Posted By: Charles | Apr 23rd, 2007 @ 4:18 PM | 27,055 Views | 4 Comments
We recently went back to visit the Microsoft Robotics team to see what they're up to. As expected, they are very busy innovating! This is a four part series where we learn about what's new in CCR (and watch George code!), get a demo of the Visual Programming Language's debugger (outrageously cool stuff), get a demo of the robotics simulation environement and get a status report from team lead Tandy Trower.

Here (Part 2 of 4), we meet Paul Roberts, a software engineer on George's team. He shows us a demo of a visual debugger that is awfully cool. Check this out. Enjoy

See part 1 here.

PS: For those who just can't wait for parts (I hear you. I don't like editing either...) you can watch the whole thing here.
Tags: Robotics, VPL
Media Downloads:
Rating:
1
0
Nice video, and nice download speed. Thanks.
It's funny, National Instruments' LabVIEW ($$$) has used a very similar graphical, multi-threaded framework for years. I actually moved away from LabVIEW to C# so that I could have a "real" runtime debugger, and managed code, robust interop, and all the rest. I love that MSRS will allow me to have the best of both worlds, and for free! Forget robots...I'm taking some data with this bad boy.
  I have to say MSRS is useless for humanoids and other advanced robots. MSRS  is great if your playing with toys like legos but other than that it is useless. Its seems to me that The Microsoft Robotics studio team is at a dead end and beating a dead horse. Here is a example of the corect way to make PC robotics possible: http://www.trossenrobotics.com/tutorials/tutorialshome.aspx and many others.
  MSRS has to either get a new development team or scarp it and start from scratch. I dont mean to come off as a jerk but someone had to say it.


    Eric Ewald
    droidworks.org
      
Eric, with the greatest respect, your flame is both rude and wrong.

There are numerous examples of highly advanced robots using MSRS from Grand Challenge entrants to humanoids.

I would agree with you that Matt Trossen also has some great ideas about robotics, but the two are far from exclusive - to call it the 'correct' way is to overstate his case far more than Matt might have done.

The field is relatively young and there is space for many competing and complementary approaches.

Microsoft Communities