Archive: 11 posts

---

Hello all, I was dissatisfied to discover that all logic probes thus released suffer from at least 1 frame of latency from the capturing of the signal to displaying the value. I built one myself which does not use sequencers or timers (it uses timers only to generate fixed values) and so is calculated in the same frame the signal is generated. Features: - Zero frames of latency - 5 digits of precision - Rounds values up or down to the nearest 100,000th (none of this 0.899999 lark) - Half a notch of thermo used only Coming soon to LBP: my zero latency analogue logic suite, including a device to multiply two analogue signals with zero latency, and devices to compare analogue signals, also with zero latency. Please leave feedback, many thanks. If enough people wish to know how it works I can give an explanation. http://lbp.me/v/zhqz0-

2011-03-30 18:06:00 Author: thor Posts: 388

---

Bah. I was hoping you'd found a better solution to the zero-latency ADC problem, but looks like you completely avoided all digital logic, and just used dimmer mode on the hologram. :/ I s'pose zero-latency is technically a win, though. It's similar to the design I was planning to implement, except I was planning to route the signals via a Sackbot Controlinator to get the zero-latency ADC, which I s'pose isn't necessary for a logic probe display, but would be for a few other ADC use-cases, where you need to have the result feed into a component which ignores the analog signal.

2011-03-30 23:49:00 Author: Aya042 Posts: 2870

---

I thought I was one of the best at logic in my little PSP sided world, then I come over here. Whats all this anal.ogue digital transfer stuff? Makes no sense to me. I'll check this out right now though. -Ohh, this makes a bit more sense, this is a really cool tool, its like a number sackboy tracker. Great job, you are much smarter than me at this stuff

2011-03-31 03:59:00 Author: Ricky-III Posts: 732

---

Bah. I was hoping you'd found a better solution to the zero-latency ADC problem, but looks like you completely avoided all digital logic, and just used dimmer mode on the hologram. :/ I s'pose zero-latency is technically a win, though. It's similar to the design I was planning to implement, except I was planning to route the signals via a Sackbot Controlinator to get the zero-latency ADC, which I s'pose isn't necessary for a logic probe display, but would be for a few other ADC use-cases, where you need to have the result feed into a component which ignores the analog signal. Yes well the trick is to convert it into "digitised analogue" - of course you can't then use it to drive something that requires digital (you may be able to work around that) but the point is that now all gates behave exactly as digital gates (except XOR) so at least you can test your circuits with digital signals. And without the behaviour of the OR gate that prioritises the 1st input I wouldn't have been able to do this I haven't tried the controllinator method, what does it do? Sounds very thermo-heavy to me when you want to convert numerous signals but hey if it works; I looked at every other component and found zero instances where the analogue signal impacts the digital signal (without having to wait a frame).

2011-03-31 11:04:00 Author: thor Posts: 388

---

I haven't tried the controllinator method, what does it do? Sounds very thermo-heavy to me when you want to convert numerous signals but hey if it works; I looked at every other component and found zero instances where the analogue signal impacts the digital signal (without having to wait a frame). See this post (https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=51861-Latency-free-analogue-comparison&p=797135&viewfull=1#post797135). I suspect the thermo cost for each Controlinator is about the same as a Microchip, which may or may not be problematic depending on how many bits you're dealing with. The annoying part is needing to build the logic on a Sackbot's brain. I'd submitted the lack of Controlinator inputs when not on a Sackbot as a 'misfeature' during the beta, but this hasn't changed yet. I'm hoping it might get changed at a later date, since it's the sort of thing which won't incur any back-compat issues, and it would seem to be a fairly trivial change.

2011-03-31 11:48:00 Author: Aya042 Posts: 2870

---

See this post (https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=51861-Latency-free-analogue-comparison&p=797135&viewfull=1#post797135). I suspect the thermo cost for each Controlinator is about the same as a Microchip, which may or may not be problematic depending on how many bits you're dealing with. The annoying part is needing to build the logic on a Sackbot's brain. I'd submitted the lack of Controlinator inputs when not on a Sackbot as a 'misfeature' during the beta, but this hasn't changed yet. I'm hoping it might get changed at a later date, since it's the sort of thing which won't incur any back-compat issues, and it would seem to be a fairly trivial change. Hmm sounds good, so you can just place as many controllinators as you want as long as you have 1 sackbot. A bit "clumsy", I still prefer my OR-gate method But I am surprised that it has weird behaviour like that... in fact in general I'm surprised that none of this is explained in the tutorials or by Mm at all. Seeing as it's crucial to understanding some circuits (like AND gates and controllinator outputs...) Someone's going to wonder why their L2/R2 buttons aren't working on the controllinator at some stage...

2011-03-31 12:12:00 Author: thor Posts: 388

---

I have a feeling I could use this in the problem I'm having on my f4f level thread. Promise, this is not shameless advertisement, I really do think you could perhaps help me out a lot here if you have time. https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=53871-Do-you-like-marble-madness If you could maybe read whats going on and perhaps help me apply it to my situation id gladly give proper credit on the level description. I've been trying to find a way to do this... I think. I will check this out right away Thanks!

2011-03-31 20:01:00 Author: LeastCreative Posts: 49

---

I just got this object, but it uses Marvel Level Kit DLC. You should remove the offending DLC from your object. This seems like it'd be very useful, but I can't use it because of the DLC.

2011-04-03 03:31:00 Author: Unknown User

---

I just got this object, but it uses Marvel Level Kit DLC. You should remove the offending DLC from your object. This seems like it'd be very useful, but I can't use it because of the DLC. aaah sorry I forgot I used marvel comic book panels for the black background. I will try and change it

2011-04-03 10:33:00 Author: thor Posts: 388

---

I just got this object, but it uses Marvel Level Kit DLC. You should remove the offending DLC from your object. This seems like it'd be very useful, but I can't use it because of the DLC. All done

2011-04-06 19:57:00 Author: thor Posts: 388

---

Cool! I can't wait to check it out...

2011-04-08 18:33:00 Author: tetsujin Posts: 187

Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.