Quote:
Originally Posted by pribusin
I hate to be Negative Nellie here but I strongly believe in letting the intended game decide the results and not a supposed loophole in a set of rules.
|
What is the intended game?
Allow me to clarify that question a bit. I'm currently in a class where the topic du jour, every class, is effectively, "what did the designer intend by X tolerance callout?" Or, as a designer, "Justify why you did this this way." As an engineer, if I don't convey my intent clearly to whoever is making the widget I designed, it can either make their job and mine much harder, or the part could be produced poorly, or both, or, or.... If I do convey my intent clearly, then whoever is making the part has a much easier time, and may in fact have extra tolerance in where a given feature of a part goes. (The class is studying ASME Y14.5-2009, a dimensioning and tolerancing standard.)
So, the question, what is the intended game, is a bit of a tricky one to answer. You can ONLY use what the GDC gave you to do it, or the Q&A--anything more must only be used to fill in gaps, and that is where you can easily make a wrong assumption.
Is it a loophole? Or did the GDC forget something in saying their intent? If they forgot something, we have to make an assumption--the next team over may assume differently. Unless and until something comes from the GDC to clarify intent, your assumption on a gap is as good as mine--once that clarification comes, we know intent, and can no longer assume anything.
__________________
Past teams:
2003-2007: FRC0330 BeachBots
2008: FRC1135 Shmoebotics
2012: FRC4046 Schroedinger's Dragons
"Rockets are tricky..."--Elon Musk
