Subject:
|
Re: faster than a 48x CD re-writer
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Fri, 11 Jan 2002 07:48:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
418 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Chris Magno writes:
> 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.
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. Assuming the hardware is the same speed* (reliability
notwithstanding), really it comes down to the pairing of software and patterns.
I wouldn't call it a failing of the robot design, I would say it is a
failing of the design process not to analyse both the possible patterns,
build the fastest hardware possible, then optimize a software solution based
on a rough guess of what patterns may be out there.
The O is a good as any other pattern, but the only thing it stresses is the
hardware execution time (ie, speed to move a piece).
Calum
* a poor assumption considering the hardware geniuses we have in rtlToronto.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | faster than a 48x CD re-writer
|
| 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 (...) (23 years ago, 10-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
|
|
|
|
