 | | One more rule verification —David Koudys
|
| | | If I have two 'bots that start in 1x1x1 cu ft, and both have transfer openings, and at the word 'start', these two 'bots separate and go about their business... At the end of 3-5 minutes, do blocks in each 'bot count together, or separate? Dave K (19 years ago, 22-Feb-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: One more rule verification —Calum Tsang
|
| | | | (...) Well, I want to hear what others (eg Derek, RobA, Iain, Vitali) have to say, as they are more important than my opinion...but... I would take the block count inbound of the two as the greater of the two. So if Part A gets 5 unique blocks and (...) (19 years ago, 22-Feb-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: One more rule verification —Vitali Furman
|
| | | | | (...) I think that by leaving this option open many will build one part that goes around and dispense the blocks and the second part which can just stand in one spot and have many transfer openings. If everyone agrees to it then I'm fine with it (...) (19 years ago, 22-Feb-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: One more rule verification —Chris Magno
|
| | | | | (...) cough... Hassenplug.... cough. Antonishen cough... :) Chris (19 years ago, 23-Feb-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: One more rule verification —David Koudys
|
| | | | In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Calum Tsang wrote: <snip> (...) This is a pure hypothetical--I'm not saying I'm doing this or not... If there's this outside shell that has 6-8 transfer openings and there's this robot inside that comes out when we press (...) (19 years ago, 23-Feb-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: One more rule verification —Rob Antonishen
|
| | | | (...) I would agree with that scoring. And I want to see your rover climb out of a (min) 5" high shell :) So go for it! I do wonder about the definition of "in" though. If you have a stationary outer shell shaped like an open 'U' with three openings (...) (19 years ago, 23-Feb-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: One more rule verification —Derek Raycraft
|
| | | | (...) I think it should be scored as if it's one robot, which I believe is what you're saying. I'm not a fan of the idea of leaving a motionless shell behind. If we all did that there would be no space left to move on the field. (...) According to (...) (19 years ago, 24-Feb-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: One more rule verification —David Koudys
|
| | | | (...) I thought of that, but also considered that there will be many different ideas for this competition--one of them is the shell/ROV. One is the Calum'Bot which doesn't move (much). One idea was a completely contained 'bot with everything on (...) (19 years ago, 24-Feb-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: One more rule verification —Calum Tsang
|
| | | | (...) Okay, if you split in two, then your total score should the same as if you stayed as one. Fine by me. As long as we don't add the two together as if you had two separate robots and got to keep the sum of two unique machines. (...) I'm okay (...) (19 years ago, 24-Feb-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | |
