View Single Post
  #134   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-03-2016, 13:30
rsisk's Avatar
rsisk rsisk is offline
The GURU Channel
AKA: Richard Sisk
FRC #2493 (Robokong)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 2,748
rsisk has a reputation beyond reputersisk has a reputation beyond reputersisk has a reputation beyond reputersisk has a reputation beyond reputersisk has a reputation beyond reputersisk has a reputation beyond reputersisk has a reputation beyond reputersisk has a reputation beyond reputersisk has a reputation beyond reputersisk has a reputation beyond reputersisk has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via MSN to rsisk
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal

Here is Q955 for FYI...

This was also a discussion on our LRI call last night and there was a reasonable solution to cover us until Q955 answer came out.

Q955
FRC Q&A Answered Questions
Q: Please clarify Q953 - If a robot meets the sizing requirements for R3 and does not have any markings that are similar to the field (i.e. markings meant to mimic vision targets) does it violate R9-C? If so, could you please expand on the criteria for what violates R9-C? For example: does translucent plastic sheeting or bumper noodles at the maximum height that was added between Qualifications and Eliminations that to a reasonable observer is for the purposes of blocking shots violate R9-C?

A: A device which is not specifically intended to interfere with the remote sensing capabilities of another ROBOT, but merely happens to be in the way of that ROBOT sensing a desired object, while intended for other functions(such as blocking shots), would not be a violation of R9-C.

(Asked by FRC1410 on 2016-03-22.)
__________________
Quote:
The views expressed are mine and should not be construed to represent the views of anyone else.