 | | 3T Board Change Suggestion —Bryan Bonahoom
|
| | | 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 Board Change Suggestion —Brian Davis
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 3T Board Change Suggestion —Bryan Bonahoom
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Brian Davis
|
| | | | (...) 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 —John Brost
|
| | | | | 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 —Brian Davis
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 —Bryan Bonahoom
|
| | | | | | | 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 —Steve Hassenplug
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) We need to remind Kerby to also vote "no"... :) (...) Not a problem. We understand why you made the decision. :) (...) And, you know, also. (...) Much better. Now the robot will only lose 1 in 10, instead of 1 in 2... :) We've been talking (...) (19 years ago, 9-Jan-06, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: 3T Board Change Suggestion —Brian Davis
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Fair enough. As it stands right now, my robot is best suited to entertaining the kids while the "real" competitors fight it out :-). (...) True: and if we had used 3x3 cubes, I could have fit it in a smaller package :-). Personally, I wouldn't (...) (19 years ago, 9-Jan-06, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: 3T Board Change Suggestion —Bryan Bonahoom
|
| | | | | | | | I still might construct a 6x6 cell version of the board for use with kids (if my robot is easily adaptable. This would probably improve my drop reliability to about 100%... I actually sat and played 23 games without modifying the robot last night. (...) (19 years ago, 10-Jan-06, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: 3T Board Change Suggestion —John Brost
|
| | | | | | 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 —Bryan Bonahoom
|
| | | | | | | (...) When does the robot need to be ready? Has a final date for competition been set yet? Bryan (19 years ago, 9-Jan-06, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: 3T Board Change Suggestion —Brian Davis
|
| | | | | | (...) It sounds like the carriage has become a castle. Is there still room for a minifig guard on the fortress wall :) ? (...) I hear you. Next time if we really need color distinguishablility, we test first. (...) so... you still used the same (...) (19 years ago, 9-Jan-06, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 3T Board Change Suggestion —Bryan Bonahoom
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Brian Davis
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Steve Hassenplug
|
| | | | 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)
|
| | | | |
