Subject:
|
Re: The Great Ball Contraption
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 Jan 2005 02:56:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5713 times
|
| |
|
|
> Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com> wrote on 01/09/2005 04:20:10 PM:
>
> > To that end, you need a specification for a "Y" module, which has two
> > output faces. Also for a module which has two input faces! And a
> > module which is a 90-turning corner and a 270-turning corner. It's
> > pretty obvious what's needed for them; it just needs to be written down.
>
> Or not: leave the standard as it is (except for specifying that the space
> above the input belongs to the previous module), and have the organizers
> build (or specificially request) out-of-spec modules to accomplish this.
Or create other "Types" That's the long-term plan.
Of course, any GBC that uses some of these other module types will require
considerabily more planning prior to set-up, and it will also make the whole
contraption less tolerant to the "weak-link" modules.
For example, if the whole contraption is laid out, and the splitter module doesn't
function, the whole contraption will not be able to run.
> That way, you don't have to worry about too many Y's and not enough
> straight pieces! :)
Yes, that's something to consider. It's possible everyone would create a 90 degree
left-hand turn. Then what? :)
>
> Here we're talking about moving, intelligent systems that I'm sure make a
> number of assumptions that will not be easy to reconfigure on the fly.
> Hence, having a specification that allows those assumptions be made with a
> minimum of fuss seems like a strong point, not something that needs
> adjustment...
right.
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption
|
| (...) I think you can handle this with a little care in the design of the rules. If the table you are setting it up on is deep enough to permit it, you could always use four 90 degree pieces in a LEFT/RIGHT/RIGHT/LEFT sequence to keep the overall (...) (19 years ago, 9-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Great Ball Contraption
|
| Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com> wrote on 01/09/2005 04:20:10 PM: (...) Or not: leave the standard as it is (except for specifying that the space above the input belongs to the previous module), and have the organizers build (or specificially (...) (19 years ago, 9-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
|
|
|
|
