Subject:
|
Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:29:34 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Steve Baker <sjbaker1@airmailSAYNOTOSPAM.net>
|
Viewed:
|
3472 times
|
| |
|
|
John Hansen wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, Dean Hystad wrote:
> Explain to me how good programming compensates for a robot that can't travel
> straight...
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 rotation out of each sensor - adjusting motor power until the two
counts read the same thing. This requires a little software sophistication.
The mechanical means to make a robot drive straight is to use a differential
mechanism that has one motor driving both wheels forward at the same speed
and another motor driving them in opposite directions. This kind of robot
drives straight even with the most stupidly simplistic software. You still
need two rotation sensors - one to tell you how far you've driven and another
to tell you how much you've turned - but the software is now a LOT simpler.
Either of these approaches could produce a winning robot that would drive
in nice straight lines and turn as desired. Both need two motors and two
sensors.
One uses mechanical sophistication, the other uses software sophistication.
Who is to say which is 'better'?
These two styles of play are equally valid - but FLL, by forcing kids who
are good at software to use less than the best available tools, are heavily
biassing the solution towards one that doesn't complicate the software - but
which DOES complicate the mechanical side of things.
However, if the rules are biassed towards the clever mechanical solution
and against the clever software solution - then that (in my opinion) is
a BAD robotics competition because in the real world, either solution
might have suited the problem space. Allowing more 'traditional' software
tools such as NQC goes a long way to rectifying that issue.
In real world robots, the solutions almost always involve the simplest possible
hardware and more complex software because hardware wears out and needs replacing
and costs money to mass produce - where software (once debugged) runs forever
and costs nothing to replicate as many times as you need.
> > 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.
Yep - I'm one of those. The kids I've worked with grew up learning C and NQC
(because they program other things than just Lego robots - and RIS and Robolab
are useless for anything beyond the narrow confines of Lego). My kids are
simply unable to compete in FLL - so we don't enter.
> 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.
Right. I can't share my knowledge of RIS or Robolab because I don't have anywhere
like enough expertise in either package to teach them.
> 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).
You are also missing out on the fact that some of the existing teams would prefer
to use NQC if it were allowed - and in my opinion, the quality of the software
that those teams put out would be better. That would generally raise the level
of the contest and make it much more like the real world of practical robotics.
---------------------------- Steve Baker -------------------------
HomeEmail: <sjbaker1@airmail.net> WorkEmail: <sjbaker@link.com>
HomePage : http://www.sjbaker.org
Projects : http://plib.sf.net http://tuxaqfh.sf.net
http://tuxkart.sf.net http://prettypoly.sf.net
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
GCS d-- s:+ a+ C++++$ UL+++$ P--- L++++$ E--- W+++ N o+ K? w--- !O M-
V-- PS++ PE- Y-- PGP-- t+ 5 X R+++ tv b++ DI++ D G+ e++ h--(-) r+++ y++++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
| 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
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
