Subject:
|
Re: The Great Ball Contraption
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sun, 9 Jan 2005 23:56:22 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
TMASSEY@stopspammersOBSCORP.COM
|
Viewed:
|
5121 times
|
| |
|
|
Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com> wrote on 01/09/2005 04:20:10 PM:
> To that end, you need a specification for a "Y" module, which has two
> output faces. Also for a module which has two input faces! And a
> module which is a 90-turning corner and a 270-turning corner. It's
> pretty obvious what's needed for them; it just needs to be written down.
Or not: leave the standard as it is (except for specifying that the space
above the input belongs to the previous module), and have the organizers
build (or specificially request) out-of-spec modules to accomplish this.
That way, you don't have to worry about too many Y's and not enough
straight pieces! :)
That was something I saw with the Moonbase specification. A *lot* of the
samples they showed had just a single connection to their neighbor. Maybe
nobody wanted to build "boring" straight-through pieces. They also talked
about making modules configurable. But configurable in that context was
easy: a few simple pieces of non-moving Lego bolted on as necessary.
Here we're talking about moving, intelligent systems that I'm sure make a
number of assumptions that will not be easy to reconfigure on the fly.
Hence, having a specification that allows those assumptions be made with a
minimum of fuss seems like a strong point, not something that needs
adjustment...
Tim Massey
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption
|
| (...) Yeah - I agree. You need the 'average builder' to stick to a simple straight-line standard one-size-fits-all module. If you don't then everyone will want to build something esoteric and you'll get hardly any simple modules of the kind that (...) (19 years ago, 9-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption
|
| (...) Or create other "Types" That's the long-term plan. Of course, any GBC that uses some of these other module types will require considerabily more planning prior to set-up, and it will also make the whole contraption less tolerant to the (...) (19 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption
|
| tmassey@obscorp.com writes: > Or not: leave the standard as it is (except for specifying that the space > above the input belongs to the previous module), and have the organizers > build (or specificially request) out-of-spec modules to accomplish (...) (19 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Great Ball Contraption
|
| Steve Baker writes: > Another thought I had was that the organisers might want to consider > building a stage that has one input hopper and TWO outputs that sends > balls alternately to the two places. Yes! Since the soccer and basket balls are the (...) (19 years ago, 9-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
94 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
|
|
|
|
