Subject:
|
Re: The Great Ball Contraption
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 7 Jan 2005 17:47:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5507 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, David Koudys wrote:
> To clarify--are we allowed to use 2 'module spaces' if
> we want?
Really, the only thing defining a "module space" is a flat L & R edge, and no
part of the module extending more than 32 studs from the front edge of the input
bin "zone" - the footprint need not be remotely rectangular, nor is there a set
distance between the L & R edges. We suggest 32 or 48 stud widths, as that's the
standard baseplates that people are likely (not required!) to use, but it's a
suggestion only. Some of the modules in the first GBC setup are examples of this
"small is beautiful" thinking, and some are monsters - I know of one person
who's "module" is about 3' wide now, and I've got one that only just barely fits
on a 48x48 baseplate (& may grow larger).
And yes, build as many modules as you want. I've got two built, and 2-3
others partially built, and only one uses an RCX at this point.
> As well, I notice that the train ran along 'outside'
> the designated module area--is that allowed as well?
In the example GBC, there's actually a number of "non-standard" things -
first, the train (nominally it runs "behind" the long line of modules, and was a
way for Steve to "close the loop"), and second there are two module that turn
corners, allowing the (standard-defined) linear GBC to wrap more neatly on the
tabletop.
Right Now, the idea is a "linear" standard, but obviously we're thinking (&
building!) beyond this. But we're trying to stick to the linear standard so that
we can ensure *every* builder can participate. Obviously some modules may be
designed to turn corners or otherwise "break" the standard (& fit the entire GBC
in one room?), but to ensure that the device as a whole can work the standard is
semi-limited right now.
One other possible limitation not mentioned in the document as yet - we don't
know if this would be on the floor or a line of tables (or both). If it's
tables, there will be a maximum depth to the module, but we don't know what that
is. This is one of the reasons for the suggestion that modules be wider than
they are deep.
Even they battery-box options are huge, and a lot of fun - we previewed one
of these at the Cantigny show near Chicago, and it was a big hit, especially
with kids. Although I should add that the sound of tens of falling, bouncing
soccerballs can drive NLSO's slightly batty.
--
Brian Davis
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption
|
| (...) I'll point out that the standard as it's defined pictorially allows for a non-linear layout just as it stands. As long as the input in in the correct place relative to the previous block's output, and the output is placed correctly relative to (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption
|
| (...) The standard doesn't explain this very well, because I'm really not sure how to write it. A module can be any size, but the input and output should be on opposite sides, with the front of the input being no more than 32 studs from the back of (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Great Ball Contraption
|
| (...) To clarify--are we allowed to use 2 'module spaces' if we want? As well, I notice that the train ran along 'outside' the designated module area--is that allowed as well? Do we then have to get permission from our neighbouring module owners to (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
94 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
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Robotics
|
|
|
|
|
|
