 | | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
(...) When David said. I going to run a contest. It will be about building small block stackers. Anyone want to play? Derek (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
(...) I'm sure we all could think of ways to accomplish this, but, I have no idea why we'd want to. Since when has this contest been about being small? (...) Thats great, build a small robot. I on the other hand want to simply build a robot. I have (...) (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
(...) If you can't think of a way to get a 8" tall robot to build a tower taller then 8" the limiting factor is your imagination, not the rules. (...) The concept of the contest is size. It's not a rule, its the reason for the contest. So far there (...) (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
I just manually created a stack of blocks greater than 8 inches tall. If I wanted to build a mechanism to deploy that stack, the rules would get in the way. So before we even get started, an arbritary limit would have limited a possible solution. We (...) (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | My tribute to my first Technic Set
|
|
(URL) was having an unusual wave of nostalgia the other day and put together the first auto chassis--956. Having completed this, I found myself thinking about the first Technic set I received when I was a kid--set 854. So I put that one together as (...) (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
