Subject:
|
Re: Bump switches and "aggression"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 Dec 2003 03:46:34 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Rob Limbaugh <RLIMBAUGH@GREENFIELDGROUPstopspam.COM>
|
Viewed:
|
1894 times
|
| |
|
|
Finally, I think I see the point to the
360-degree-all-purpose-bump-sensor...
I was preparing a comment about putting a bot with only one bump sensor into
an empty, small (two-foot) diameter arena and wait for it to get stuck...
Then I realized that it would only get stuck if the behavior is always a
predictable avoidance routine (i.e. - reverse direction and turn).
Using what is stated in various posts of this thread, we have the following
knowns:
* the bot's only external sense is touch
* Response to touch is randomized
* Cannot differentiate between aggressive touch or obstacle
* No way to tell touch direction
* Aggressor must always assumed to be present, even if it is not
So, if the bot was moving along, oblivious to it's surroundings and a "bump"
occured, one of the random responses could be to run in the direction of the
bump (since we have no way of knowing which side the bump occurred on). If
the bot is alone, then the response matters little because eventually the
randomization will tell the bot to back up. But, if the bot was bumped by
an aggressor, then the response becomes important to survival.
Everyone is correct. One sensor could be used to trigger a randomized
flight behavior. Multiple sensors can be used to choose a more appropriate
response to an environment.
Personally, I find multiple bump sensors the way to go. In software, I can
make their significance be whatever I want. I also think that dice-roll
decision making would decrease the chance surviving aggression.
- Rob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Choate" <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
To: <lego-robotics@crynwr.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: Bump switches and "aggression"
>
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, David Koudys wrote:
>
> > I'm very new to this particular thread, but I like Gordon's
> > approach--directional sensors are needed. If I'm travelling forward and
> > something bumps me from behind, I need to know that
>
> Actually you don't, you want a different level of sensors to evaluate the
> environment (eg ir object sensors).
>
> You're just complicating your design by putting too many functions on each
> layer of sensors.
>
> For example, something bumps you from behind indicates an -active-
> envornment-, something the vast majority of Lego's don't do. They're the
> only bot on the field. If you are in an active environ then having that
> sort of bump response isn't going to do you anygood. I'll leave the actual
> exercise of working through the 4 combinations as an exercise.
>
> -- --
>
> Open Forge, LLC 24/365 Onsite Support for PCs, Networks, & Game Consoles
> 512-695-4126 (Austin, Tx.) help@open-forge.com irc.open-forge.com
>
> Hangar 18 Open Source Distributed Computing Using Plan 9 & Linux
> 512-451-7087 http://open-forge.org/hangar18 irc.open-forge.org
>
> James Choate 512-451-7087 ravage@ssz.com jchoate@open-forge.com
>
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Bump switches and "aggression"
|
| "Rob Limbaugh" <lego-robotics@crynwr.com> wrote in message news:004201c3c2be$0a...markera... (...) can (...) How can I attach lets say 4 switches so the make a binary code, (4switches should need only two ports). I want to have one switch on each (...) (21 years ago, 15-Dec-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Bump switches and "aggression"
|
| (...) Actually you don't, you want a different level of sensors to evaluate the environment (eg ir object sensors). You're just complicating your design by putting too many functions on each layer of sensors. For example, something bumps you from (...) (21 years ago, 13-Dec-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
60 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
|
|
|
|
