 | | Re: One more rule verification
|
|
(...) I would agree with that scoring. And I want to see your rover climb out of a (min) 5" high shell :) So go for it! I do wonder about the definition of "in" though. If you have a stationary outer shell shaped like an open 'U' with three openings (...) (19 years ago, 23-Feb-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: One more rule verification
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Calum Tsang wrote: <snip> (...) This is a pure hypothetical--I'm not saying I'm doing this or not... If there's this outside shell that has 6-8 transfer openings and there's this robot inside that comes out when we press (...) (19 years ago, 23-Feb-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: One more rule verification
|
|
(...) cough... Hassenplug.... cough. Antonishen cough... :) Chris (19 years ago, 23-Feb-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: One more rule verification
|
|
(...) I think that by leaving this option open many will build one part that goes around and dispense the blocks and the second part which can just stand in one spot and have many transfer openings. If everyone agrees to it then I'm fine with it (...) (19 years ago, 22-Feb-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: One more rule verification
|
|
(...) Well, I want to hear what others (eg Derek, RobA, Iain, Vitali) have to say, as they are more important than my opinion...but... I would take the block count inbound of the two as the greater of the two. So if Part A gets 5 unique blocks and (...) (19 years ago, 22-Feb-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
