Subject:
|
Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:46:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
635 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Calum Tsang wrote:
> >
> > The current proposal is "Cube Sorting and Stacking":
> >
> > 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)
>
>
> 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 & advanced) it
> seems messy to use different size cubes. What if a beginner builds a robot,
> then decides he wants to tackle the "advanced" challenge? He (she) would have
> to start over.
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)
That way we could have it as a 'side show' to any other rtl competition, just
like marble sorting at Connect 4. That was the original premise. That is what
was discussed. It was going to be a 'mini-stacking' competition.
I'm all for a regular block stacking competition (and to go against Hassenplug
and kick his heinie again :p) but that wasn't the point at all for this
'one-off' competition.
Now, however, that this is looking like it is going to be *the* competition for
the next event (and I suggest at this time that if we want an entry competition,
we do drag racing again--kinda like we used to do sumo with the original block
stacking--we found that drag racing competitions are quick to run and quick to
get results--we were basically done with all entries in just over an hour)
Iwould still like to do the 'limits' 'cause we've done block stacking--3 times.
Let's do something different. I mean, sure the block sorting is great as an
additional challenge, but is that enough of a challenge? You guys build 'bots
to play Connect 4--a 'bot of unlimited size with unlimited RCX's to sort and
stack blocks? That soulds like an entry level 'bot. Let's do it small :)
But again, not completely adamant about the small--if the group decides to go
big,I'll still show up with a 'bot.
And yes, 2x2 blocks are much harder to pick up and stack--the 4x4's were cake
compared.
> As for the limitations on the robot, builders are free to impose any limit they
> wish on themselves, right? So, if Bruce wants to build an 18x18x18 inch, 4 RCX
> robot (no real limitations) he can. But, if I want to prove it can be done with
> an 8x8x8 robot that uses a Spybot, that's up to me, right?
I'd say since the very first competition I've entered (who could forget the
'borg 'bot sumo block that I showed up with), I go to the allowable limits
(without breaking the spirit of the law *cough* SH *cough* ;) )
> Given the cash value of the prizes (approaching zero), it's really not about
> winning, it's about building something cool.
>
> Also, crowds usually find big robots (like David's) fun to watch.
As do I, but one out of the two most complex 'bot competitions we've had
(Project X) was also the most boring to audiences. As well, looking at the
venue last Saturday, audience pleasing shouldn't be a major factor (not too many
walk-ins) I wanted to see nifty building techniques--the last marble sorting
'bots completely impressed me--from Rob's 'get all marble 'bot' to I think it
was Ivans with the 'harvister' front--completely blew me away. Sure big 'bots
have some great 'wow' factors, but the smaller you makeit, I think the bigger
the 'wow!'--'you fit all that into that small a space??' That's what I
want--the "holy crap!! How did you do that in such a tinly little space??' (like
the Genie in Aladdin)
>
> All the rest of the questions, I would put into "scoring". In fact, the classes
> can be defined by "How many points do you want to score?"
>
> Here's my suggestion for scoring:
> 1) Use the "Fibonacci-based sequence" for tower height
> 2) Do not count any blocks of the wrong color
> 3) Add 1 point for every tower (or block) in the "home square"
>
> If someone only wants to build a block sorting robot, they will get 1 point for
> each block they sort and return to their home square. No stacking required.
>
> If someone only wants to stack blocks (no sorting) they will still get some
> points.
>
> The only real disadvantage of having blocks of the wrong color is that your
> tower will be taller, but you won't get any more points for it.
>
> If you really want to win, you'll need to collect all your blocks, stack them as
> high as possible, in your home square.
>
> Steve
> (who is interested in this)
I think by the sounds of it, those are different competitions--bringing blocks
back to the starting square, stack any block, and stack sorted blocks. I can't
see how that would be 'fair' to play one 'bot which is sorting and stacking
against a 'bot that dumps blocks into the starting square. Not that I'm all
'fairness' either :)
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
