Subject:
|
Re: FLL not allowing NQC
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 7 Mar 2005 03:39:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
773 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, Mr S <szinn_the1@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There were not many who got to run in the first DARPA
> grand challenge, but I bet they all think the rules
> were fair?
I took a hard look at the rules for the last DARPA competition.
That was then I discovered that it is a shining example of a highly biased
competition.
You cannot just show up and compete. You can only compete if you can demonstrate
that your entry is of "original or novel design".
So you can't stick a GPS on a bulldozer and watch it got from A to B. Sad. 'cos
I had a bulldozer lined up to go :( And I work for a company that does vehicle
navigation.
Ok I'll admit this is a bit off topic, an RCX wasn't going to make it as the
CPU.
JB
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | RE: FLL not allowing NQC
|
| Actually, I had spent some time musing whether RCXs in tandem could be used for the DARPA competition (haven't looked at the rules, tho), because I was wondering if this would be a fun challenge for an advanced class... If Labview can run the Mars (...) (20 years ago, 7-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC
|
| As far as I am concerned, you can quote me. My view is that anything that isn't against the rules is allowable, and the rules are the rules. If you don't think they are fair, ask for them to be chaanged or go to other competitions. There were not (...) (20 years ago, 7-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
3 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
|
|
|
|
