Subject:
|
Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:18:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3360 times
|
| |
|
|
> 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.
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 competition didn't even have an active manipulator. And they had
to shoot a basket, retrieve eye glasses, put a CD in a CD case, and set a table
for dinner!
Once you have a robot that is mechanically capable of performing the tasks, most
of the remaining difficulties have to do with accurate navigation. It is here
that the robots with better programming start to shine.
> 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.
Comments from coaches, even if they are only meant to be constructive, are
viewed with suspicion. There will be a bias that your comments are meant to
improve the chances of success for your team. This bias goes away when you are
a volunteer and have nothing to gain. Get involved again, you'll be suprised
how quickly you influence can grow.
> But I'm not "[b]itching here". I'm attempting (again) to put forth the logical
> arguments for changing the rules.
I guess I view complaining, even if it is done logically, without any chance for
persuasion as bitching. This is the wrong forum for your arguments. I suppose
you could use LUGNET as a conduit for some grass roots campaign to introduce
rule changes, but that will require organization, not just posting.
> 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?
More participation is a good thing. Let's start with you. Then we can add Mark
Tarrabain, Stephen Johnson, John Barnes, etc... That would be truely a great
thing.
Dean Hystad
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
