|
|
 | | Re: lugnet.trains.dcc?
|
| <snip> (...) required (...) </snip> I must be rubbing off on you Lar. Before now, ANY mutilation of parts was considered sacrilegious blasphemy by you! :P Rob "Have Lego, Will Dremel" Hendrix (21 years ago, 12-Sep-03, to lugnet.trains)
| | | | | Re: lugnet.trains.dcc?
|
| (...) It may make sense from a compartmentalization standpoint but has the volume been that great? I admit of bias since it's a topic of interest, but I'm not thinking it's high enough that we NEED to do this. As for mutilation of parts... ??? There (...) (21 years ago, 12-Sep-03, to lugnet.trains)
| | | | | Re: lugnet.trains.dcc?
|
| (...) I think it's a great idea. I like reading .trains for the neat models, but I don't have an iota of interest in DCC programing. (I don't mind the mutilation that much.) Jason Spears | (URL) BrickCentral> | (URL) MichLUG> (21 years ago, 12-Sep-03, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
| | | | | lugnet.trains.dcc?
|
| Hi All, Just a thought: I know Lugnet likes to keep things nice and tidy... perhaps it is time for a DCC .trains subgroup? I'm wondering if eyeballs glaze over when DCC programming is discussed or some cringe at the wanton mutilation of pristine (...) (21 years ago, 12-Sep-03, to lugnet.trains)
| | | | | Re: leJOS & LDCC IRP
|
| (...) Yes, this is right, to be friendly to as many implementations of the Lego IR protocol as possible, receiving programs should just mask off bit 3. (...) While the code is there to discern packets with different addresses, I haven't yet added (...) (21 years ago, 12-Sep-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.java, lugnet.trains)
|
|
