 | | Re: Scoring
|
|
(...) We're not going to change it now at a week before. rtl10 was designed from the outset as a full bore, use whatever the heck you like competition. If you had a eight barrel servo actuated robot mechanism driven by a 48 node RCX processing (...) (23 years ago, 17-Feb-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Scoring
|
|
(...) What if there was only 1 multiple RCX robot and it came in dead last…I certainly don’t think it would be right to call it the runner-up and even if we did it would be a hollow victory. Would this be fair to the robot that truly came in second? (...) (23 years ago, 17-Feb-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: remember the 1/n rule?
|
|
(...) I tend to side with Rob on this issue. I think the challenges facing us single RCX people (I only own 1, so I didn't really have a choice) are different from the people who use multiple RCXs. I know for me, the challenge has been to make a (...) (23 years ago, 17-Feb-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: remember the 1/n rule?
|
|
(...) Whoever said that was clearly wrong...Coding complexity increases with the number of RCXs...a good robot is much more than just an extra motor or an extra sensor. Should we change the scoring to be based on number of ports used? This would (...) (23 years ago, 16-Feb-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | remember the 1/n rule?
|
|
I remember in the good old days when we encouraged the use of one RCX. This quote is taken from rtlToronto's 12th post on lugnet: "In my mind a robot that needs 2 rcx to make one tower is only half as good as a robot that can do the same tower in 1 (...) (23 years ago, 16-Feb-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
