Subject:
|
Re: rtlToronto15: Pipe Racers Pro Concept
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Tue, 26 Aug 2003 12:16:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
388 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Calum Tsang wrote:
> > Hey folks,
> >
> > Here's a graphic to give you an idea of what rtlToronto15 could be like.
> >
> > http://peach.mie.utoronto.ca/people/tsangc/nglcl/rtltoronto15concept.jpg
>
> Spiffy.
>
> My question would be, the markings now show the "required" path rather than the
> "shortest" path?
>
> At the marked T just to the left of the right support leg, the path leads
> upward, but if the robot were to remain traveling to the right, it would rejoin
> the marked path much closer to the end, avoiding a whole section of traversals.
>
> (that's assuming there wasn't a collar placed on that segment of pipe to make it
> impassable...)
>
> Also, by using T's only and not crosses, robots need not actually change shape
> to traverse if they can rotate around the pipe, and if they are "U" shaped to
> start with, they can pass over the T leg they don't want to take by aligning the
> open end of the U with it, presumably. Cool.
I wasn't even thinking about a 'bot along those lines, but that's way easier
than what I was picturing in my head...
Thanks Larry!
Dave K
-who now likes the straight 't' design instead of putting in 'y' connectors...
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: rtlToronto15: Pipe Racers Pro Concept
|
| (...) "shortest" path? At the marked T just to the left of the right support leg, the path leads upward, but if the robot were to remain traveling to the right, it would rejoin the marked path much closer to the end, avoiding a whole section of (...) (21 years ago, 26-Aug-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
