 | | 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)
|
