 | | Re: 3T
|
| (...) Agreed on both points - thanks for doing the graphics, John. (...) What if two robots both want to make "permanent connections" to the same areas of the neutral space, and they go head-to-head? I'm not sure I see how anything other than a flat (...) (21 years ago, 12-Dec-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
| | | | | Re: 3T
|
| (...) side, not in front/back. (...) Right. (...) Very cool. It sounds like you're ahead of the rest of us. Steve (21 years ago, 12-Dec-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
| | | | | Re: 3T
|
| This weekend we discussed adding the additional 4-studs of clearance to the side, the back, and/or both. Which is it? For my purely selfish reasons, I'd like no additional clearance requirements on the back (my side of the board) but the side would (...) (21 years ago, 12-Dec-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
| | | | | Re: 3T
|
| (...) Ok, if that works for Bryan and the rest. Of course, after you posted... (...) ...you *know* that I'm going to try to minimize the footprint as much as possible. Sigh... I'm already keeping it to a single RCX. Sure, what's another constraint (...) (21 years ago, 12-Dec-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
| | | | | Re: 3T
|
| (...) Eight studs from the last cube should be ok. Right now, the board already has four, so another four would be all right. I have mine built within the four stud area, but I know some of you guys will need the extra space. (...) I'll talk with (...) (21 years ago, 11-Dec-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
|
