem... When verifying the checksum, the ROM scans [8000, cc00). Since it zeros out this area initially, this would indeed reflect the checksum of the firmware, provided it is less than 4400 bytes long (in hex). NQC sums the (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
