 | | RCX2 API
|
|
I've put together a NQC API file that allows you to use some of the RCX2 features. I don't no whether anyone else has already done this but here is mine. This is unofficial so is unsupported. All question should go to the group, not Dave or myself. (...) (25 years ago, 26-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Duplex Comms with RCX
|
|
Hi I am sure this has been done many times before, but I am having trouble confirming information. I wish to purchase the RIS 1.5. But before I do I need to be sure that I can communicate with a running program on the RCX and that the RCX can (...) (25 years ago, 26-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.tele, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Q: Determining state of outputs
|
|
It works fine. Thanks for your help! Oliver (25 years ago, 25-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: RCX2: ViewSourceValue Help
|
|
(...) asm statements are just followed by a comma-separated list of fields enclosed in braces. In general, each field is evaluated at compile time and the resulting value is truncated to 8 bits. The exception is the & operator. The &x syntax is used (...) (25 years ago, 24-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | RCX2: ViewSourceValue Help
|
|
Hi, I'm back after a break from Lego. (I had exams). I've been playing around with RCX2 firmware and want to use the new ViewSourceValue command. What is the correct asm for this. So far I've got this by guessing and looking at RCX2.NQH #define (...) (25 years ago, 24-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: RCX For Sale.
|
|
The product is sold. ===...=== "Bert Onderdijk" <bert_onderdijk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Ft4Cr3.B2w@lugnet.com... (...) (25 years ago, 19-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC on Linux dilema...
|
|
(...) The first thing I'd try would be to add a pair of printf() statements before and after the tcdrain() call in PSerial_unix::FlushWrite() (in file platform/PSerial_unix.cpp). Call be paranoid, but calls like this always make me nervous...they're (...) (25 years ago, 18-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC on Linux dilema...
|
|
(...) the same thing is happening to me, and i did build it from source. i can recompile with changes, if you think it might be useful in figuring out whats going on, though. (25 years ago, 17-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | RCX For Sale.
|
|
Hi there, I do have for sale: Lego partnumber: - 1 ex. RIS 1.5 9747. - 1 ex. Extreme Creatures 9732. - 1 ex. Car 8432. - 1 ex. Pneumatic Submarine 8250. Additional to the above these parts: - 1 ex. RIS Remote Control 9738. - 1 ex. Touch Sensor 9757. (...) (25 years ago, 16-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Q: Determining state of outputs
|
|
(...) Yes, there is a 'data source' for motor status. I never bothered figuring it all out, so there isn't a defined API for it, but you can add it yourself: #define MotorStatus(motor) @(0x30000 + (motor)) use motor 0 for output A, 1 for B, 2 for C. (...) (25 years ago, 14-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc) !
|
| |
| | Re: Q: Determining state of outputs
|
|
(...) I'm not the expert on this but... I've been playing with firmware 2.0 and I think you can read the state of your sensors directly. (The same way you read the Battery level? Dave?) Hopefully Dave will answer you for sure. Dean -- Coin-Op's For (...) (25 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Q: Determining state of outputs
|
|
Hello everybody! For the building of my next robot an answer to the following question could be very helpful: Is there any possibility in NQC to get the state of an output (on, off, direction). While running a program I would like to control one (...) (25 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: location of NQC group?
|
|
(...) Safest thing is a multi-step process: 1. Announce that a new group/list lugnet.robotics.nqc will soon be replacing lugnet.robotics.nqc (i.e., a "heads-up"). 2. [A day or so later] Create lugnet.robotics.nqc and associated web areas and mailing (...) (25 years ago, 9-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC Ignores based on your pbrink
|
|
(...) Yep, you can #ifdef however you want, and NQC supports -D and -U options on the command line that allow you to define (or undefine) symbols before the compile takes place. This is handy if you're using Makefiles, but even in an ordinary shell (...) (25 years ago, 9-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC Ignores based on your pbrink
|
|
I definitely intended to mean portable source. And that the "__FIRMWARE" would be used in compiler directives rather than in the code. It is a simple matter for me to define my own __FIRMWARE (or anything else, right?) and do #ifdef's to my heart's (...) (25 years ago, 9-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
