|
|
 | | Re: Duplex Comms with RCX
|
| (...) I actually prefer the "junk" solution to a hardware hack. (25 years ago, 27-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.tele, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: Duplex Comms with RCX
|
| (...) It seems to me that, given the current hardware, the choices are: send junk or let the tower go dead. My thinking is that if you send junk and trample something, so be it; the tower would have gone dead anyways, forcing you to lose whatever it (...) (25 years ago, 27-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.tele, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: Duplex Comms with RCX
|
| (...) Fair enough. It's too bad it doesn't have an always-on mode. (...) Definitely agreed. I'll be patient. (25 years ago, 27-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.tele, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: Duplex Comms with RCX
|
| (...) I just haven't found a non-intrusive method for keeping the tower alive. I hate transmitting garbage every few seconds and possibly trampling incoming data. I'm also not sure this is a very good long-term solution. Really a general purpose (...) (25 years ago, 26-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.tele, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: Duplex Comms with RCX
|
| (...) Not that there's any pressure or anything. :) (25 years ago, 26-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.tele, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
|
