 | | Re: bad motor output because of lego firmware?!
|
|
(...) I suspect part of this delay is inherant to the firmware, and won't be "patchable" In any case, if you want your extender to be something you can market to most users, it should work with the standard firmware, without modification. Just my (...) (20 years ago, 28-Oct-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: bad motor output because of bad lego firmware?!
|
|
(...) The firmware (at least version 0328) intentionally prevents you going directly from forward to reverse (or vice versa). I guess the designers felt this would be too rough on the motors. Try inserting a Wait(50) in your first loop. It'll work (...) (20 years ago, 28-Oct-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | bad motor output because of bad lego firmware?!
|
|
Hi there, I've spent the last two days trying to write a function in NQC that transfers data to the Lepomux I/O-extender. The data transfer is normally done by connecting the Lepomux to one of the motor ports. Each transition from one motor state to (...) (20 years ago, 28-Oct-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Rotation sensor limitation
|
|
(...) The simplest answer is to try it. Yes the limit that an RCX 16 bit integer can hold is 32767. From there things go to -32768 down to zero I think. (...) Kevin (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Rotation sensor limitation
|
|
I use a rotation sensor for a brick sorting machine – hence I need to know the limitation of the rotation sensor. What happens when the rotation sensor exceeds 9999 as shown on the LCD display? Apparently the rotation sensor can still keep track of (...) (20 years ago, 24-Oct-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC preprocessor behavior - constants evaluated?
|
|
Code listing of Untitled1: *** Var 47 = x *** Var 46 = y *** Task 0 = main 000 pwr ABC, 7 13 07 02 07 004 dir ABC, Fwd e1 87 006 setv var[47], 150 14 2f 02 96 00 011 setv var[46], 5 14 2e 02 05 00 016 mulv var[46], var[47] 54 2e 00 2f 00 Total size: (...) (20 years ago, 18-Aug-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC preprocessor behavior - constants evaluated?
|
|
(...) The preprocessor only evaluates expressions if they are used in a conditional preprocessor statement (i.e. #if), otherwise they are simply treated as a series of tokens for the compiler to deal with. However, the compiler does evaluate (...) (20 years ago, 17-Aug-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | NQC preprocessor behavior - constants evaluated?
|
|
Pardon a basic, low-level question, but I'm trying to minimize memory & execution time. Does the NQC preprocessor precalculate constant expressions before the compile pass? For instance: #define CONST 100 #define HALF CONST/2 task main() { int x,y; (...) (20 years ago, 16-Aug-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC problem...driving me insane!
|
|
(...) You should check to make sure your light sensor is in fact changing more than 5 counts. Start by changing the above code to 2 or 3. I don't recall with NQC, but with some languages (BrickOS) the values are backwards, so you may need to check (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jul-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC problem...driving me insane!
|
|
(...) Well, actually, that code works fine (running MacNQC, a fairly recent version, with 2.0 firmware). One thing to check, code-wise, is to display SENSOR_1 on the LCD, and see what the numbers are (is it set to raw mode? Is the sensor bad (I've (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jul-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
