Subject:
|
Re: GBC does nothing for me
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sun, 27 Feb 2005 22:20:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1404 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, Steve Baker <sjbaker1@airmail.net> wrote:
> Mark Bellis wrote:
> > Steve Lane wrote: [Ed]
> > > So what I thought I'd do is to construct a fantasy specification of an
> > > alternative to GBC. Somthing diametrically opposed to gbc.
> > >
> > > ~ GBC is
> > > ~ So the alternative is
> > >
> > > ~ Random (balls roll around)
> > > ~ Linear
> > >
> > > ~ Repetative (same action over again)
> > > ~ Random (note 1)
> > >
> > > ~ balls
> > > ~ blocks (2x2)
> > >
> > > ~ Fast
> > > ~ Slow
> > >
> > > ~ Imprecise
> > > ~ Precise
> > >
> > > ~ Noisy
> > > ~ Quiet
> > >
> > > ~ Cheap
> > > ~ Expensive (Lots of RCX's)
>
> But these are all things that makes GBC ideal for it's application
> as a mass-appeal event.
>
> * Random not linear...
> Allowing laxity over ball arrival times allows for more
> variety in the way mechanisms work - which gives a much
> higher chance that 100 machines made by 50 people who never
> met before will actually play together.
>
> * Repetitive not random...
> If you are running this at a show, people are not going to
> stand around for hours waiting for something interesting to
> happen. A basically repetitive machine won't get boring because
> people aren't going to be standing there watching for hours on
> end - at most, they'll watch each module for a few tens of seconds
> and move on. If there is something a module does that isn't aparrent
> in just a few seconds of viewing, it's wasted effort from a showmanship
> perspective. Also, if it's repetitive, you'll find bugs in it more
> easily. With a random machine, it could run OK during testing
> then fail repeatedly and annoyingly throughout the actual show because
> it's doing something random that you hadn't thought of.
>
> * Balls not blocks...
> Balls can be grasped and slid around - but they also roll. Blocks
> can slide and be picked up - but they aren't very 'animate' by
> themselves. Also, the rotational symmetry of balls make them
> MUCH easier to deal with.
>
> * Fast not slow...
> Makes it more visually appealing.
>
> * Imprecise not precise...
> That's necessary in order that a bunch of machines made to simple
> specifications will work together.
>
> * Noisy not Quiet...
> Again - it makes a better demonstration - and it allows for more
> variety. I *can* make a machine that moves the balls around
> noiselessly - but if I want to throw them around, I can. More
> variety equals good.
>
> * Cheap not Expensive...
> Better because more people can participate - and because (again),
> it gives you more variety. I can make a simple, but elegant machine
> that runs off a battery box and one motor - or something fiendishly
> complex with half a dozen cooperative RCX's and piles of motors and
> sensors. This allows a technics neophyte with just a couple of
> technics sets to participate.
>
> All of the decisions the GBC enforces make for more participation and
> more audience appreciation. That's important for a big show that the
> general public can come to and anyone can contribute a module to.
>
> Doing things the way you suggest makes for an elitist system that very
> few people would contribute too - that would be hard to get running
> reliably and which would be much less exciting to look at.
>
> That doesn't mean that your idea is 'wrong' - it's just wrong for a
> big public show.
>
> ---------------------------- Steve Baker -------------------------
Your reply, with quotes attributed to me, contained none of my words! These
were Steve Lane's suggestions. Please take care when quoting others. I merely
build something that fits a few of the contrary suggestions, simply because
building pneumatic robots is one of my niches.
As I said before, I have nothing against GBC and have experimented with it
myself. In fact I was waiting for years for someone to do it, since it is such
an obvious thing to do with Lego robots. I have seen how GBC is good for team
participation and exhibition. This raises the same problem as with train shows
- you must never let the shows overtake the enjoyment of the hobby for what it
is. I have enough trouble with self-set 6-month deadlines for my own train
layout, let alone group-set deadlines for building modules that will work with
others' contructions! I firmly believe in keeping my promises, so I don't take
on any deadlines unless I am certain to achieve them.
If you look at my Brickshelf:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?m=mbellis
you will see that I am the sort of person who likes to set their own standards
:-) Trains to an almost-unique scale, for instance.
Mark
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: GBC does nothing for me
|
| (...) My humble apologies - a slip of the editor. ---...--- Steve Baker ---...--- HomeEmail: <sjbaker1@airmail.net> WorkEmail: <sjbaker@link.com> HomePage : (URL) : (4 URLs) GEEK CODE BLOCK----- GCS d-- s:+ a+ C++++$ UL+++$ P--- L++++$ E--- W+++ N (...) (20 years ago, 28-Feb-05, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: GBC does nothing for me
|
| On Sun, February 27, 2005 10:20 pm, Mark Bellis said: <snip...> (...) Actually - I have to say, I find your examples of custom parts very interesting. Given the number of times I have thought that I wish Lego had made a brick like that.. I wonder if (...) (20 years ago, 28-Feb-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: GBC does nothing for me
|
| (...) But these are all things that makes GBC ideal for it's application as a mass-appeal event. * Random not linear... Allowing laxity over ball arrival times allows for more variety in the way mechanisms work - which gives a much higher chance (...) (20 years ago, 27-Feb-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
11 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
|
|
|
|
