Open Source FreeBASIC Human Android
A project to create a lifesize human android, walking, talking fetch the ball, play table tennis, poker and basic learning skills.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfBpqsqn ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpO57Nlt ... re=related
In order to share code with a sophisticated project, the body , its construction and sensor array need to be identical and use very similar hardware. ( cheap and simple)
If this is true then the code written by one person eg say for the hand can be used by everyone.
The Bind is having to adhere to the KEY 'design parameters'
if you cant/dont want to work to a standard this project isn't for you
Some one might be into robot hands so will focus on this, another persons interest may be object recognition or speech output. By using a single physical body plan and by separating all the code into stand alone exes which share data via simple txt files it is possible to build something pretty amazing for a fraction of the time money and effort.
Step 1 , defining a standard body , its size , construction and sensor array.
The components should be readily available anywhere on the globe and cheap as chips. No $200 ardino boards here just simple analog components that even an electronics noob can wire up. Billet aluminum is out, balsa wood , timber, bolts and nails from your local hardware store is in...... The trick here is being very clever with the design.
even if 2 or 3 people started putting in the odd weekend here n' there the progress will be pretty rapid. So if ever you wanted to build a 'proper android' but baulked at the cost or complexities this is the solution.
you dont need uber code skills
you dont need uber electronics skills
you dont need uber building skills
you dont even have to build the whole thing, build the part you want and share your code
you just need a bit of creative enthusiasm and imagination, and thats all
Ill create a wiki and post up the body plan & list of materials, once that has been decided upon
your thoughts on a post card
Open Source FreeBASIC Human Android
Open Source FreeBASIC Human Android
Last edited by TESLACOIL on May 01, 2012 2:33, edited 6 times in total.
-
BasicCoder2
- Posts: 3955
- Joined: Jan 01, 2009 7:03
- Location: Australia
Re: Open Source FreeBASIC Human Android
.
Last edited by BasicCoder2 on May 06, 2012 11:55, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Open Source FreeBASIC Human Android
The head and arm of the Human Android can easily be used for a wheeled robot.
cash isn't an issue with this opens source human android , plenty of places you can rummage for bits
So long as the 'design parameters' are adhered to everyone's code will be 100% compatible
eg forearm length 30cm , angle of open and closing 45 degrees, tendon location 4/5ths the way along etc
with a crystal clear blueprint and the KEY 'design parameters' locked down the FreeBASIC code is 100% no brainer plug n play.
The big win is sharing exactly the same problems and solutions
The Bind is having to adhere to the KEY 'design parameters' if you cant/dont want to work to a standard this project isn't for you
...its just too much work for 99.99% people to build an android all on their own....they never start becuase they know they will never finish it.....and they know that progress will be painfully slow.....and the know in advance they will get badly stuck on this that or the other
This is why being Bound to the KEY 'design parameters' is key....its like a common standard
The Prime Objective is to overcome the 101 problems that would be Android Builders like yourself face
cash isn't an issue with this opens source human android , plenty of places you can rummage for bits
So long as the 'design parameters' are adhered to everyone's code will be 100% compatible
eg forearm length 30cm , angle of open and closing 45 degrees, tendon location 4/5ths the way along etc
with a crystal clear blueprint and the KEY 'design parameters' locked down the FreeBASIC code is 100% no brainer plug n play.
The big win is sharing exactly the same problems and solutions
The Bind is having to adhere to the KEY 'design parameters' if you cant/dont want to work to a standard this project isn't for you
...its just too much work for 99.99% people to build an android all on their own....they never start becuase they know they will never finish it.....and they know that progress will be painfully slow.....and the know in advance they will get badly stuck on this that or the other
This is why being Bound to the KEY 'design parameters' is key....its like a common standard
The Prime Objective is to overcome the 101 problems that would be Android Builders like yourself face
Last edited by TESLACOIL on May 01, 2012 1:59, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Open Source FreeBASIC Human Android
What we need is a virtual model of a standard body with variable parameters. Why specify the physical parts for building one version of the android. It will date rapidly. We need a well defined interface between the hardware and software.
A virtual body model would make it possible for people without hardware to write and test the code needed. This would also provide a framework for computer simulation of body position and movement. The simulated body would have both static and dynamic physical parameters. Dimensions, joint orientation and limits of movement would all be parameterised.
The software needed is only dependent on the skeleton's “degrees of freedom”. Anyone who built a physical android could run it on the current version of the software by setting the parameters of their reality. They could simulate and optimise their hardware prior to building it.
Manufacturers would compete to build hardware that would be controlled by the public domain software evolving on the site. Programmers would compete to write the best code to control each module.
The original PC BIOS was an interface between software and hardware. It made possible the surge in PC usage. A body model would do the same for android production.
We can think of the body model as a Type definition that specifies the parameters of components and joints. Is there such a standard model definition available today? How else can motor vehicle accidents be simulated?
A virtual body model would make it possible for people without hardware to write and test the code needed. This would also provide a framework for computer simulation of body position and movement. The simulated body would have both static and dynamic physical parameters. Dimensions, joint orientation and limits of movement would all be parameterised.
The software needed is only dependent on the skeleton's “degrees of freedom”. Anyone who built a physical android could run it on the current version of the software by setting the parameters of their reality. They could simulate and optimise their hardware prior to building it.
Manufacturers would compete to build hardware that would be controlled by the public domain software evolving on the site. Programmers would compete to write the best code to control each module.
The original PC BIOS was an interface between software and hardware. It made possible the surge in PC usage. A body model would do the same for android production.
We can think of the body model as a Type definition that specifies the parameters of components and joints. Is there such a standard model definition available today? How else can motor vehicle accidents be simulated?
Re: Open Source FreeBASIC Human Android
some good ideas, but a lot of buts
The virtual body is an idea but there are still many constraints, real bodies act very differently to virtual ones though i agree if the bone count and arrangement was identical you could just vary the length
But this will vary the forces, the speed of opening and closing blah de blah de blah and make 90% of the software incompatible with out endless tweaks utterly destroying the 'plug play concept'
...i know you are a great coder, and i can imagine some sweet (but still fairly simple ) virtulualization of the body but i can assure you many incompatibilities will arise
brainware and bodyware are extremely tightly bound....change the length of the neck and it throws out the vision system...change the length of the leg and it throws out the center of gravity
some stuff for both of us to chew on
agreed ultimately your concept 'customisable & adaptable virtulization is the future...it may be a bit too much codewrok at this early stage ?
if some ace coders like yourself where onboard id have a tad more confidence with using adaptive software...i have a room full of android hardware so i can give you 'adjustment parameters' that span the bridge the between the real wood/plastic body & the virtual body
because an android is a physical thing, standards need to be applied to the physical as well as the virtual
because its such a complex system their are few androids out there and few buy in options, locking down on the hardware clears the path considerably....thats the one advantage all these little robot droids have over their 'one of a kind' full size brethren....Droid x uses the same physical hardware as all other Droid x's ( thus all forces lengths distances weights momentum's frictions, stictions etc are known , the variance between any two identical Droid x's small enough for an individual builder to cope with )
So we either need UBER smart software and a loose body plan, or a tight body plan with much easier to write and use code....you takes your pick....If the consensus is to go for the looser body plan, i/we can design the overall software architecture to be more complaint.
Robot (& human) Intelligence relies on the prime philosophy of 'the left hand being glued to the guide rail allowing the right hand to explore with confidence'
A couple of Ultra Light Humanoid Androids
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfBpqsqn ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpO57Nlt ... re=related
Ref Why specify the physical parts for building one version of the android. It will date rapidly.
there a a 1001 good reasons why the hardware should be locked down as if it where a mass production object like a car
though psychologically this may be at odds with the 'one of a kind' dreambots people are thinking about but will never be able to build on their own
complexity kills innovation , compatibility enables creativity......boring but true, these are my primary fears and concerns
I dont like constraints myself, dont like em one bit....BUT due to the complexity of building life size androids i think compromises will have to be made to freedom. The year is 2012ad come 2052 many of the constraints will be lifted due to the availability of plug n play android parts....the best way forward today still unclear
if everyone's pulling in different directions, and keen to go their own way then no advance can be made....what things to lockdown on remains the key question
The virtual body is an idea but there are still many constraints, real bodies act very differently to virtual ones though i agree if the bone count and arrangement was identical you could just vary the length
But this will vary the forces, the speed of opening and closing blah de blah de blah and make 90% of the software incompatible with out endless tweaks utterly destroying the 'plug play concept'
...i know you are a great coder, and i can imagine some sweet (but still fairly simple ) virtulualization of the body but i can assure you many incompatibilities will arise
brainware and bodyware are extremely tightly bound....change the length of the neck and it throws out the vision system...change the length of the leg and it throws out the center of gravity
some stuff for both of us to chew on
agreed ultimately your concept 'customisable & adaptable virtulization is the future...it may be a bit too much codewrok at this early stage ?
if some ace coders like yourself where onboard id have a tad more confidence with using adaptive software...i have a room full of android hardware so i can give you 'adjustment parameters' that span the bridge the between the real wood/plastic body & the virtual body
because an android is a physical thing, standards need to be applied to the physical as well as the virtual
because its such a complex system their are few androids out there and few buy in options, locking down on the hardware clears the path considerably....thats the one advantage all these little robot droids have over their 'one of a kind' full size brethren....Droid x uses the same physical hardware as all other Droid x's ( thus all forces lengths distances weights momentum's frictions, stictions etc are known , the variance between any two identical Droid x's small enough for an individual builder to cope with )
So we either need UBER smart software and a loose body plan, or a tight body plan with much easier to write and use code....you takes your pick....If the consensus is to go for the looser body plan, i/we can design the overall software architecture to be more complaint.
Robot (& human) Intelligence relies on the prime philosophy of 'the left hand being glued to the guide rail allowing the right hand to explore with confidence'
A couple of Ultra Light Humanoid Androids
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfBpqsqn ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpO57Nlt ... re=related
Ref Why specify the physical parts for building one version of the android. It will date rapidly.
there a a 1001 good reasons why the hardware should be locked down as if it where a mass production object like a car
though psychologically this may be at odds with the 'one of a kind' dreambots people are thinking about but will never be able to build on their own
complexity kills innovation , compatibility enables creativity......boring but true, these are my primary fears and concerns
I dont like constraints myself, dont like em one bit....BUT due to the complexity of building life size androids i think compromises will have to be made to freedom. The year is 2012ad come 2052 many of the constraints will be lifted due to the availability of plug n play android parts....the best way forward today still unclear
if everyone's pulling in different directions, and keen to go their own way then no advance can be made....what things to lockdown on remains the key question
Re: Open Source FreeBASIC Human Android
My software modules would be parameterised. I see no problem with you writing fixed parameter software modules, but they would not be applicable to different physical implementations.
I feel it is important to be able to exercise a virtual model on a PC. Writing code should not require a physical android for testing. The available programmer base would be too small.
Each component would have dimensions, mass and position of centre of mass and a couple of moments of inertia. That would make the model adaptable. Each skeletal joint would have a current angle and torque about that virtual axis. The physical implementation of the muscles is irrelevant to the static and dynamic balance of the structure.
The argument that size will determine viewpoint and make vision a problem is not really applicable where the android walks around, kneels down or looks behind. The viewpoint would be calculated from the position of the feet, through the leg, body and neck modules to the skull. That 3D vector sum of the modules is quite simple to implement. Proprioceptors are necessary in humans.
The proprioceptor code would keep track of the centre of mass and balance. If it fell over the proprioceptors would identify the contact points, the eyes would confirm it. Inner ears could be implemented with mems gyroscopes. In humans the eyes, inner ears and proprioceptors all confirm orientation. When there is a disagreement nausea ensues. Seasickness is a vote of no confidence in the nervous system. Vegetable poisons effect the three systems differently. Nausea = vomit = survive the poisoning.
I feel it is important to be able to exercise a virtual model on a PC. Writing code should not require a physical android for testing. The available programmer base would be too small.
Each component would have dimensions, mass and position of centre of mass and a couple of moments of inertia. That would make the model adaptable. Each skeletal joint would have a current angle and torque about that virtual axis. The physical implementation of the muscles is irrelevant to the static and dynamic balance of the structure.
The argument that size will determine viewpoint and make vision a problem is not really applicable where the android walks around, kneels down or looks behind. The viewpoint would be calculated from the position of the feet, through the leg, body and neck modules to the skull. That 3D vector sum of the modules is quite simple to implement. Proprioceptors are necessary in humans.
The proprioceptor code would keep track of the centre of mass and balance. If it fell over the proprioceptors would identify the contact points, the eyes would confirm it. Inner ears could be implemented with mems gyroscopes. In humans the eyes, inner ears and proprioceptors all confirm orientation. When there is a disagreement nausea ensues. Seasickness is a vote of no confidence in the nervous system. Vegetable poisons effect the three systems differently. Nausea = vomit = survive the poisoning.
Re: Open Source FreeBASIC Human Android
good stuff Richard
you've nailed some of the key problems and solutions , ( its very rare to see these deployed with the required rigor )
...available resources aka interested people is also key...a fine carriage that's empty is still an empty carriage
locked down hardware may discourage some people, perhaps a lot, perhaps a good filter too ?, you do need hand skills/mindset
the world does indeed need a physical system thats nailed down hard, you just cant beat that as a starting base ! , but i totally accept people would rather have the freedom do build their own (me 2)....be able to play with the 'hox genes' a little ( body plan genes )
im still somewhat wary of having a bunch of virtual virtuosos coding for real world hardware they will never build or fly themselves, its expensive when you fall....'terrain terrain pull up pull up' is nice to have as a warning but catching the sky before it falls out of your visual field of view is much more preferable.....im sure you can stretch your imagination to model android realities as you're a pretty switched on guy ( but you are aware of the , well it runs on my computer ok brigade , lol ) so please excuse my caution and initial desire to recruit high proportion of 'hands on types'
your #1 adaptable software approach would be liberating for builders though.
Im all for it to be honest but wasn't expecting any others to want push hard and far enough in that direction that useful utility could be had....i was thinking this would arise at a later date. End user complexity vs end user utility is key. If you need a phd in maths or biomechanics to configure it to your android then it wont get taken up.
there is a lot of free ' also ran' software out there like that already, so unless is pretty good and ties in well with a particular form factor it will be replication with little gain...just so you are aware ( im sure you are )
sounds like you worked in aviation or critical systems at some point in your career....androids need a touch of that extra tlc if only to dial out some of the clunkyness.....dynamic movement and taking advantage of intrinsic elasticity is also key to maximizing performance and delivering fluid and efficient biochemical movement
your kind of code skills are whats needed thats for sure, as is my instinctive grasp of physical engineering practicalities....both skills are required for android building.....very few people have enough of both, im certainly weak on code, you seem to be able to extend your code concepts into the physical realm well enough...thats a huge plus make no mistake
Q can you build stuff too ? if only for testing and calibration
Proprioception
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprioception
Hox gene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hox_gene
MEMS gyroscope ( halfway down the page )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibrating_ ... _gyroscope
btw early RC helicopters used gyros with 2 brass wheel powered by a motor
Digital sensors. Im not against digital sensors they are great, but the complexity costs are way to high so im strongly in favor of very simple analogue circuits...the kind you can wire up in less time that it takes to read a roboboard pdf....show me a chip 'that works' without turning my brain into flux and deploy it with endless vigor.
Full size Androids are thin on the ground for one fundamental reason. lack of plug n play hw /sw aside
the kind of people who have the tools and the engineering know how tend not to be uber coders or into AI
and the kind of people who can design and code and integrate complex hw & sw tend not to be mechanical engineers
If Radio Control air craft enthusiasts could code they would be the ideal android builders...RC fight = lightweight, high power , finely tuned, & digitally complex
you've nailed some of the key problems and solutions , ( its very rare to see these deployed with the required rigor )
...available resources aka interested people is also key...a fine carriage that's empty is still an empty carriage
locked down hardware may discourage some people, perhaps a lot, perhaps a good filter too ?, you do need hand skills/mindset
the world does indeed need a physical system thats nailed down hard, you just cant beat that as a starting base ! , but i totally accept people would rather have the freedom do build their own (me 2)....be able to play with the 'hox genes' a little ( body plan genes )
im still somewhat wary of having a bunch of virtual virtuosos coding for real world hardware they will never build or fly themselves, its expensive when you fall....'terrain terrain pull up pull up' is nice to have as a warning but catching the sky before it falls out of your visual field of view is much more preferable.....im sure you can stretch your imagination to model android realities as you're a pretty switched on guy ( but you are aware of the , well it runs on my computer ok brigade , lol ) so please excuse my caution and initial desire to recruit high proportion of 'hands on types'
your #1 adaptable software approach would be liberating for builders though.
Im all for it to be honest but wasn't expecting any others to want push hard and far enough in that direction that useful utility could be had....i was thinking this would arise at a later date. End user complexity vs end user utility is key. If you need a phd in maths or biomechanics to configure it to your android then it wont get taken up.
there is a lot of free ' also ran' software out there like that already, so unless is pretty good and ties in well with a particular form factor it will be replication with little gain...just so you are aware ( im sure you are )
sounds like you worked in aviation or critical systems at some point in your career....androids need a touch of that extra tlc if only to dial out some of the clunkyness.....dynamic movement and taking advantage of intrinsic elasticity is also key to maximizing performance and delivering fluid and efficient biochemical movement
your kind of code skills are whats needed thats for sure, as is my instinctive grasp of physical engineering practicalities....both skills are required for android building.....very few people have enough of both, im certainly weak on code, you seem to be able to extend your code concepts into the physical realm well enough...thats a huge plus make no mistake
Q can you build stuff too ? if only for testing and calibration
Proprioception
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprioception
Hox gene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hox_gene
MEMS gyroscope ( halfway down the page )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibrating_ ... _gyroscope
btw early RC helicopters used gyros with 2 brass wheel powered by a motor
Digital sensors. Im not against digital sensors they are great, but the complexity costs are way to high so im strongly in favor of very simple analogue circuits...the kind you can wire up in less time that it takes to read a roboboard pdf....show me a chip 'that works' without turning my brain into flux and deploy it with endless vigor.
Full size Androids are thin on the ground for one fundamental reason. lack of plug n play hw /sw aside
the kind of people who have the tools and the engineering know how tend not to be uber coders or into AI
and the kind of people who can design and code and integrate complex hw & sw tend not to be mechanical engineers
If Radio Control air craft enthusiasts could code they would be the ideal android builders...RC fight = lightweight, high power , finely tuned, & digitally complex
Last edited by TESLACOIL on May 02, 2012 8:29, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Open Source FreeBASIC Human Android
> taking a look at different ' regimes out there'
Lego Mindstorms NXT 2.0 Unboxing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSwf17TC7_g
Some interesting and easy to use kit is available with lego mindstorms, though i wouldn't say it was cheap
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbEkRUTA ... re=related
there are also a million and 1 vids on you tube
Additional summary here, its quite a diverse ecosystem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lego_Mindstorms
when you are watching a 10yr old kid unboxing a kit like this you know the world has moved on from rainy days monopoly, and flightdeck
Lego Mindstorms Review - Part 1 - RUG Community Robot Review adult review
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egd7QQri ... re=related
Videos and more info here
http://www.rugcommunity.org/page/lego-m ... -robot-kit
Lego Mindstorms NXT 2.0 Unboxing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSwf17TC7_g
Some interesting and easy to use kit is available with lego mindstorms, though i wouldn't say it was cheap
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbEkRUTA ... re=related
there are also a million and 1 vids on you tube
Additional summary here, its quite a diverse ecosystem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lego_Mindstorms
when you are watching a 10yr old kid unboxing a kit like this you know the world has moved on from rainy days monopoly, and flightdeck
Lego Mindstorms Review - Part 1 - RUG Community Robot Review adult review
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egd7QQri ... re=related
Videos and more info here
http://www.rugcommunity.org/page/lego-m ... -robot-kit
Re: Open Source FreeBASIC Human Android
a look at some micro humanoids and a hexapod in combat , as well as human scale
Robo-One Half-Time Fun #1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5EVcvT6 ... re=related
RoboCup 2011: Adult Size Final
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llfYoFG7 ... re=related
Robo-One Half-Time Fun #1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5EVcvT6 ... re=related
RoboCup 2011: Adult Size Final
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llfYoFG7 ... re=related
Re: Open Source FreeBASIC Human Android
Although not humanoid, iRobot sells a version of their roomba with the vacuum cleaner components stripped out as a robotics platform.
Re: Open Source FreeBASIC Human Android
Thats another possible resource for parts and ideas.
Im investigating all possible ways to make the building of 'life size androids' easier. Little bots, well u are almost spoilt for choice, loads of stuff on the net, so there is not great difficulty with that category.
Whats needed is some kind of kit, open source hardware + detailed plan. The software will solve itself and can be copied and transmitted at near zero cost. Its the hardware + detailed plan which is the biggest shortfall.
Open-source hardware
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_hardware
Consider the Dalek builder clubs. Detailed plans , guides , faq and suppliers for the tricky parts like the dome or hard to find parts. Thats what we need here. A locked down hardware design just like the Daleks.
doh !!!.....maybe thats it , the missing key OPEN SOURCE CYBERMAN ANDROID = THE SOLUTION
Doctor Who: The Next Doctor - Monster File: The Cybermen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NejmRupa54I
Cybermen Through the Ages 1966 - 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctXUt4RJTwY
Either a Cyberman or another top 10 iconic android or humanoid
Cyberman = large = easy build check
Cyberman allready popular culture = check
Cyberman mask, pictures, videos and details abundant = check
Its a good primary Candidate that's for sure
Im investigating all possible ways to make the building of 'life size androids' easier. Little bots, well u are almost spoilt for choice, loads of stuff on the net, so there is not great difficulty with that category.
Whats needed is some kind of kit, open source hardware + detailed plan. The software will solve itself and can be copied and transmitted at near zero cost. Its the hardware + detailed plan which is the biggest shortfall.
Open-source hardware
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_hardware
Consider the Dalek builder clubs. Detailed plans , guides , faq and suppliers for the tricky parts like the dome or hard to find parts. Thats what we need here. A locked down hardware design just like the Daleks.
doh !!!.....maybe thats it , the missing key OPEN SOURCE CYBERMAN ANDROID = THE SOLUTION
Doctor Who: The Next Doctor - Monster File: The Cybermen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NejmRupa54I
Cybermen Through the Ages 1966 - 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctXUt4RJTwY
Either a Cyberman or another top 10 iconic android or humanoid
Cyberman = large = easy build check
Cyberman allready popular culture = check
Cyberman mask, pictures, videos and details abundant = check
Its a good primary Candidate that's for sure
Re: Open Source FreeBASIC Human Android
Top 10 ' Builders club candidates ' ...my quick pick
Cyberman
Terminator
Laura Croft
HRP-4C
C3P0
Robots of death http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Robots_of_Death
Heroic 'style' body Class
Sontaran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sontaran ( great body proportions for a 1st gen android )
The Robot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_%28Doctor_Who%29
Robbie the Robot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbie_The_Robot
Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000) http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Space_M ... 6HF5lI7vaI
Or " something cool & awesome designed from scratch and specifically for the task of being easy to build "
any suggestions to add to this list ?
Cyberman
Terminator
Laura Croft
HRP-4C
C3P0
Robots of death http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Robots_of_Death
Heroic 'style' body Class
Sontaran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sontaran ( great body proportions for a 1st gen android )
The Robot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_%28Doctor_Who%29
Robbie the Robot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbie_The_Robot
Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000) http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Space_M ... 6HF5lI7vaI
Or " something cool & awesome designed from scratch and specifically for the task of being easy to build "
any suggestions to add to this list ?
Last edited by TESLACOIL on May 02, 2012 23:57, edited 2 times in total.
-
BasicCoder2
- Posts: 3955
- Joined: Jan 01, 2009 7:03
- Location: Australia
Re: Open Source FreeBASIC Human Android
[deleted]
Last edited by BasicCoder2 on May 03, 2012 2:02, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Open Source FreeBASIC Human Android
.
Last edited by TESLACOIL on May 03, 2012 2:55, edited 1 time in total.
-
BasicCoder2
- Posts: 3955
- Joined: Jan 01, 2009 7:03
- Location: Australia
Re: Open Source FreeBASIC Human Android
[deleted]
Last edited by BasicCoder2 on May 03, 2012 2:03, edited 1 time in total.