Subject:
|
Re: The Great Ball Contraption
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 Jan 2005 13:17:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
7011 times
|
| |
|
|
> > At this point, we're not interested in making the standard more complex,
> > and
> > increasing the difficulty of setting it up, when it really doesn't add any
> > functionality to the whole contraption.
>
> Well, perhaps some things need more complexity, although I would agree a
> standard anyone can use is preferable. The big challenge is getting the
> degree of complexity as best you can for all parties which will be involved.
>
> Geoffrey Hyde
Is there something that a module builder can not do because the standard is too simple?
Steve
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption
|
| (...) Not to oversimplify, but I mean if the 'standard' for the ball contraption is 32 studs from the front of the hopper to the back edge of the baseplate, and thus I personally would probably grab a 32 x 32 stud baseplate to build on, thus the (...) (19 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption
|
| "Steve Hassenplug" <Steve@TeamHassenplug.org> wrote in message (...) Yes. Currently it's not being able to make turns in both directions with the hopper feed setup the way it is. Someone did point out that there would be a lot of wasted space if (...) (19 years ago, 11-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Great Ball Contraption
|
| (...) Why not universalize the standard so that a module that can turn must be configurable to turn either to the left or the right? A few ways this could be done are movable output stages, EG a sliding or drop-in output that can be placed where (...) (19 years ago, 10-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
|
|
|
|
