Subject:
|
Re: One more rule verification
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Thu, 23 Feb 2006 02:46:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
611 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, David Koudys wrote:
> in my opinion, should be number of unique blocks in both 'bots at the end of the
> 3 min. 'cause they started in the 1x1x1--in the past, we have allwed multiple
> 'bots that start within the given space constraints.
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
and a floor, and a bot that just drives out of the openning of the 'U', would
blocks collected on the floor be considered "in"...or would the shell have to
completely encompass the collected bricks (like an "O")?
-Rob A>
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: One more rule verification
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: One more rule verification
|
| 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)
|
9 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
|
|
|
|
