Subject:
|
Re: 3T
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.us.laflrc
|
Date:
|
Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:27:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1130 times
|
| |
|
|
On Mon, December 12, 2005 9:31 am, John Brost wrote:
> This is how I would like to see the board layout...
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=1524507.
That's a really good picture. I agree that we only need to allow the space on the
side, not in front/back.
> Permanent connections would be allowed to the playing field in the "neutral
> zone" or common area as long as they are no taller than 1 brick and 1 plate
> high.
Right.
> My 3T update:
>
> Yesterday my robot dropped its first cube fully automatically in a game for the
> first time and even played an couple whole games.
Very cool. It sounds like you're ahead of the rest of us.
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
9 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
|
|
|
|
