 | | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
(...) Here are my thought ins no apparent order and to answer many questions and ideas already posted in this thread... I am the first to talk about building monstrous robots. As that pic that Calum posted, I can build 'em big. Big is easy. Big (...) (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
(...) I think that's a pretty good way of putting it. The other thing we need to talk about is the worth of a tower. Do we use the Fibonacci-based sequence for tower height? How many blocks of each colour? Calum (20 years ago, 24-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
(...) I hope Dave will chime up in a minute, because he was also a big proponent of 8" cubed. I can see both points: Like Bruce, I love stuff like this: (URL) featured in the Greg Hyland AFOLs book) (...) But at the same time, I think the 8" cubed (...) (20 years ago, 24-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
We don't need no stink'n limits. Maybe if we were going 4x4, but we're not. And, can anyone recall a time that a robot was too big or had too many processors. Limits (without an obvious purpose) ar exactly that...limiting. (20 years ago, 24-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
(...) Part of the point of this contest is to build under restricted size conditions. (...) I agree with this. (...) Not sure what I would prefer. The 4x4 field makes more sense with the smaller robot size. Derek (20 years ago, 24-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
