 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
