Subject:
|
Re: rtlToronto22 Ideas?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Wed, 2 Aug 2006 14:29:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
798 times
|
| |
|
|
On Wed, August 2, 2006 9:36 am, John Guerquin wrote:
> At first I didn't see the big deal with "non-flat" cubes - but then the light bulb
> went off, and I realized that if they're not flat, they can't be scanned by the
> light sensor reliably :)
> I'd think about redesigning the board to try to ensure flat cubes.
The easiest way is to cover the board with tiles. However, that's a bunch of tiles,
and not everyone has that available (after they've made the cubes).
On the other hand, leaving the board as-is will give better builders another
challenge to solve...
> The other thing I didn't understand is why you guys were dropping the cubes from
> so high up?
Strategy? Most of the robots carried the cubes as low as possible (just above the
cubes already played) and drop them from there.
On Wed, August 2, 2006 10:08 am, Calum Tsang wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, John Guerquin wrote:
>
> > I can bet that even IF everyone had the software logic done perfectly (which
> > people won't), not every game would be a tie because of sensing glitches,
> > mechanical glitches, and other random events caused by a full moon :)
>
> See that's the problem I have with 3T...it's bankrupt by default. Same with
> ProjectY...we're all making the assumption most entries won't work properly, so
> don't worry that the outcome is deterministic is a non issue.
>
> It seems to me kind of "incorrect". I can't put my finger on why I don't think
> it's right.
You don't like assuming most entries will fail to work? I have to agree with
disliking that assumption. That's why we added the "time" factor. That actually
caused a couple of us to push the robots a little harder, which made them less
reliable.
The strategy & logic for playing 3T doesn't come close to C$, but it will still give
many builders a chance to write more complex software then they ever have.
Steve
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: rtlToronto22 Ideas?
|
| In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Steve Hassenplug wrote: <snip> (...) I'm liking this idea more and more. I like the time factor to help determine the winner and I like the time penalty for every 'touch'. It's just like Project X except one row and (...) (18 years ago, 2-Aug-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
| | | Re: rtlToronto22 Ideas?
|
| (...) There wer a couple of reason for wanting flat cubes, and the fact that many of us only had about a plate worth of clearence between the cube placing/sensing assembly and a filled cell below was one of these issues. As to sensing, we used (...) (18 years ago, 3-Aug-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: rtlToronto22 Ideas?
|
| (...) OK, I understand Steve. Makes more sense than infinite do-overs or whatever. At first I didn't see the big deal with "non-flat" cubes - but then the light bulb went off, and I realized that if they're not flat, they can't be scanned by the (...) (18 years ago, 2-Aug-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
31 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
|
|
|
|
