Quote:
Originally Posted by gblake
Folks,
If I were to carefully read this entire thread, instead of only quickly scanning the last 100 or so posts, what useful information/conclusions would I acquire?
I have gathered that the tower targets are close to FUBAR status and many mini-bot designs are consequently pseudo-randomly finding themselves up the proverbial creek. It that all we have here?
My goodness, does it take 200+ posts of grouching at each other, and at FIRST, to convey that clearly?
I know everyone is tired, but this could be a fun topic.
Who has tested some work-arounds and can reports their results to teams that need to modify their mini-bots???? Is slower better? Would putting a broad squishy nose on a mini-bot help? Would leaving the mini-bot motors energized an extra few fractions of a second after target-contact help? Anything else?
Blake
|
I don't believe this has been 200 posts of people grouching at each other, instead it's been a very lively, interesting debate of the technical details of the situation. And since this is just coming out now, nobody has publishable results yet, just a lot of hypotheses on what
may or may not be occurring, and how to
possibly improve the towers or minibots.
Nobody has a definitely answer for you, other than expect to have to work at this some more.
Personally I think this group has done a fantastic job dissecting the situation and working to figure out the information FIRST has woefully failed to provide once again, but give them a chance, this isn't old news yet.
I thought it was a fun topic, though I wish I could contribute more effectively to it.
EDIT: I wanted to answer to this as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ether
Poor word choice on my part; the word has multiple meanings which could be taken the wrong way. I intended definition #2:
I referenced the previous post mostly for the remarks about debouncing interrupt-serviced switches.
|
Sorry to misunderstand you, your intended wording makes a lot more sense!
Matt