<R11> Dimension wrong?

[Paul Copioli]

All,

Ok so I was freaking out last night about this ridiculous restriction, but I noticed a discrepancy in the manual.

The Thunderchickens design in metric so we were looking at the metric dimensions in the table in <R11>. You English system designing teams have to stay within a 60" cylinder, but us metric designing teams get 213.4cm! For those of you that are reaching for your calculators, that is the equivalent of 84"!

In all seriousness, I will post a Q&A when it is up on Wednesday to ask which dimension is the real dimension. I am hoping for the 213.4cm.

Paul

[Cyberphil]

That is interesting. How could they possibly mess that up? That is a HUGE difference, and I would also prefer the 84 in!

Another great find in the manual!

[Vikesrock]

That is interesting. How could they possibly mess that up?

Especially puzzling given that the proper conversion is right there next to it for the starting height.

[MagiChau]

I am confused? I downloaded the nonencrypted 2011 manual and it shows the proper metric length of 152.4cm

[Vikesrock]

I am confused? I downloaded the nonencrypted 2011 manual and it shows the proper metric length of 152.4cm

For the maximum horizontal dimension of the playing configuration in the table that is part of rule <R11>?

I just double checked the individual Robot section and the complete unencrypted manuals and both have the discrepancy.

[dodar]

Ok, me and a teammate are discussing the 60" rule and we were wondering if you measure from the center of your robot and the center of the cylinder to anything extending out past your robot or from one end of the robot to the other end of whatever is extending out?

[MagiChau]

For the maximum horizontal dimension of the playing configuration in the table that is part of rule <R11>?

I just double checked the individual Robot section and the complete unencrypted manuals and both have the discrepancy.

Oh now I see it indeed, Playing Configuration & Maximum Horizontal Dimensions - 60" (213.4cm) diameter vertical right cylindrical volume

[big1boom]

Your robot must be able to fit inside of a theoretical cylinder. The cylinder is not fixed center to your robot.

[Vikesrock]

Ok, me and a teammate are discussing the 60" rule and we were wondering if you measure from the center of your robot and the center of the cylinder to anything extending out past your robot or from one end of the robot to the other end of whatever is extending out?

A note regarding this discussion: The way this rule is written in the 2011 manual makes it substantially different than the similar 2008 rule. In 2008 the cylinder was the example, in 2011 the cylinder is the definition of the rule.

As an answer to your question, my reading is that your robot must fit inside a 60" diameter right cylindrical volume while playing the game. Meaning if you had such a cylinder you should be able to place it over your robot without deforming any robot parts.

Your second definition is closer than the first, but still not accurate. An equilateral triangle with 60" edges laid flat on the ground would pass your second definition, but would not fit inside the cylinder.

[Katie_UPS]

Ok, me and a teammate are discussing the 60" rule and we were wondering if you measure from the center of your robot and the center of the cylinder to anything extending out past your robot or from one end of the robot to the other end of whatever is extending out?

Not from the center of your robot. The idea is that if you had a cylinder that is 60" in diameter, your robot would fit inside it in all configurations. Another way to think if it is that if you find the two points that are farthest away from eachother (horizontally), they would be no greater than 60" apart. That's a little confusing, but the best way to describe it.

[thefro526]

In all seriousness, I will post a Q&A when it is up on Wednesday to ask which dimension is the real dimension. I am hoping for the 213.4cm.


Paul, I am also hoping for the 213.4cm dimension, the 60" Cylinder gave us a quite a bit of grief in our initial discussions.

[nuggetsyl]

you better have some retractable arms if you want a mini bot with this 60 inch rule.

[thefro526]

you better have some retractable arms if you want a mini bot with this 60 inch rule.

Agreed, unless the rule isn't 60" and is, in fact, 84".

If it is 60", long based robots aren't going to be able to push there minibots out far at all... :(

[Brandon Holley]

Wasn't 84" cylinder the rule that was used in previous competitions? I believe 2008 most recently?

Could be left over from a rule change the GDC agreed on?

-Brando

[Richard Wallace]

At ~9:43 in the Game Demo Video (http://www.youtube.com/user/FIRSTWorldTube#p/c/F952898665788873/1/bk0QuuYLxqo) the example robot appears to exceed a 60" cylinder while deploying a mini-bot. Its ~15" wide sliding stage extends about 17" beyond its front bumper.

Then again, examples used in a demonstration might not adhere to all rules. The GDC will need to clarify the rule. Thanks, Paul, for catching the inconsistency between the stated inch and metric dimensions of the playing configuration limit.

[Trent B]

At ~9:43 in the Game Demo Video (http://www.youtube.com/user/FIRSTWorldTube#p/c/F952898665788873/1/bk0QuuYLxqo) the example robot appears to exceed a 60" cylinder while deploying a mini-bot. Its ~15" wide sliding stage extends about 17" beyond its front bumper.

Then again, examples used in a demonstration might not adhere to all rules. The GDC will need to clarify the rule. Thanks, Paul, for catching the inconsistency between the stated inch and metric dimensions of the playing configuration limit.

By my calculations of segments of circles in order for a 15" wide thing to fit in a 60" diameter circle it would have to be 1" from tangent with the circle, for a 28" wide robot the rear would have to be 3.5" from tangent with the circle thus the robot length would have to be overall about 55.5" long (60-1-3.5) 38+17 is 55" so it could be just inside the 60" diameter cylinder.

[Richard Wallace]

By my calculations of segments of circles in order for a 15" wide thing to fit in a 60" diameter circle it would have to be 1" from tangent with the circle, for a 28" wide robot the rear would have to be 3.5" from tangent with the circle thus the robot length would have to be overall about 55.5" long (60-1-3.5) 38+17 is 55" so it could be just inside the 60" diameter cylinder.My guesstimate of the slide extension was 17" beyond the front bumper, so your 55" would become ~57". So I think the example robot was just outside a 60" diameter cylinder. Either way, it's close.

[JohnHorton]

Under R11, playing configuration, the max horizontal dimensions are stated as:

60" (213.4cm) diameter vertical right cylindrical volume
(emphasis mine)

60" (and the correct metric conversion) is listed as the starting size. 213.4 cm is just about 84", so I wonder if the metric is correct, as that would sound reasonable. Otherwise, the bots will look like T. Rexes, huge bodies yet tiny arms.

[Karibou]

There's already another thread discussing this:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=994357#post994357

It's something that will have to be asked to the Q&A.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

There is a revised Robot rules on the First website
04- The Robot Rev-.pdf. the dimension gives 152.4 cm as the max dimension.

[Ricky Q.]

There is a revised Robot rules on the First website
04- The Robot Rev-.pdf. the dimension gives 152.4 cm as the max dimension.

I see 152.4 cm for max Starting Height but still see the discrepancy in Playing Config dimensions.

RQ

[Ricky Q.]

Threads merged.

[DonRotolo]

What is wrong with me?:confused:

38 inch robot plus 22 inch extension fits in a 60 inch cylinder. 22 inches seems like enough to get halfway across a 30 inch base.

Surely I am missing something here.

[Paul Copioli]

Don,

Your analysis is correct if your robot is <<1in wide otherwise:

Draw a 30 x 38 rectangle. Then draw a 60" diameter circle. Make two points of the robot coincident to the circle ... observe. Believe me, it is brutal.

Also remember that due to the bumper rule this year, any mechanism that tried to go all the way to the floor will have to do it around the bumper. You just lost another 3 inches.

Paul

[pfreivald]

...so maybe our minibots have to be deployed onto the base, find and attach to the tower themselves, and then climb/jump/shimmy...?

Yeah, this one looks a doozy!

[Elgin Clock]

Don,

Your analysis is correct if your robot is <<1in wide otherwise:

Draw a 30 x 38 rectangle. Then draw a 60" diameter circle. Make two points of the robot coincident to the circle ... observe. Believe me, it is brutal.


You mean like this??
http://i.imgur.com/HVWEt.png

Generously drawn up & provided by Arthur Dutra IV from FRC 228.
So... what's the issue?

[Chris is me]

So... what's the issue?

The space in front of the robot is barely enough for an end effector... if you're building in Inches. :)

[Karibou]

The space in front of the robot is barely enough for an end effector... if you're building in Inches. :)

Maybe FIRST is trying to tell us that metric is the way to go. Really, I can't blame them...

[Elgin Clock]

For reference in addition to the pic up above, it is 18.53" from the front of the bot to the edge of the circle in front of the bot (centrally located to the tangency of course).
Yay design constraints. Gotta love them! ::safety::

[Trent B]

And that edge of the circle being 18.53 away is if your manipulator is ~≤1inch wide

Some figures
Width of manipulator measured parallel to the 28" edge of the robot and parallel to the ground

1" manipulator cut off .004"
2" cut of .017"
4" cut off .0667"
6" cut off .15"
8" cut off .268"
10" cut off .42"
12" cut off .606"

...

28" cut off 3.467 (the figure for the standard 28 x 38 bot)

[Randy Picolet]

Don't forget there are at least two other degrees of freedom here... the end effector could extend over the wide dimension of the bot (i.e. wide drive profile), and the bot frame can be smaller than 28 by 38...

[Bill_B]

Could the original drawing be modified to contain a typical game piece? Beginning to look very dicey for pickup off the carpet. also for extension to get to a peg. They are 14" (?) so effector would not be able to slide anything very far onto one? Five feet never seemed so cramped until now.

[Paul Copioli]

Elgin,

There really is no issue. I just wanted people to be aware of this rule and its design implications. I understand the rule's intent, but its side effect is a really brutal constraint that I want to make sure people understand.

The other point is the metric dimension does not agree with the English dimension. That needs to be fixed.

Paul

[IndySam]

Exactly Paul,
The challenge is what it is and we will deal with it but the community needs to spread the word or there will be an inspection nightmare at regionals.

[Richard Wallace]

Inspection for compliance with the maximum playing configuration diameter should not be difficult -- a tape line on the floor 60" (or 84"?) from a vertical wall should be an adequate gauge, to determine if a robot COULD exceed the limit.

However, as in previous games where such a limit was part of the rules, it will be up to referees to determine when a robot DOES exceed the limit. (See <G40>.)

[IndySam]

Inspection for compliance with the maximum playing configuration diameter should not be difficult -- a tape line on the floor 60" (or 84"?) from a vertical wall should be an adequate gauge, to determine if a robot COULD exceed the limit.

However, as in previous games where such a limit was part of the rules, it will be up to referees to determine when a robot DOES exceed the limit. (See <G40>.)

It's not that it will be difficult to inspect it's the fact that teams won't understand it and build a robot that won't work in the 60" rule.

[Richard Wallace]

It's not that it will be difficult to inspect it's the fact that teams won't understand it and build a robot that won't work in the 60" rule.You are right.

I hope the clarification comes soon.

[GaryVoshol]

It's not that it will be difficult to inspect it's the fact that teams won't understand it and build a robot that won't work in the 60" rule.

Especially those that follow the metric rule. :yikes:

[BrendanB]

You mean like this??


Generously drawn up & provided by Arthur Dutra IV from FRC 228.
So... what's the issue?

There just went most arm designs! That is what the issue is. :rolleyes: Another year, another funny rule.

[mathking]

As was said, getting the word out about this is going to be important. I just sent an email to the mailing list of local teams, particularly because we have a few new teams and a number of existing teams with all new mentors. Whatever we can do to make sure people know the correct rule will be important.

As a side benefit, this nicely illustrates the need to carefully read the manual and to pay attention to FIRST email updates and the Q&A forum.

Paul, thanks for catching this! I never even paid attention to the metric dimensions (note to self, don't make that mistake again), and spent hours this weekend wracking my brain for ways to avoid violating the 60" rule. I told a couple of kids their (very creative) arm design was not going to work. Hopefully I can tell them later this week it is back on the table.

[thefro526]

Inspection for compliance with the maximum playing configuration diameter should not be difficult -- a tape line on the floor 60" (or 84"?) from a vertical wall should be an adequate gauge, to determine if a robot COULD exceed the limit.

However, as in previous games where such a limit was part of the rules, it will be up to referees to determine when a robot DOES exceed the limit. (See <G40>.)

If memory serves me right, in 2008 the inspectors at some events, if not all, used a large hoop to determine that the robot stayed with in the correct operating volume. Considering how quickly the process went, I would imagine that FIRST would use the same system this year.

That being said, the clarification on this rule will be the deciding factor between or two prospective manipulator designs... I hope it comes soon.

[davidfv]

All,

Ok so I was freaking out last night about this ridiculous restriction, but I noticed a discrepancy in the manual.

The Thunderchickens design in metric so we were looking at the metric dimensions in the table in <R11>. You English system designing teams have to stay within a 60" cylinder, but us metric designing teams get 213.4cm! For those of you that are reaching for your calculators, that is the equivalent of 84"!

In all seriousness, I will post a Q&A when it is up on Wednesday to ask which dimension is the real dimension. I am hoping for the 213.4cm.

Paul

AS we all are Paul. Guess the GDC may need to get new calculators.

David

[pfreivald]

Yet another implication of this rule is that many/most teams are going to need to retract whatever manipulator they have before DEPLOYING the MINIBOT, else they'll be in violation of the rule.

[Chris Fultz]

Here is a quick pdf of a power point slide (my favorite design tool :) ).

Assuming the rule is 60" and the metric equivalent:

For a "long" oriented robot any arm can only extend about 18" from the front of the robot (not simply 22 = 60 - 38, due to the "cylinder").

For a "wide" oriented robot, any arm can only extend about 23" (again, not simply 32" = 60-28).

Add the bumpers and it is even more of a challenge.

[GaryVoshol]

Add the bumpers and it is even more of a challenge.Unlike previous years' cylinder rules, the BUMPERS are excluded from the measurement this year - thank goodness if the measurement is really 60 inches. See <R11-B>.

[mathking]

We hosted a 23 team FLL tournament this weekend (it was the only date we could get a venue) and everyone (and more importantly I) was pretty beat by Saturday evening. (I was setting up the kick-off course on Saturday morning early so I was gone pretty much from 6:30 to 7:30.) So we gave the kids time off until our meeting this evening. Now I have to wonder tonight whether we should really have two design tracks, one for the 60" and one for the 213.4 cm dimensions?

The design implications are pretty significant depending on which rule is correct. If it is 60", I think it makes mecanum and swerve drive much more likely, because there will not be a lot of room to use reach to get tubes onto racks. If it is 213.4 cm then more designs are possible.

[Chris is me]

Unlike previous years' cylinder rules, the BUMPERS are excluded from the measurement this year - thank goodness if the measurement is really 60 inches. See <R11-B>.

Because the front bumper is in the way of your mechanism, it effectively counts (while the back bumper does not)

[Chris Fultz]

Unlike previous years' cylinder rules, the BUMPERS are excluded from the measurement this year - thank goodness if the measurement is really 60 inches. See <R11-B>.

My point was that having the bumpers on the front side means the manipulator has to accomodate that as well - it most likely means a longer arm to get to the ground.

In 2007 - the last tube game, the bumper requirements were different.

[Bill_B]

These limitations also affect your thinking about how big the drive base should be. If you go for a smaller base, you'll get more room to extend your manipulator. No wonder they say the minibot cannot go after the game pieces. :) Mini, mini, Mini, go fetch!

[AllenGregoryIV]

Minibot deployment mechanisms could be built to help get a little more room out of this restriction because the minibot itself (The portion that detaches from the hostbot) is not considered in volume limitations.

From <R11>
For the purposes of determining compliance with the weight and volume limitations, the items listed below are NOT considered part of the ROBOT and are NOT included in the weight and volume assessment:
A. the 12V battery and its associated half of the Anderson cable quick connect/disconnect pair (including no more than 12” of cable per leg, the associated cable lugs, connecting bolts, and insulating electrical tape),
B. BUMPER assemblies (including BUMPER covers, if appropriate) that are in compliance with Rules <R07> and <R08>,
C. the OPERATOR CONSOLE, and
D. the MINIBOT.

So if we were to only touch the minibot from the back you could extend it past the 60" mark(or whatever the dimension truly is).

[GaryVoshol]

By my reading, the MINIBOT is not even included in the STARTING CONFIGURATION. Wow.

[Chris is me]

Cool, all my team has to do is Velcro a minibot to a swing-out PVC stick. A drawer-like design reaches less far because of the circle.

[Brandon Holley]

My point was that having the bumpers on the front side means the manipulator has to accomodate that as well - it most likely means a longer arm to get to the ground.

In 2007 - the last tube game, the bumper requirements were different.

I definitely agree with your point. No cutouts in the bumpers definitely hurts compared to the 07 bots. The bumper zone this year does begin at 1" though, so theres some consolation.

-Brando

[waialua359]

Well I hope that the official answer comes quick.

Hard to come up with potential designs at this point, but my guess is that they will stick with the 60" rule.:mad:

[MCahoon]

I definitely agree with your point. No cutouts in the bumpers definitely hurts compared to the 07 bots. The bumper zone this year does begin at 1" though, so theres some consolation.

-Brando

Could you tell me the rule which specifies the bumper zone this year? I haven't been able to find this dimension in "The Robot Rev -" or "The Game Rev -" Thanks

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Mc,
The dimension is in the definitions for Bumper Zone. I have asked to include it in the bumper rules in the future.

[DonRotolo]

Um, thanks to all for showing me that square robots don't (easily) fit into round holes. While this doesn't prevent an arm, it certainly adds to the challenge of using one.

Deploying minibots won't be as much of an issue: If I have an 8" square minibot, I have about 3" between the edge of the minibot and the pole (assuming minibot is centered on the 1.75" pole). 18+3=21, I only need 15-3=12. Maybe a 24" stroke pneumatic piston to whack the minibot onto the pole....

Inspection: I propose that we supply 60" I.D. right cylinders of infinite height to each venue for inspection. OK, even 30 feet tall would be impressive...:p

[robodude03]

Well I hope that the official answer comes quick.

Hard to come up with potential designs at this point, but my guess is that they will stick with the 60" rule.:mad:

Absolutely agree, this is causing our team to branch into 2 separate design pathways waiting to hear an update from FIRST. I do hope that they stick with the metric rule for this :/

[jspatz1]

The rule gives you two possible diameters that your robot must stay within, 60" or 213.4 cm. I know which one we're using.

Seriously, I have a strong hunch the correction will turn out to be 84". Looking at the table, it is easy to imagine how the 60" could have been a typo, mixed up with the 60" in the starting height box. How likely is it that you would accidentally pull the number 213.4 out of the air as a typo?

[Vikesrock]

THow likely is it that you would accidentally pull the number 213.4 out of the air as a typo?

It's not that I'm worried about. It's the cylinder starting at 84" and the GDC revising it to 60" to give us all headaches then leaving the conversion that worries me.

[Chris is me]

The rule gives you two possible diameters that your robot must stay within, 60" or 213.4 cm. I know which one we're using.

Seriously, I have a strong hunch the correction will turn out to be 84". Looking at the table, it is easy to imagine how the 60" could have been a typo, mixed up with the 60" in the starting height box. How likely is it that you would accidentally pull the number 213.4 out of the air as a typo?

The rule last year was 84 inches. Probably a copy paste.

I really hope it's 60", because all this design work would be for nothing.

[Nick Lawrence]

The rule last year was 84 inches. Probably a copy paste.

I really hope it's 60", because all this design work would be for nothing.

It's only day 4. I would think you would jump for joy over this rule being changed to be more forgiving. :P

-Nick

[Richard Wallace]

I'm also hoping for 60".

The larger (84" cylinder) maximum playing configuration would allow, and thereby virtually guarantee, robots with appendages extending ~3 ft. beyond their bumper perimeters and held >8 ft. above the floor, while driving at >10 ft/sec, and swerving all over the field. Imagine the Three Stooges running around with ladders on their shoulders while changing direction every couple of seconds. It would be will be sheer mayhem!

Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck. :cool:

See Team Update #1 (http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FRC/Game_and_Season__Info/2011_Assets/Team_Updates/Team%20Update_01.pdf).

[IndySam]

I'm also hoping for 60".

The larger (84" cylinder) maximum playing configuration would allow, and thereby virtually guarantee, robots with appendages extending ~3 ft. beyond their bumper perimeters and held >8 ft. above the floor, while driving at >10 ft/sec, and swerving all over the field. Imagine the Three Stooges running around with ladders on their shoulders while changing direction every couple of seconds. It would be sheer mayhem!

Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck. :cool:

But mayhem can be fun!

I hope they keep it at 60" too.

http://thumbnails.truveo.com/0019/30/46/30463AD5065D94F4A7D141_Large.jpg

[Grim Tuesday]

I, too hope they keep it at 60, since your strategy is based on blocking other robots, and that would be made harder to do if they can extend huge appendages.

[BJC]

Edit: My Bad, this is FALSE. In my excitment I identified the height of the robot as opposed to the expansion cylinder.

The cylinder is indeed 84 inches across. Again, my bad.

[ATannahill]

If you redownload the manuel from USFIRST.org it has been corrected to 152.40 cm which is 60 in. I think this is pretty clear. 60 inches will be the cylinder.
Sounds like an update is coming that will correct it.

[jblay]

I also hope they keep it at 60 inches because it makes the game different from 07. copying 67 or 233 from that year was my original thought but this completely changes the game and makes you have to engineer around the constraint.

It does however very much annoy that it is unclear what the rule is because we cannot finalize a design until the rule iis clarified.

[Grim Tuesday]

If you redownload the manuel from USFIRST.org it has been corrected to 152.40 cm which is 60 in. I think this is pretty clear. 60 inches will be the cylinder.

No, it hasnt changed at all. Why do people keep on saying that it does?

[Racer26]

Agree. Has not yet been changed. Today is Tuesday though, and its 4:09pm. No update in sight yet. Is it not supposed to be released by 5pm, typically?

[Richard Wallace]

From the 2011 Manual, Section 2.6.1 Getting Answers To Your Competition Questions
...
Team Updates – will be posted at: http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/content.aspx?id=450
After the Kickoff FIRST will start posting Team Updates on line, Tuesdays by 5:00 PM and Fridays by 5:00 PM. Team Updates provide rules updates, important information about parts and administrative reminders/deadlines. Please note:
 Unexpected circumstances may, on occasion, delay this publication;
 Additional updates may be released, if necessary; and
 Occasionally, FIRST will publish revisions to manual sections.

[zbanks]

It has changed. When the posted the unencrypted manual, they fixed a few typos.

Page 9 of:

http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FRC/Game_and_Season__Info/2011_Assets/04%20-%20The%20Robot%20Rev-.pdf

via (Section 4, The Robot - Rev)

http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/content.aspx?id=452

[Ricky Q.]

It has changed. When the posted the unencrypted manual, they fixed a few typos.

Page 9 of:

http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FRC/Game_and_Season__Info/2011_Assets/04%20-%20The%20Robot%20Rev-.pdf

via (Section 4, The Robot - Rev)

http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/content.aspx?id=452

It is the same on both of those links you posted.

Starting Configuration is correct at 60" (152.4cm)

Playing Configuration is in disagreement at 60" (213.4cm)

[GaryVoshol]

I, too hope they keep it at 60, since your strategy is based on blocking other robots, and that would be made harder to do if they can extend huge appendages.Where are you planning on blocking them, when a huge appendage would stymie your block?

[GaryVoshol]

If you redownload the manuel from USFIRST.org it has been corrected to 152.40 cm which is 60 in. I think this is pretty clear. 60 inches will be the cylinder.

That's the STARTING CONFIGURATION height, which has always been that way.

The PLAYING CONFIGURATION cylinder still has 213.4 cm. as of two minutes ago.

[Nick Lawrence]

That's the STARTING CONFIGURATION height, which has always been that way.

The PLAYING CONFIGURATION cylinder still has 213.4 cm. as of two minutes ago.

Still no update? I can't seem to open the robot rules from here.

-Nick

[Richard Wallace]

Team Update #1. (http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FRC/Game_and_Season__Info/2011_Assets/Team_Updates/Team%20Update_01.pdf)

84" cylinder it is.

Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck. :)

[Chris is me]

Team Update #1. (http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FRC/Game_and_Season__Info/2011_Assets/Team_Updates/Team%20Update_01.pdf)

84" cylinder it is.

Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck. :)

Wow, I've never been so happy to throw away 4 days of work.

[thefro526]

My faith in the GDC has been restored.

I have never been so excited for a team update.

[DonRotolo]

Yay. 60" was a good challenge, but somewhat limiting.

[pfreivald]

Me = sad. I liked the 60" restriction...

[keericks]

So is the restriction for "possible" configurations or "programmed" configurations? For instance, if you have an arm that potentially could extend out past 84" barrier if rotated parallel with the ground, but programatically you don't allow that extension unti the arm is angled upward, not breaking the 84" restriction. Legal?

Or will the inspector have us extend the arm to its full length and then articulate it up and down to verify it never at any point breaches the barrier.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

If your programming prevents extension beyond the 84", you will have to prove that to an inspector. The inspector in turn will inform the Head Ref so that they can be aware that your program in intended to prevent breaking the 84" barrier. If they suspect a programming failure (and they do occur), they will then call for a re-inspect. In a case like this I usually recommend that a team design a secondary preventative in case a programmer inadvertently rems out the limit code.

[ayeckley]

rems out the limit code.

Uh-oh Al, I think you might have just dated yourself :) I don't think REM has been in any syntax since about 1985. Of, course TRON went extinct even before that. Note to self: write a movie script about a character named "TROFF".

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Alex,
Isn't REM valid in C++? I am just a hardware guy.

[ayeckley]

Alex,
Isn't REM valid in C++? I am just a hardware guy.

Could be. I'm not sure this newfangled C++ thing is going to catch on so I haven't adopted it yet. Also, all of my equities positions are in buggy whip futures.

[Bill_B]

Uh-oh Al, I think you might have just dated yourself :) I don't think REM has been in any syntax since about 1985. Of, course TRON went extinct even before that. Note to self: write a movie script about a character named "TROFF".
Just be careful about using a CLU character. Maybe ALU? Maybe you could have a snake called Half Adder?

[Racer26]

REM is still valid VB syntax, I have never known REM to be a part of C/C++ (comments are //comment and /* comment */)