 | | Re: Timing of RCX statements
|
|
(...) Thanky Dave for your reflections concerning the timing. The thing that caused some astonishment and a little bit of frustration is that the RCX is so slow. O.K. - the code sent to the RCX is interpreted and this needs some time. However, I was (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Monitor() and Event()
|
|
(...) I decided to write a small sample program showing how to configure events. Check out events.nqc at (URL) reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Monitor() and Event()
|
|
(...) Monitoring is automatic (done by the firmware). Monitoring stops when control leaves the monitor statement, so something like this: while(true) { monitor(EVENTS) { } catch { } } will miss a lot of events. You need to configure the events using (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Timing of RCX statements
|
|
(...) I wouldn't expect Wait() to be very precise. I haven't looked at the firmware in great detail, but generally when writing this sort of thing you set up timing chains. Imagine a function that gets called every 1ms for bookkeeping... void (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Timing of RCX statements
|
|
I was trying to simulate a serial link by using an output of the RCX. I didn't work and when I analyzed the timing, I found out that the RCX's execution of statements is far too slow for the protocol I wanted to simulate. So I made some measurements (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
