Subject:
|
Re: [rtlToronto] rtlToronto20 Draft Rules Posted
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Nov 2005 06:48:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
780 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Derek Raycraft <derek@djr.ca> wrote:
> Robots don't need to be stopped to transfer a brick, personally I'm
> working on the principle that I'll more then likely have to transfer
> while moving. If the light is off that fewer robots I'll be able to
> find to transfer to.
Right, but not everyone can build a robot that can transfer bricks while moving.
The goal of the ruleset, especially in this contest, is to define an environment
in which the most basic interaction, transferring a block while the receiver is
stopped, can be executed.
I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that transferring a block while moving
is HARDER than transferring a block to a stopped robot. Hence, I need to define
the rules to support easier one so everyone can play at a baseline. Your
competitive advantage can derived on your own above that.
> Its not difficult to tell if a source is moving. Detect light, stop,
> wait a sec, detect light again, it stationary, if it's gone, it
> moving. And this is just one of many ways of doing it.
>
> It is quite possible to be able to chase a moving light. As I said
> above I'm planning to be able to do that.
If you believe Chris, he thinks we'll have ten robots in the field. Assuming
you are surrounded by ten light sources, your method listed above would result
in a robot spasming in the middle of the field, unsure of which "moved" light
source to track.
> -a robot that can't follow a moving light spots a light and goes
> after it, if that robot turns off the light and moves away the robot
> looses its quarry.
> -a robot that can follow a moving light spots a light and goes after
> it, if that robot turns off the light and moves away the robot looses
> its quarry.
> -a robot that can't follow a moving light spots a light and goes
> after it, if that robot leaves it's light on and moves away the robot
> looses its quarry.
> -a robot that can follow a moving light spots a light and goes after
> it, if that robot leaves it's light on and moves away the robot can
> follow it's quarry.
>
> There are more cases of robots finding each other when the light is
> left on then if it's turned off. Light always on or turned off makes
> no difference for the non-tracking robot.
Right, but you chose the entire set of cases which have the robot turning off
it's light and moving away. You forgot the entire, basic set of cases where the
robot keeps its light on and stays put.
That's a self serving set of advanced cases: Of course turning the light on
helps a robot which can track. I disagree that the always turned on light
doesn't make a difference for a nontracking robot, I would in fact suggest the
"dumb" robot would get confused.
> If you have to turn the light on and off you loose a motor port. If
> the light is always on you can use a battery box and use the motor
> port for something else.
Fair, that's a good point.
> This also brings up issues of moving around quickly or slowly. In
> the time scale of Lego electronics if you move around quickly you are
> effectively turning the light off because nothing will be able to
> follow you. If you move around slowly then there's a chance someone
> can mate with you while your moving, so long as you can keep your
> light on.
I can see the light moving around not showing up on a poorly built light
"scanner". But I can also see this also confusing the crap out of a basic
robot.
> > (Note that this is a great example of how "social experimentation"
> > can't be
> > trusted for anything--is Dave right? Is Janey right? Who decides?)
>
> This is not an example of anything.
> Dave's message predates yours, I'm sorry you loose.
It's a great example: Is Vitali expected to track ever minor change that
someone mumbles? So someone who doesn't follow the group minutely comes in and
has no idea, as evident by his post earlier today.
I clearly said white at the dinner the night before. If you didn't listen, how
are you expected to know what is right? Say I said white at a dinner (which I
did) and I don't read the NG. Then I come in and everything is different?
Effectively, if you don't set rules or standards, you have a game of Calvin (not
Calum) ball.
Calum
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
30 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
|
|
|
|
