Subject:
|
Re: Connect Four game issues
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:37:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
545 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Ralph Hempel wrote:
> This works well for the human interface. What about asking that the RCX
> sends a standard message that is available on the remote control? That
> takes away one mechanical issue and leaves all sensors and motor ports
> avaailable.
See the post about IR. Mechanical works well so kids can play the robots. That
could very well be a qualifying-have someone play a full game with the unit
without failure.
> Oh, I was thinking of a flat board like ProjectX. The standard board will
> make things interesting. If not, get the new one that everyone has access
> to. I think I have the yellow board....
Sounds right to me--it's not a big deal to buy a game board. God knows we have
enough pipe, 2x4's with 6 inch spaced copper pipes, playfields, rice etc.
> Does each bot have a hopper, or can you load your bot with each piece?
Bot should carry their colour and should be easily loaded with said colour.
Chips could preloaded in some sort of cartridge if needed, it doesn't have to be
a hopper.
> I like this idea, but getting everything lined up might be tricky, but that's
> what it's all about...
I guess (and I here Mario and Iain complaining already) the precision for
Connect Four is less than the precision required for Project X.
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> XXXX
> 0000 [====================] XXXX
> 0000
> 000000000000000000000000000
>
> The O's and X's represent the individual player spaces. Blanks are
> forbidden zones when your robot is not actually playing. to give the
> other guy some space for his part dropping gantry.
That looks right. We need to be more specific-including where I can physically
grab onto the board the entire game. We can't leave the board freestanding. IT
has to be sort of like the tower next to a rocket-there's all sorts of arms and
walkways attached to the rocket--same thing, each robot needs places to hold
onto the gameboard and those palces need to be defined. I'm not above drilling
pin/axle sized holes in the gameboard for this purpose.
> How about 2 tests. The first is drop a full hopper of parts into
> the board in a triangle shape. The second is a standard board setup which requires
> one more token from the robot under test to win.
The first is a test of accuracy?
The second tests game logic?
> I think that the organizers should build a standard mount for the board, and
> publish that. Then the bots have to conform to that shape and connect via a
> simple technic pin for indexing or fastening...? See d)
I agree with the above, but people still have to know there is nothing between
the Library table and their baseplate and to make their robot easily moved onto
the table and docked into the mount.
> Ralph (getting interested)
I hope so. I spoke to Mario this morning (about PICs) and he's interested too.
Most people at the dinner were interested.
Calum
(mourning the death of PipeRacers)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Connect Four game issues
|
| (...) :) On one plane it's easy, but the other is a little bit more tricky, I supose (since the chips are thin). (...) Huh? Why does the robot have to grab onto the board? If you want to do that, just say, you can grab onto the left side of the (...) (21 years ago, 15-Sep-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | RE: Connect Four game issues
|
| (...) This works well for the human interface. What about asking that the RCX sends a standard message that is available on the remote control? That takes away one mechanical issue and leaves all sensors and motor ports avaailable. (...) Oh, I was (...) (21 years ago, 15-Sep-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
72 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
|
|
|
|
