Quote:
Originally posted by Ian W.
that confuses me. a simple program for the computer would be so much easier to use, for me at least.
|
Well, it all depends just WHAT you are trying to ACCOMPLISH. Do you really want EMULATION (the thread's topic), or SIMULATION? This thread said Emulation, but so far most people here have really been talking Simulation.
SIMULATION normally implies a piece of software that "tries to run" the code, with imaginary hardware, interacting with an imaginary real world, and gives you "results". That's rather hard to do here, as in this case we're talking some SERIOUS, REAL TIME interaction with both the operator and the real physical world. For example, it is hard to simulate your robot tipping over because your software said to do something strange without simulating the entire physical environment too. There are programs that'll DO that, but they're not cheap, and this isn't something you normally write in a day or two without a serious solver engine of some kind behind you.
If you're not talking that level of simulation, then what are your true goals here? The Stamp programming environment already checks your syntax for you, and without some real world interaction on the RC end of SOME kind, your results aren't going to be very useful.
OTOH, EMULATION normally means that SOME hardware is involved, although normally not the true stuff.
It all boils down to what you want to do, and how far you're willing to go with your simulation before involving hardware. Syntax and Sanity checkers are one thing, but TRUE simulation in anything like real time is quite another. IMHO, this is definitely a situation where Emulation would be MUCH easier, cheaper, faster to get running, and more useful, than Simulation.
You first create SOME kind of a physical model of the robot, whether out of Lego Technic, a BOE-Bot, an RC car, Kynex, Tinkertoys, or whatever. This takes care of the physical world part.
You then only have to emulate the interaction between your control set and the RC, and the RC to the model, with something in the middle representing the RC that'll run PBASIC. That should only take a micro or two.
I think if you get creative, and restrict the number of I/O channels, you can emulate the entire OI/RC set much more cheaply than simply buying another copy of the Innovation First hardware.
Stamp-IIs and PIC micros are pretty cheap. BTW... There is even now a drop in replacement for a Stamp-II called the ATOM that gives you floating point math!
Note that you CAN use a PC as the joystick OI front end. Simply tie it to a Stamp board with a serial port. You then tie the Stamp (or Stamp equivalent) to the real motor model platform.
NOW you have a hardware platform that'll give you some SERIOUS results, AND allow you to practice!
Bottom line: IMHO, you need SOME hardware in this, somewhere, or else you're in for a big development, or won't get useful results. RC cars and chips are cheap. I feel the optimum solution is a mix of software and hardware, but WHERE you draw the line is up to you and your expertise.
- Keith McClary, Advisor Huron High 830 Rat Pack
"Want to emulate the speed of an IBM XT at 4.77MHz? Simple: Try running Windows on a 486..."