Subject:
|
Re: Crate Contraption Standard
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.us.smart
|
Date:
|
Tue, 12 Oct 2004 04:46:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4103 times
|
| |
|
|
Steve clearly wants to keep this simple for the first go-around. But others,
including myself, dream of more flexibility. I like Larry's idea of referring to
versions. So rather than having to reject some features as too difficult, we can
ear mark them for a future version.
I've been trying to work out in my head how a module that interfaces to
ball-handlers on both sides could effectively move crates. I mean, how will it
know when it is safe to remove or place a crate when its neighbors always expect
a crate to be there?
The only answer I've come up with it the crate-shoving method employed by SMARTs
forklifts. This method should be sufficient, but if it's the only usable one,
crate-handling in the initial version may lack some variety.
I've started a draft of Version 1 here: http://www.lugnet.com/~1048/GBC
LMKWYT
-Brian A.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Crate Contraption Standard
|
| (...) As long as the "Type 1" standard doesn't tightly constrain future expansion, I think both are achievable. (...) It seems a good one, but certainly not the only one. For instance, have a empty crates not filled directly, but instead via a (...) (20 years ago, 13-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.us.smart)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Crate Contraption Standard
|
| (...) I had in mind something a bit like the moonbase concept except where they have level passage-ways between modules, a GBC module would have either one or two two ins which include a slight down slope to encourgage balls to enter and either one (...) (20 years ago, 11-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.us.smart)
|
23 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
