 | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed —Dean Hystad
|
| | | Hell, let's just switch over to a meritocracy. We can imprison the inept and get it all over with. Who gets to decide whom has merit? In no way does LEGO or FIRST try to level the playing field by constraining anyone's abilities. They constrain the (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed —John Hansen
|
| | | | (...) Because any language that targets the standard LEGO firmware on an RCX brick can not result in any competitive advantage while the other examples you cite clearly would lead to an unlevel playing field. LEGO already provides a language choice (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | snipping somewhat freely... (...) Given these two statements, why are argue so much about whether or not teams can use NQC? Being able to use NQC won't make any difference to the resultant program, being able to use NQC won't make any difference to (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed —Dean Hystad
|
| | | | | (...) Of course you won't be successful if you're inept (not saying you are inept) at any aspect of robot building, be it mechanical design, programming, or (especially) mission planning. But I still say that a fairly simple robot with some good (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed —John Hansen
|
| | | | | | (...) Explain to me how good programming compensates for a robot that can't travel straight or that has no mechanical means for completing the mission objectives? If by good programming you mean that the program checks sensors to adjust the (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed —Mark Tarrabain
|
| | | | | | | (...) And in the process, could possibly _decrease_ the number of kids participating, who may feel that it's out of their league. Can you really say with certainty that wouldn't happen? Even if you think you can, I'll bet that LEGO and FLL aren't (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed —Dean Hystad
|
| | | | | | | (...) No programming can compensate for a robot that hasn't mechanical means for completing the mission objectives. But it doesn't take a very sophisticated robot to complete the objectives in the competitions. Many of the teams I saw at this years (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed —Steve Baker
|
| | | | | | (...) Well, you can build a two-wheeled robot in two ways. The naive, simplistic way is to put a motor and rotation sensor on each wheel and drive both motors forward and use software to figure out when the robot isn't getting the same amount of (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed —Steve Hassenplug
|
| | | | | | | On Fri, March 11, 2005 10:29 am, Steve Baker said: (...) Do you mean kids that are good at software, or good with NQC? And exactly what is "the best available tool"? I assume you're claiming that NQC is the best tool for FLL. While it may be true (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed —Rob Antonishen
|
| | | | | | (...) Boy I am tired of hearing "Robolab has no real world value" Robolab is based on National Instruments Labview product... (URL) which is used globaly by many scientists and engineers for "real world" solutions...like robotics control, test and (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed —Jon Gilchrist
|
| | | | (...) The issue is not "competitive advantage." The issue is whether or not it is a product of LEGO. You can use any computer you want (Dell, IBM, Gateway, etc.) because LEGO doesn't build computers. But they do offer programming environments that (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed —Steve Baker
|
| | | | (...) 1) As several people have pointed out, Lego *do* (somewhat indirectly) 'sell' NQC by providing it on CD-ROM in one of their books and as a CD sold via Pittsco-Dacta. 2) We can use Dell computers because Lego don't make computers. Why can't we (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed —Ralph Hempel
|
| | | | | All, I've been folllowing this thread with a lot of interest, and as the author of pbForth - yet another Mindstorms programming language I'd like to weigh in on this subject. You have to remember that FLL is all about engineering and tinkering. I (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed —Dean Hystad
|
| | | | | | | In lugnet.robotics, Ralph Hempel wrote: <snip> (...) This has been my experience. Being in a room full of kids who are all jazzed up on technology, math and science is wonderous. Listening to a kid describe how she discovered subroutines is (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed —Steve Baker
|
| | | | | | | (...) The guys at NASA *are* undoubtedly very smart at working around problems - but that's a REALLY poor example (and I know everyone uses it). If you look at what they actually came up with, it boils down to using some available plastic and (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed —Claude Baumann
|
| | | | | | Hi friends, this really has been a most interesting thread about a theme that periodically reappears. I think there are a few things to underline. First of all, there is the idea of a contest that only makes sense, if restricting rules are set up to (...) (20 years ago, 12-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed —Steve Hassenplug
|
| | | | On Fri, March 11, 2005 11:03 am, Steve Baker said: (...) So, your son (sorry, I'm really not trying to attack your son) can create a sequence of steps using NQC. As we know, these steps are converted to op-codes. Robolab uses icons to represent the (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed —Steve Baker
|
| | | | I'm really tired of arguing this. Nobody's minds are being changed. I still think it's a trivial rule change for FLL to fix this and it's long past time that they opened their minds to NQC and other similar systems based on Java or Forth. Other (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed —Dean Hystad
|
| | | | | Steve, I forgot to add you to the list of those who should "Get off your butt and change it if it really bothers you". Your arguments are well thought out and reasonable. But what are you trying to accomplish? If you want a rule change, work to (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed —Steve Hassenplug
|
| | | | On Fri, March 11, 2005 12:48 pm, Steve Baker said: (...) And, those are the only options? Ok, but it's just not a trivial change. There are a few other topics we never even touched on, like who can you call to get support for NQC? Teams would assume (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed —Mark Tarrabain
|
| | | | (...) You see, interestingly enough... this is a sort of catch-22 for the people that want NQC allowed. If there is a huge advantage to NQC, people who don't use it might perceive other people using it as somehow unfair to them (even though it _is_ (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
