Archive: 8 posts

---

anyone know how to do this easily? The best I can come up with off the top of my head is to use a sequencer with batteries on it set to half of what the actual signal is. Since I only really need to know roughly what they are, I can get by with just 10 batteries, but there has to be a cleaner, more accurate, way to do it.

2011-09-12 18:36:00 Author: tdarb Posts: 689

---

IIRC the issue with timers doesn't affect you at 0.2s, so you should be able to achieve this with a timer system (divide by 6 and times by 3)

2011-09-12 19:02:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497

---

Were there some deleted posts 'cuz it seems like you skipped answering his actual question and just clarified a single detail. In case you haven't yet, click the link in Rtm's sig up there and check out his advanced logic tutorials to find your answer. Some of the stuff he's written is beyond me but a lot of it has hugely impacted the way I do logic in lbp. Actually I just checked the link and it doesn't include his later blogs. The one dealing with signal division is here. (http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/entry.php?2409-Analogue-Logic-5-Division-amp-Multiplication)

2011-09-12 21:45:00 Author: Sehven Posts: 2188

---

It took me a minute to get what he meant too, sehven. Pretty clever answer actually. Thanks rtm. If I understand it correctly, the timers will allow you to use speed scale to add up to 1/3 of .1 seconds in a single pulse (100% for the duration of one simulation frame). There is a bug with certain increments of the timer not dividing evenly, but .2 seconds seems to be free of that. Each 100% pulse would be 1/6 of that timer. If I run the pulse through an AND gate with my analog signal, I can then pulse the signal value into the timer effectively dividing it by six. Then run that through an adder circuit comprised of two direction combiners to multiply the result by 3. That should leave me with 1/2 my original value. Thanks for the link sehven. I was looking for that earlier

2011-09-12 22:18:00 Author: tdarb Posts: 689

---

Were there some deleted posts 'cuz it seems like you skipped answering his actual question and just clarified a single detail. Nope, I just assumed he was up to speed on timers and stuff but had been warned off them because of those awkward missing frame bugs...

2011-09-12 22:20:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497

---

IIRC the issue with timers doesn't affect you at 0.2s... Anything between 0.1s and 0.4s is okay, 0.5s is not, tho'.

2011-09-15 23:56:00 Author: Aya042 Posts: 2870

---

Anything between 0.1s and 0.4s is okay, 0.5s is not, tho'. I checked up again and confirmed it to be anything divisible by 0.5 or 0.7s goes wonky. Pretty sure someone (possibly you) told me that before, but I couldn't find a link...

2011-09-16 07:56:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497

---

I checked up again... Aww. Coulda saved you the effort - there's a pretty comprehensive list here (http://wiki.lbpcentral.com/Talk:Timer). There is a pattern, but I never did manage to come up with the exact algorithm which makes the determination - not so much from an observational POV, but rather what lines of C code they had to have used in order to create that pattern. I started out with a direct calculation, but if I were given the task of writing the LBP2 simulation engine from scratch, it'd seem a little ridiculous to pre-calculate the framecount, so I'd guess it's more likely to be a side-effect of an iterative calculation which modifies the floating-point value of "Current Time" on each frame, combined with some bad rounding. ...and confirmed it to be anything divisible by 0.5 or 0.7s goes wonky. Not quite, because given that 12.0s is correct, I think that 84.0s will also be correct, and that divides cleanly by both. Certainly, the theory that some multiples of 12.0s work correctly was proven when I was in OC with Comph trying to do what it says in this post (https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=58436&p=871129&viewfull=1#post871129). Edit: Back to the original question, there is another option detailed in this post (https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=62920-Angle-Sensor-Use&p=924381&viewfull=1#post924381). Logic purists will hate it because it involves using physics, but it's the lowest thermo solution I'm aware of.

2011-09-16 10:27:00 Author: Aya042 Posts: 2870

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.