 | | Re: Robolab, byte codes and assembler —Claude Baumann
|
| | | (...) We should not forget that the RCX has initially been designed for kids. So the standard firmware should be considered according to the initial aims, which were to provide a really great tool - toy for children. Therefore the firmware designers (...) (21 years ago, 27-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.robolab)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Robolab, byte codes and assembler —Mark Riley
|
| | | | (...) Please don't take my post as a criticism of the original firmware, I merely wanted to point out alternatives. I agree, the 3ms sample rate is more than adequate for most applications. (...) Yes, the RCX is rugged in many respects, but I think (...) (21 years ago, 27-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.robolab)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Robolab, byte codes and assembler —Claude Baumann
|
| | | | | OK You do something great, and all the world is looking at it, finding the finest detail one could have made much better. That's the power of internet-exchange. Don't take this personally. I only wanted to remind the great job they did at LEGO's (...) (21 years ago, 27-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.robolab)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Robolab, byte codes and assembler —Don Stauffer
|
| | | | | | (...) It really is. I do think somebody made a mistake specific to the rotation sensor, though. I haven't decided yet whether it's the firmware, the sensor, or just the overall mechanism. I can understand how it got past quality control - sometimes (...) (21 years ago, 27-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.robolab)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Robolab, byte codes and assembler —Don Stauffer
|
| | | | (...) <snip> (...) I'm quite interested in the alternative firmware for myself. However, for this particular problem, if a correct rotation count is my "Apollo 13's needed filter", then Robolab is the "cover of the flight manual" - it's what I have (...) (21 years ago, 28-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.robolab)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Robolab, byte codes and assembler —Claude Baumann
|
| | | | ---...--->snip (...) I guess the competition asks you to run a certain distance as precisely as possible, or/and do some precise turns. We often experienced this kind of challenges in our school. The best way seemed to be to collect statistical (...) (21 years ago, 28-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.robolab)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Robolab, byte codes and assembler —Don Stauffer
|
| | | | In lugnet.robotics.rcx.robolab, Claude Baumann wrote: <snip> (...) The main need is to return to the starting point after completing various challenges. I think the challenges also involve objects at known positions compared to the starting point (...) (21 years ago, 28-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.robolab)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Robolab, byte codes and assembler —Chris Phillips
|
| | | | (...) All this talk of patching firmware to correct for problems in rotation sensor readings is very interesting, but I think you may be approaching the problem a bit too directly. First, if the competition rules specify the programming environments (...) (21 years ago, 28-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.robolab)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Robolab, byte codes and assembler —Don Stauffer
|
| | | | (...) My arguments would be: 1. The firmware/sensor arrangement is _broken_. Fixing it should be legal. 2. The FIRST rules permit using different firmware implicitly, because they permit using RIS or Robolab, which requires different firmware. 3. (...) (21 years ago, 29-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.robolab)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Robolab, byte codes and assembler —Chris Phillips
|
| | | | (...) Should be legal, perhaps. But I was just suggesting that before sending him off to try to patch the firmware, he might want to make sure it was legal to do so. Although RIS and RoboLab may not use the same identical firmware, that doesn't (...) (21 years ago, 29-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.robolab)
|
| | | | |
