|
|
 | | RE: leJOS & BricxCC news
|
| (...) OK, I've looked at your wish list and have the following comments with respect to how I see the pbForth implementation of DCC. 1. How important is it to have more than one port with DCC capabilities. The reason I'm asking is that it "would be (...) (21 years ago, 7-Sep-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.trains, lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
| | | | | Re: Versions 2 and 3 of micromotorized crossing gates.
|
| (...) I've been thinking about this one. In the current state of LDCC, a fully automated and LDCC-integrated (and pure LEGO) crossing gate could look something like this (ASCII art follows): Train presence sensor------+-------+ + RCX 1 | (...) (21 years ago, 7-Sep-03, to lugnet.trains)
| | | | | Re: Versions 2 and 3 of micromotorized crossing gates.
|
| (...) My first one had the elastic, but Steve Martin said it was ugly. Well, okay, he actually said something like it looked realistic, but his face had ugly written all over it. :) I agree about the jamming 66 2/3% (see (URL) fact is that the (...) (21 years ago, 7-Sep-03, to lugnet.org.us.indylug, lugnet.trains)
| | | | | Re: leJOS & BricxCC news
|
| (...) Hmmm. I was seriously considering writing a leJOS package to support the LDCC IR Protocol. (Here's why: (URL) ) What capabilities were you going to add? Depending on your timeline, you might convince me to try FORTH. (21 years ago, 7-Sep-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.java, lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.trains, lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
| | | | | Re: LDCC and RCX gizmos (long)
|
| (...) Argh! Yes, you are right. I was asumimg that since the standard firmware can send arbitrary packets (that is right, isn't it?), it ought to be able to receive them as well. Time to consider alternate firmware. (21 years ago, 6-Sep-03, to lugnet.trains)
|
|
