 | | Re: 3T
|
|
(...) For the time being, I'm sticking with Mindscript. Steve gave me a couple of ideas on combining & re-using some code so I didn't have quite so many if statements to nest. I had already spend significant time writing Mindscript code, so I (...) (19 years ago, 12-Dec-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: 3T
|
|
(...) Maybe you could generate an image of the top-view, and overlay the zones... (...) Each builder would be allowed to build four plates high in the four stud neutral zone on their [right] side. Correct? (...) Yes. I wanted to post that. And, I (...) (19 years ago, 12-Dec-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (19 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 (19 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 (...) (19 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 (...) (19 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 (...) (19 years ago, 11-Dec-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: 3T
|
|
In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Bryan wrote (through Steve Hassenplug): (...) I've been assuming that everything outside the 27x27 area on the opponent side ("top") and the left side are OOB. I'm willing to relax that, as it makes some things very tricky (...) (19 years ago, 11-Dec-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: 3T
|
|
(...) well then, instead of light, why not use touch? its only a 3x3 board. you know were you put your blocks, do what I did for project X, and what Steve copied for C$. Press until your at a point you know there is or is not a block. When it comes (...) (19 years ago, 8-Dec-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: 3T
|
|
(...) Yeah, that would probably make it work. Only a couple problems with it. (1) I don't have a lego light (big problem) (2) if I had a lego light, I'd have to get power out on the 35+ stud long arm that moves in and out over the playing board (...) (19 years ago, 8-Dec-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: 3T
|
|
(...) John, Do me a quick favor, quickly mount a lego light right on top of your light sensor and "aim" it at your blocks. You might find that solves your problem. Chris (19 years ago, 7-Dec-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: 3T
|
|
(...) Actually, I do have a robot. It seems to be working well, except I need to add some electronics. You know, like motors & sensors. (...) Right. Steve (19 years ago, 7-Dec-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: 3T
|
|
In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Brian Davis wrote: -snip- (...) Yes, you have complete & total control of that area at ALL times. You could build a big wall of bricks there if you wanted. John (19 years ago, 7-Dec-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: 3T
|
|
(...) OK, now that's annoying. I just spent this afternoon culling the System bricks for enough black & white to just build the board. I really haven't thought about the coding yet, as I usually build the robot first. I'll have to think about the (...) (19 years ago, 7-Dec-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: 3T
|
|
(...) Well that tells me that your line following programs are WAAAAAY too intricate! Oh wait, no, probably not. By the way, I did some more testing last night. I'm finding it near impossible to use a light sensor and tell the difference between a (...) (19 years ago, 7-Dec-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | 3T
|
|
So, I have a program written for my Tic Tac Toe robot. I haven't tested it, yet, because I don't have a robot. :) The really odd part is that the program is about half the size of the line following program I used last month at Chibots. I still need (...) (19 years ago, 7-Dec-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: 3T
|
|
Bryan doesn't know how to post to LUGNET, so he asked me to post this for him... (...) See if this page answers your questions: (URL) (19 years ago, 5-Dec-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: recommendations on new programming language for RCX
|
|
(...) --snip-- (...) Thanks, everybody for all the suggestions. I'll probably start trying to work with NQC soon. Chris, like you I like Mindscript, but I was at 48 nested ifs, and that was only sastifying the case "if I could win", i.e. I had 2 in (...) (19 years ago, 4-Dec-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: recommendations on new programming language for RCX
|
|
(...) snip (...) If you know C, then NQC would be perfect for you. It meets the needs you suggested ~IF~ you install it under a brickCC GUI As a big fan of Mindscript, and the guy who programmed a Project X robot with 64 nested if's, I'd say that (...) (19 years ago, 3-Dec-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: recommendations on new programming language for RCX
|
|
(...) Waaay ahead of me. I'm still trying to clean up enough LEGO so I have parts to build another GBCm (I really want a good tosser, but I fear I'll need to resort to buggy motors). (...) I don't know enough about Mindscript to help I fear. I can (...) (19 years ago, 3-Dec-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
