|
|
 | | Re: NQC's future
|
| (...) ;o) ... but why not ? (...) You're right, I should try pbForth, actually I intend to do that for a while but never jumped in. In the late 80's, I was involved in a point of sales terminal project that was programmed with a preemptive (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.robotics.spybotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
| | | | | Q for Ralph
|
| Why, exactly, does pbForth use a terminal emulator for the PC to talk to the RCX? Although I admit I find it an interesting concept (it's got a certain nostalgic appeal, at least for me), the design seems to encourage leaving the RCX on for extended (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
| | | | | IR problems
|
| Hi, I was having some problems in a program I'm writing in PbForth and it seems that it could be related to the way I communicate thru IR. I use the Lego remote control. I joined the following code to demonstrate. I use the word 'getHeader' from (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
| | | | | RE: NQC's future
|
| (...) Ha Ha, very funny :-) Seriously, Philippe, why not give pbForth a try? I know that NQC works great on both the Spybots and the RCX, and even Cybermaster. But if you're looking for speed, higher precision, lots of variables and generally more (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.robotics.spybotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
| | | | | Re: New Version of pbForth with DCC Support Released
|
| (...) Enough interest? How about this: I think there'd be a HUGE interest! What would it take to convince you? We have no DCC session on tap as of right now, (1) and this would go well in robotics AND trains!!! Please do come! 1 - we were angling (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth, lugnet.robotics, lugnet.trains, lugnet.events.brickfest, FTX)
|
|
