Re: Lego controller

On Tue, May 31, 2005 11:17 am, Martijn Boogaarts said:
>>> 2)	A Better handshake between the RCX and the IRtower. To reduce in a multi
>>> environment overwritten of programs, or a switch to lock the programs
>>
>> Do many people use the IR as a way to communicate between a PC and a moble
>> robot? Personally, I don't think I've ever used the IR tower where I couldn't
>> just use a wire, instead.  How about everyone else?  Would it be better to
>> just plug the robot into your computer?
>
> Imagine you have multiple RCX units build in a large model then it is convenient
> to not have to leave a place open for the connector to program it. During a
> class session I found that many times the RCX programs were overwritten by
> programs from other users.

Ok, I'm not sure what you're in favor of, here.  :)

First, with the current setup, don't you have to leave the front of the RCX clear,
so the IR can flow in?

And, if the RCX used a wire, wouldn't that eliminate the possibility of programs
being overwritten in a classroom setting?

>>>  6)	Remote sensor Usage (IR or Bluetooth)
>>> ...
>>>  10)	Internal IP-like number (same as the imprinted) so you can direct
>>> address  that RCX ! (using IR or Bluetooth)
>
> The advantage of Bluetooth sensors would be that they don’t need a sensor input
> on the RCX, and you can configure them in your program as you would configure a
> normal sensor, but link them to a virtual Input port. This makes the RCX small
> (not more connections are needed on top of it) and extra modules can be a
> connection for other sensors and those units then connect using Bluetooth to the
> RCX.

So, does this require any programming in the actual sensor?  And, how much would
something like that cost?  I'd think it would really raise the cost of a simple
sensor, wouldn't it?

Steve