Subject:
|
Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:52:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3437 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, Dean Hystad wrote:
> 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 programming will usually defeat robots that are more sophisticated
> mechanically, but have weak programming. And I base this observation on
> mentoring more than a dozen teams and judging at over 20 tournaments during the
> last 5 years.
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
direction of travel then you must admit that the program is ultimately dependant
on input from mechanical sources, be they rotation sensors, light sensors, or
touch sensors - all of which need to be positioned in a fashion so as to produce
meaningful output. It was when my team tried to incorporate a rotation sensor
into our existing design that all heck broke loose, just as an example.
> And if it really bothers you that NQC isn't allowed in FLL, get involved again,
> as a volunteer. I'm sure that the FLL organization in your state would be
> ecstatic to have a volunteer with your credentials. Bitching here may make you
> feel better, but it won't do any good. FLL is small enough that it is very easy
> to make your voice heard.
I brought up the language issue with FLL both years that I coached a team.
There was no consideration or discussion. My attempts to pursuade were ignored.
But I'm not "[b]itching here". I'm attempting (again) to put forth the logical
arguments for changing the rules.
> I rather doubt the volunteer pool would change all that much. You appear to be
> under the false assumption that AFOL's show an interest in FLL. Sadly it is my
> experience that this is not the case. Volunteers and coaches are most likely to
> be teachers and parents, with a good mix of engineers thrown into the mix. That
> there is an untapped pool of NQC loving AFOL talent just waiting for a rule
> change is crazy. You don't volunteer for FLL because you like LEGO and
> Mindstorms. You volunteer because you like kids.
I think you underestimate the number of AFOLs who like kids and like LEGO
robotics but who have no desire to learn how to use RIS or Robolab and, as a
result, are less inclined to volunteer. There is certainly an untapped pool of
AFOLs who know NQC and would love to mentor or coach an FLL team in order to
share their knowledge with kids. It is hard to say for sure how many more
adults would be interested in volunteering if the rules allowed for NQC but I
don't think you can rationally argue that its size is zero (or even small enough
to dismiss as inconsequential).
A rule change to allow non-LEGO programming tools that target the standard LEGO
firmware would certainly not decrease the pool of adult volunteers and in all
likelihood it would increase it at least somewhat. And, as I've argued earlier,
it would also likely increase somewhat the pool of kids interested in
participating. Isn't that a good thing?
John Hansen
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
| (...) 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)
|
114 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
