 | | Re: Tasks vs. program slots
|
|
(...) The remote control always sends the same sort of packet: d2 xx yy where xxyy is a sixteen bit bit-field indicating what features should be activated: xxyy 0001 Message 1 0002 Message 2 0004 Message 3 0008 Motor A Forward 0010 Motor B Forward (...) (25 years ago, 18-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Tasks vs. program slots
|
|
(...) This is why it might be nice to get the remote control reverse engineered -- we may discover a way. (25 years ago, 17-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Tasks vs. program slots
|
|
(...) RCX contains 5 programs. Each program can have up to 10 tasks and 8 subroutines. Only one program may run at any given time, multitasking is between tasks in the same program. There is no known programmatic way of transferring control from one (...) (25 years ago, 17-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | I'll host the Code Repository!
|
|
I wouldn't mind hosting a NQC lego code repository on Maktos.com. I have plenty of space, so you could send me pictures, code, articles, news, whatever you want. I'll put it all up in its own area. I have a really nice server with plenty of space (...) (25 years ago, 17-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Tasks vs. program slots
|
|
(...) Not each using the _total_ max of course. But yeah. (...) Yep. I do this all the time. I often make a with-sound and a silent version, for example. It's also nice if you have a version of your program which works well but you want to make some (...) (25 years ago, 17-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Tasks vs. program slots
|
|
(...) Now you have ME wondering. Can we build 5 programs each with 10 tasks, each of these programs using all of the RAM, max program space, etc.? I have yet to do anything that ambitious, but it would be cool to switch behaviours by just changing (...) (25 years ago, 17-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Tasks vs. program slots
|
|
(...) I believe that there's a maximum of ten tasks. So it would be a coincidence, but it isn't. :) (25 years ago, 17-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Tasks vs. program slots
|
|
I am curious to clarify something. The NQC documentation states that an NQC program can have up to 5 tasks (I think that's the right number). In addition, the brick itself has the 5 program slots. Are they related or is it a coincidence of (...) (25 years ago, 17-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Code Repository
|
|
(...) anyone, allowing great amount of flexibility. I have created an area here: (URL) site is designed to be very flexible, including good viewability under all browsers, simplified layouts (for lynx, too, see [appearances]), editability, etc. I'd (...) (25 years ago, 16-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Code Repository
|
|
Joel, (...) in (...) The easiest way of implementing this would be to use the Lego-Robotics Wiki. Because it doesn't require an administrator it's easy for anyone to add the code/samples that they want. For NQC you can choose to add your links off: (...) (25 years ago, 16-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Code Repository
|
|
(...) Or perhaps a more general one sitting atop the others (integrationally or as a launching point). Because even when there's pseudocode for something, the actual implementation in, say, pbFORTH, may differ fundamentally from the implementation (...) (25 years ago, 16-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | RE: Code Repository
|
|
Todd: Nice work on the sample page, very easy to use and browse. I would find this format very useful. Jeff Jeffrey Hazen jeffrey.hazen@northmill.net (25 years ago, 16-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Code Repository
|
|
(...) Since many algorithms apply across languages, what about a single repository for all code? (How about lugnet.robotics.rcx.code?) True, it would increase the noise-to-signal ratio for many, but it would Keep It Simple. Also, I favor follow-ups (...) (25 years ago, 16-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Code Repository
|
|
(...) Since many algorithms apply across languages, what about a single repository for all code? (How about lugnet.robotics.rcx.code?) True, it would increase the noise-to-signal ratio for many, but it would Keep It Simple. Also, I favor follow-ups (...) (25 years ago, 16-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Code Repository
|
|
(...) As LDraw enthusiasts have discovered (via the lugnet.cad.dat.* hierarchy), having special newsgroups for these sorts of things really makes it nice to follow discussions that pop up as well, since they're simply lower-level nodes in the (...) (25 years ago, 16-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Code Repository
|
|
(...) Hi Brian, Yea, if someone wanted to be an editor of the /robotics/rcx/nqc/ area of the www.lugnet.com website, a code repository would be very easy indeed to set up on LUGNET. For example, John VanZwieten is editor of the /cad/datsville/ area (...) (25 years ago, 16-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Code Repository
|
|
Anyone interested in setting up a code repository for NQC? It could be a place to look for cut and paste routines that you could use in your project. If you had a cool piece of code that had some reuse value, then you could upload it to the (...) (25 years ago, 16-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2 Request
|
|
Dave, Thanks for all the comments in the thread. As I have not looked at the API supplied by the firmware I did not realise that the NQC api was such a close match. Adding the functions as you have suggested is a very neat solution. It is nice to (...) (25 years ago, 16-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2 Request
|
|
(...) If anyone wants to add these functions into their own code... void OnFwdFor(const int m, const int &t) { Fwd(m); OnFor(m, t); } void OnRevFor(const int m, const int &t) { Rev(m); OnFor(m, t); } These should be efficient - everything will be (...) (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
