 | | Re: Connect Four game issues
|
|
(...) Excellent ideas guys. This is gonna be slick! (...) :) I just had another thought - when we did Project X, we had scoring that included time, as well as accuracy being factors in determining who won. Does anyone think that adding the time (...) (21 years ago, 15-Sep-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Connect Four game issues
|
|
(...) Ahh, yes, the glorious art of handshaking. I want to point out that it'd be pretty easy to zap someone you didn't like by sending them some voltage with a hard-wired output-to-input method. :) But I like that one the most, I think. It forces (...) (21 years ago, 15-Sep-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Connect Four game issues
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Ralph Hempel wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) That was the first thing I thought of--if you design your 'bot on a gantry system, your hopper/dropper would have a home position to the "right" facing the gameboard. In this (...) (21 years ago, 15-Sep-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | RE: Connect Four game issues
|
|
(...) I see now. See my post on mechanical placement of bots. We can probably come up with a standard pushbutton that involves the gantry. Ralph (21 years ago, 15-Sep-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | RE: Connect Four game issues
|
|
(...) This works well for the human interface. What about asking that the RCX sends a standard message that is available on the remote control? That takes away one mechanical issue and leaves all sensors and motor ports avaailable. (...) Oh, I was (...) (21 years ago, 15-Sep-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
