Subject:
|
faster than a 48x CD re-writer
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 Jan 2002 04:04:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
606 times
|
| |
|
|
WELL, this just in.
I know that many people are working fast and furious on x-robots.
i also know that When you build a robot (for speed) , you have no idea
how your robot compares. SO
For all the lurkers and secret robot builders, I would like to announce
my current best speed for my robot solving the anti-X pattern. Ok, some
people might call it an O but the point here is that......
oh never mind.
the Anti-X pattern is the only pattern that forces a robot to pick and
place EVERY brick. and IMHO is a good test for speed.
Know I know that Calum, has stated that some robot designs in
combination with other block patterns are actually more time consuming
BUT i think that is a failing of the robot design. (shrug) and not a
factor of the pattern.
So, without further ado. I'd like to break with tradition and publicly
announce that IF the contest were tomorrow; then My now fully complete
and working robot will clock a time of 40 sec to solve the anti X.
Of course, I want to point out that i have over a month to fix my
marriage, AND make the robot faster and better. BUT the important thing
here is that I have a working robot. the overall design has not changed
much from the original pics that were posted a while ago.
So if you have a robot, and have a burning desire to know how you will
place then this is a new benchmark.
as an aside, if you have times to post please feel free.
Chris
Pretend this says something funny
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: faster than a 48x CD re-writer
|
| (...) It is a factor of the pattern, in combination with the algorithm. The hardware, unless it provides more capability than your average XY+grab (ie, grab two, scan more etc) has nothing to do with it at all except individual move execution speed. (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
| | | Re: faster than a 48x CD re-writer
|
| (...) Bringing this newsgroup back to the important stuff... (moderators checking in on li'l ol' us: ye-ouch! I still appreciate you Iain, and the lewdness of your anagrams, inappropriate tho they may be, wasn't your point--you have no embarassment, (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
