 | | Re: 3T Board Change Suggestion
|
|
UNCLE - I give up - okay already - now I just want to kick all of your butts in the competition :) Just because I didn't show up on January 2nd... I see how you are :) (...) Just goes to show that there was an error in the board design. If the board (...) (19 years ago, 9-Jan-06, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: 3T Board Change Suggestion
|
|
In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Brian Davis wrote: -snip- (...) On the hardware side, the biggest change is that my cube magazine now moves side-to-side with the RCX/arm carriage assembly. The arm is still the only thing that moves out over the playing (...) (19 years ago, 9-Jan-06, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: 3T Board Change Suggestion
|
|
Well, I just got back from my ski trip. I read quite a few e-mail while I was gone, but I have over 200 NXT e-mails still waiting. As to the tiles in the bottom of the 3T board... (...) The first problem I see with adding tiles is that it will (...) (19 years ago, 9-Jan-06, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: 3T Board Change Suggestion
|
|
(...) It's a good point. For one thing, for anybody who wants to use a light sensor to "look" at the cells, the bottom would have to be a standard color. And on top of that, each board would require nine 1x1 ties of the chosen color. Tough. (...) (...) (19 years ago, 9-Jan-06, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: 3T Board Change Suggestion
|
|
(...) Nudging the cubes was part of the original discussion as I remember it, with the idea that it would be used *if needed* for the *first cut*. Ultimately, I think all the robots should function within the tightest spec possible, which is why I (...) (19 years ago, 9-Jan-06, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: 3T Board Change Suggestion
|
|
(...) Wait a minute... You guys are willing to accept a human "nudge" of a cube as part of the spec, and you call adding tiles making the challenge easier?? I guess I don't see a human nudge as an acceptable part fo robot operation. Especially when (...) (19 years ago, 8-Jan-06, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: 3T Board Change Suggestion
|
|
Well, in the very first iteration of the board proposal I actually did have tiles in the bases of each square. But Steve had me take them out because he didn't figure anybody would have that many tiles. I'm willing to defer to everybody else's (...) (19 years ago, 8-Jan-06, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: 3T Board Change Suggestion
|
|
(...) True, but... I guess my main concern is that as it stands, everybodies can work (I think) with an occassional nudge or human touch to "correct" a cube. And we said that would be OK, for at least the first trial. I don't see a reason to make (...) (19 years ago, 8-Jan-06, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: 3T Board Change Suggestion
|
|
(...) Either way, tiles at the bottom of the cell would allow the robot to "push" the cube back in the hole so it isn't cocked. (...) My robot also supposedly has .5 stud accuracy..but :) (...) Dropping cubes on their sides does not overcome this (...) (19 years ago, 8-Jan-06, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: 3T Board Change Suggestion
|
|
(...) Well, there was one robot that didn't have this problem too much. The one picture of a cube mysteriously perched on edge next to a board is not doctored - *somehow* my robot just clipped the cube as it left the board, rolling it out of the (...) (19 years ago, 8-Jan-06, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | 3T Board Change Suggestion
|
|
In the posts regarding the get together for 3T, it was mentioned that all the robots had a few issues getting cubes to sit flat in the holes. I have spent a lot of effort to tweak my drop locating method so that it hits the holes perfectly. What I (...) (19 years ago, 7-Jan-06, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: 3T
|
|
(...) My robot also basically rests on a 32x32 plate...I have an extension off the back more for some stability than anything else. (...) Good news - I also have a low riding front end and can help Steve outflank the Vikings at the next get (...) (19 years ago, 7-Jan-06, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: Creating a GBC for a train layout
|
|
(...) Well, if the GMLTC 8-wide trains were involved, it would definitely be "mutilate, in a spectacular crash"... (URL) Here's one of my 8-wide locos> But, I'd suggest just go with what works for you. If an 8-wide train doesn't work, don't run (...) (19 years ago, 6-Jan-06, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc, lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Creating a GBC for a train layout
|
|
In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Timothy Gould wrote: -SNIP- (...) Here's a link to the rendering of the train car we're asking about. (URL) The blue 2x2 round bricks slung between the train wheel sets is what we're concerned about. In this 6-wide train (...) (19 years ago, 6-Jan-06, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc, lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Creating a GBC for a train layout
|
|
--SNIPPED-- (...) I can't answer the question but it might be useful if you could do up a CAD diagram of the sensor and train mechanisms for easy reference. I'm afraid I can't really understand what you mean here. It would also give a way of (...) (19 years ago, 5-Jan-06, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc, lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Creating a GBC for a train layout
|
|
[crossposting to .trains to get some feedback, so limit LafLRC discussion to on-topic on this thread] (...) I don't know, but it's a question that we might like answered before we go too much further with this. Understand we can always limit things (...) (19 years ago, 5-Jan-06, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc, lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Creating a GBC for a train layout
|
|
(...) If we stay with the current 6-wide cars that we have (with the 8-wide sensing mechanism) would there be a problem with other 8-wide trains triggering the touch sensors and triggering the GBC sidings? I can't remember much about the 8-wide (...) (19 years ago, 5-Jan-06, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: Creating a GBC for a train layout
|
|
(...) The latest idea was to have one RCX control train detection and switching (off the main line) for up to three stations and have another RCX for each station (load/unload/train-control) Each "siding" RCX would have to make sure it doesn't put (...) (19 years ago, 4-Jan-06, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: Creating a GBC for a train layout
|
|
(...) Well, I've got 50, but I get your point. At just 20 cents a ball off-the-shelf at Meijers, they're not too bad compared to soccer balls on Bricklink... except that we already have 1000's of soccer balls in circulation free. (...) A very good (...) (19 years ago, 4-Jan-06, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: Creating a GBC for a train layout
|
|
(...) You need to drop the idea of using the "Horta eggs". Unless you can suppily enough for everyone to replace the soccer balls. Mixing the really nice, realistic balls (which are a different size) with soccer balls will only cause the stream of (...) (19 years ago, 4-Jan-06, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
