Subject:
|
Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:11:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
468 times
|
| |
|
|
Well, yesterday, strangely enough, was a lot of fun: A simple contest, with a
lot of entries (ten!), most of which worked. And I even entered a working robot
that actually was somewhat successful. Congratulations to Greg Hyland and Rob
Antonishen, who came in first and second.
So...the inevitable question. What to do next for rtlToronto18?
The goal of this event is a moderate to difficult challenge target in February
of 2005.
The current proposal is "Cube Sorting and Stacking":
8x8' Playfield, though 4x4' is also possible. Cubes are miniaturized "blocks",
2x2x5-plate cubes in white and black. A large number of these are scattered
around the playfield, two robots must collect and process them to build
freestanding stacks. Your start colour is the colour you must build your stack
with. Robots are 8" cubed, just like the successful mini marble sorting event
at rtlToronto15 that DaveK ran.
Some points undecided:
-Processors and types allowed (ie, one RCX, multi RCX, any intelligent brick)
-Does the stack need to be in your home square
-Cost of a poisonous block (ie, is a "bad" block a high negative point)
Other issues to consider:
-Other games people might want to do that are tough? I'm not ruling out Duck
Assemblers yet, but I think only Iain and I like that idea. I've also heard
Full Out Autonomous Robot Destruction (I wonder who suggested that?)...now's
your time to propose and pitch your idea.
-Step-up difficulty of this contest for new members. If you notice, the
entrants in rtlToronto17 yesterday were almost ALL newcomers, all eager to
participate. I'm not saying we should resort to sumo, but we probably should
consider something that also engages entry level competitors (of which I feel I
am part of)
-Two-class approach: Example would be, entry-class just need to build a stack,
competitor class needs to build a stack of your own colour inside home square.
Okay, let's go, I want to get a head start on rules and graphics for this...
Calum
PS-Send me your photos, because I shot like...seven pictures.
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
| I like the block stacking idea. I don’t know why we would want a limit on size. All of the robots that have impressed me over time have been on the larger size. I’m not that interested in cutesy little robots. RCXs...I thought we decided that long (...) (20 years ago, 24-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
| | | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
| (...) I'm all in for this contest. (...) I thing the 8" cube limit puts a reasonable limit on this. Can't fit too many RCXs in a 8" cube and still be able to manipulate blocks. (...) I think adds a little too much complexity. (...) I'm not a fan of (...) (20 years ago, 24-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
| | | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
| "Calum Tsang" <tsangc@mie.utoronto.ca> wrote in message news:I63xIy.Gwn@lugnet.com... (...) Good to hear you had a good turn out, i had to work, again. (...) <SNIP> (...) How about just gathering blocks (say, in an onboard hopper) as the entry level (...) (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
| | | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
| (...) My thoughts: Given the 8x8 playfield (for the sake of the audience), the 2x2x? cubes will be hard to see. I also suspect 2 stud cubes will be harder to handle for a LEGO robot, than 4x4 cubes. Assuming there are two classes (beginner & (...) (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
37 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
