 | | Re: direct manipulation of bits in RCX registers using NQC
|
|
(...) Perhaps - but the standard firmware implements a "virtual machine", and so you don't generally have access to physical registers. But... (...) You can configure the input port that the light sensor is connected to as a "passive" sensor (so (...) (19 years ago, 13-Sep-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: direct manipulation of bits in RCX registers using NQC
|
|
(...) Hi Brian, Thanks for your response. (...) I'm not sure if I get this, because of C code examples I've seen, which I'll discuss again below. (...) I've tried this already, and as you say, it works, but the sensitivity goes waay down. For a (...) (19 years ago, 13-Sep-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: direct manipulation of bits in RCX registers using NQC
|
|
(...) inside the RCX *directly*, not running programs layered on top of the standard firmware. And if you want to use NQC, you have to work within the limits of the standard firmware (OK, ignoring Dick Swan's firmware, which I've still not been able (...) (19 years ago, 13-Sep-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: direct manipulation of bits in RCX registers using NQC
|
|
(...) Matt, There are a few ways you can program your RCX. The main choice is if you use the standard firmware, or not. The firmware is pretty much like Windows Operating System. If you use NQC & the standard firmware, you don't need to worry about (...) (19 years ago, 13-Sep-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: direct manipulation of bits in RCX registers using NQC
|
|
(...) I agree with Steve that the code samples you posted are probably BrickOS. Now to acheive what you want, it might be a waste of power, but you could always blank off the light itself with a peice of black card or thin black packing plastic. If (...) (19 years ago, 13-Sep-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: direct manipulation of bits in RCX registers using NQC
|
|
Hey, Thanks for all the helpful responses, everyone. Brian: (...) I guess that "firmware" must be the code that tells RCX how to interpret user instructions (NQC, C, IC, opcodes, or whatever), and convert them to binary machine-specific code. Right? (...) (19 years ago, 16-Sep-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: direct manipulation of bits in RCX registers using NQC
|
|
(...) Correct. A NQC command (say, "Wait(10);") is converted to one or more "bytecodes" (in this case, one bytecode, namely a string of 4 bytes (0x43 0x02 0x0a 0x00), the first of which is a command (0x43) while the following three are information (...) (19 years ago, 16-Sep-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | IR-based proximity measurement
|
|
I'm changing the subject line in the middle of the thread. Wonder what the server will do with that... I tried out Brian's "Max-picking" ping method, as well as a few other things. Here's a summary of what I found: 1) If the active sensor readings (...) (19 years ago, 16-Sep-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: IR-based proximity measurement
|
|
(...) i have downloaded the SerialPing.nqc program hoping to get an easy to use proximity sensor. i have modified it to work with only one light sensor. but it shows always -90 on the display. ok, sometimes -89 too. can anybody tell me, what i did (...) (18 years ago, 9-Jun-06, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: IR-based proximity measurement
|
|
(...) Well, there were a couple of typos, but only one I found that was critical. If you are using a "max-picking LIDAR" method, you do *not* want to divide by the number of samples. The variable "eyeon" in your code should end up with the brightest (...) (18 years ago, 9-Jun-06, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: IR-based proximity measurement
|
|
Brian, thanks for your advice. it has told me what is happening physically. i build a one shot measurement program to answer your questions. here is the measurement result: Distance to wall: 26 cm (at night) 7740 7696 7666 7641 7639 7613 7613 7593 (...) (18 years ago, 11-Jun-06, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: IR-based proximity measurement
|
|
(...) You're welcome - it's a fun problem. At least partially because it's one of the few times I've had to worry about the speed of bytecode execution under the standard firmware (see below). (...) Given what you are transmitting and how you are (...) (18 years ago, 11-Jun-06, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
