 | | Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
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, (...) (20 years ago, 24-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | 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...
|
|
(...) Part of the point of this contest is to build under restricted size conditions. (...) I agree with this. (...) Not sure what I would prefer. The 4x4 field makes more sense with the smaller robot size. Derek (20 years ago, 24-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
We don't need no stink'n limits. Maybe if we were going 4x4, but we're not. And, can anyone recall a time that a robot was too big or had too many processors. Limits (without an obvious purpose) ar exactly that...limiting. (20 years ago, 24-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
(...) I hope Dave will chime up in a minute, because he was also a big proponent of 8" cubed. I can see both points: Like Bruce, I love stuff like this: (URL) featured in the Greg Hyland AFOLs book) (...) But at the same time, I think the 8" cubed (...) (20 years ago, 24-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
(...) I think that's a pretty good way of putting it. The other thing we need to talk about is the worth of a tower. Do we use the Fibonacci-based sequence for tower height? How many blocks of each colour? Calum (20 years ago, 24-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
(...) Here are my thought ins no apparent order and to answer many questions and ideas already posted in this thread... I am the first to talk about building monstrous robots. As that pic that Calum posted, I can build 'em big. Big is easy. Big (...) (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
I just manually created a stack of blocks greater than 8 inches tall. If I wanted to build a mechanism to deploy that stack, the rules would get in the way. So before we even get started, an arbritary limit would have limited a possible solution. We (...) (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
(...) If you can't think of a way to get a 8" tall robot to build a tower taller then 8" the limiting factor is your imagination, not the rules. (...) The concept of the contest is size. It's not a rule, its the reason for the contest. So far there (...) (20 years ago, 25-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...
|
|
(...) I'm sure we all could think of ways to accomplish this, but, I have no idea why we'd want to. Since when has this contest been about being small? (...) Thats great, build a small robot. I on the other hand want to simply build a robot. I have (...) (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
(...) When David said. I going to run a contest. It will be about building small block stackers. Anyone want to play? Derek (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
(...) Ahhhh yes, but did "samll" refer to the blocks, or the block stackers???? ;) ROSCO (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
I thought that was just going to be a side event at another contest. Now it sounds like block stacking will be the major event. The small size would make sense in a 4x4 playfield, but, not in the 8x8. (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
(...) Ya, but do to a lack of a "main" event, David's side event seems to be getting moved up to being the main event. Derek (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
(...) :) Dave K (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
(...) Basically pretty much sums it up--I had such a blast with pint size marble sorting, I wanted to apply that to block stacking to see if I could. So for me, I have no problem with 2events--one in big arena with big 'bots, and one in little arena (...) (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
(...) It has become a main event, primarily because everyone likes it and wants to do it. That said, the only request I have is that we use the 8x8' field, mainly because it's easier on the spectators and easier when operating the event. Let's keep (...) (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)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
(...) All too true. Here's the thing--at dinner a few months back I was talking to Calum and I had the idea, "Hey, wouldn't it be neat if... Block Stacking 'Bot fits within 8x8x8 to start small blocks 'cause it was going to be in a small arena (4x4) (...) (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
(...) Oakwood has always been quiet. I don't know what it is, but whenever we do an event at Oakwood, there's no one there. On the other hand, Lillian always gives us a draw. (...) So, the draw of the new contest is: -Smaller blocks: Harder to (...) (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
(...) The smaller size is the big draw for me. Since block stacking has been done several times before making it smaller erases a lot of the past experience several competitors might otherwise have. (...) I like the idea of creating a point system (...) (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
(...) I'm definitely interested. I don't care much about the size rule, but I really like the idea of small blocks. Lots of small blocks. I highly doubt they will be more difficult to manipulate than 2x4's. That made the rice digging game very hard. (...) (20 years ago, 26-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
(...) Well, how's this for a set of rules: 1. Tower Height: Points are awarded by height of tower. Number of blocks tall 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Points 0 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 -Towers can touch each other, but the robot cannot touch the tower 2. Tower Colour: (...) (20 years ago, 26-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
(...) Can towers touch the sides of the arena? (...) Although I proposed this rule, the problem with it is it forces anyone who builds towers to also sort. Since we were discussing allowing different levels of participation to complete, this seems a (...) (20 years ago, 26-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
(...) I can't see why not...I don't think this ever came up. (...) Isn't that just six or half of one dozen? (...) Can you though? The only person to have really found home consistently was JeffE back in rtl3/4. (...) So, you want to give people (...) (20 years ago, 26-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
(...) No, because if I build a tower without sorting the colours, and the bottom block was the opponents colour I would get nothing for it. I'm suggesting that you should get full points for the tower, but you don't get the bonus for building it all (...) (20 years ago, 26-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
(...) You mean by counting ALL the blocks of your home colo[u]r? It seems like only counting up to the wrong color would offer a big penalty for non-sorting robots. If two non-sorting robots compete, the winner will be the lucky one, who is last to (...) (20 years ago, 26-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
(...) I'd also be concerned that scoring this way would open the door to to "loophole bots" like Rob's (?) at RTL15 (URL) which, while I thought it exploited a clever loophole in the scoring, did somewhat disadvantage other bots that more closely (...) (20 years ago, 26-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
(...) I used to be kind of against this, because I'm sick of loophole pokers (Steve, JeffE, I'm looking in your direction...) but the thing is, we have better things to do than to try and outrule everyone. That and Steve never does it anyways. He's (...) (20 years ago, 26-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
(...) Ok, I can't remember, what did this robot do that was considered a loop hole in the rules? (...) True it does allow for a pure sorting robot. Maybe we don't want to allow that. I thought it allowed for a good entry level robot. But it could (...) (20 years ago, 26-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Steve Hassenplug wrote: <snip> (...) Wow. That is lotsa good stuff, but great googly moogly! This whole thing started 'cause I asked to run a 'mini block stacking' competition. We went from a 'lets build a nifty block (...) (20 years ago, 26-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
(...) I didn't get to see it either. I think we were too busy running our C$ robots in the final... But, I believe it moved all the marbles onto the opponent's square, because the penalty for "wrong" marbles was bigger than the points for "right" (...) (20 years ago, 26-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
(...) What if we said that a 'bot could enter if it could only scan the Connect 4 board, or drop a chip anywhere and still be counted (though, so I'm told, that's what some of them did) The event is block stacking. We've done it 3 times before. If (...) (20 years ago, 26-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
(...) The more I think about this the more I agree with David. It's a block stacking event. You score points if you stack blocks. Derek (20 years ago, 26-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
|
(...) A lot of these events is pure luck :) (...) This sounds pretty reasonable, an emphasis on towers with some for sorting and homing. Calum (20 years ago, 26-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
