| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Matthias Jetleb writes:
> Welcome to the club. As of thursday night, mine was running the anti-x
> in about 29 seconds. Gripper action was flawless - yes
> FLAWLESS, not the virtual catapult that started to show up in rounds 2
> and 3 and rendered the thing completely useless thereafter.
I really liked your gripper... I thought I had taken a picture of it, but I
must not have... Anywone else have a picture of the retro wonder??
This is a combined function
> of motor speed and timing.
Like you said, timing is pretty consistent, but motor speed defenitely
isn't. It depends not only on the voltage, but on the load placed on the
motor. If you need accuracy in positioning something, either use sensors, or
hard stops. With hard stops as a reference point, you can just drive the
motor a "wee bit" too far, and know its position with certainty. Couple this
with a belt or clutch gear, and you are all set.
> I am now attempting to assess where I would really have stood had it
> worked as it did before, and is working now. The only patterns I can
> remember are the anti-X and the Stealth Bomber. Could someone please
> list the patterns that were used?
>
> Anti-X - 29 seconds - 5 Perfect, 3 good = 65 points
> Steath Bomber - 34 seconds - 6 Perfect, 2 good = 70 points
00xx
000x
x00x
xxx0
I don't remember the others.
Rob
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Guess what.
|
| (...) Welcome to the club. As of thursday night, mine was running the anti-x in about 29 seconds - some patterns in 27 seconds, although, my robot doesn't do a pre-scan and therefore has to search every square in the X, there isn't a lot of (...) (23 years ago, 26-Feb-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
31 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
