Subject:
|
Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Mon, 25 Oct 2004 00:48:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
630 times
|
| |
|
|
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 have never had a problem with bigger robots. Big robots don’t always beat
smaller robots. 2 RCXs have never had an advantage over 1 RCX. You’ve all seen
this many times. Why make it a rule now?
I don’t want to be constantly measuring the robot to ensure I stay within a
limit (and then on the day of the contest, we don’t really enforce the limit
anyway).
Block stacking is challenging all by itself. Plus, you added sorting based on
your starting color. Now I’m sure it could be done using 1 RCX and staying
within an 8 inch cube. But from my point of view, you would have just taken all
the fun out of the contest.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
37 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
