 | | Re: results...
|
| (...) This game didn't really capture my interest but I'm honestly been turned in the past two weeks. (...) Here's hoping. My greatest fear is how reliable the firing and turning mechanism will be. (...) All jokes aside, that's usually how Chris (...) (21 years ago, 3-Mar-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
| | | | | Re: results...
|
| (...) we can hope--the software checking last night--not so good... (...) I can't receive a block from calum... however, I did make the shell motorized, so maybe I'll jsut drive around randomly... (...) You know Chris so well.... (...) Oh there'll (...) (21 years ago, 3-Mar-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
| | | | | Re: rtl21 - Can Stacking
|
| (...) One of the reasons why I wouldn't want to do 3T is primarily because we did a similar mechanical game called ProjectX. We even needed higher resolution as we demanded people to mesh the ends of studs into each other to score a point. That and (...) (21 years ago, 3-Mar-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
| | | | | results...
|
| (...) No. For some reason, it just never captured my interest. Here's what I expect: Your two-part robot will do the best. It will have a big advantage for receiving blocks, because few people have done testing where the receiving robot is moving. (...) (21 years ago, 3-Mar-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
| | | | | Re: rtl21 - Can Stacking
|
| In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Vitali Furman wrote: <snip> (...) Vitali-- I've got news for you... tic-tac-toe is NOT EASY. I've been working on a robot to play 3T for a while now. I've been finding it HARDER to make a good, reliable robot than C4. (...) (21 years ago, 3-Mar-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
|
