Quote:
Originally posted by EbonySeraphim
RyanKM: I know what you mean about the different programs running. But that dial, I assume, is something you have to set before the autonomous code. Will we know wether or not we are going left or right before the match start and be allowed to change something on the robot? If the answer is yes, then good for you. Select the dead reckoning program before the match.
|
No. The people who put the robot on the field will be blindfolded and given small shock collars. As they move randomly around the field, the judges will stop shocking them when they reach the proper position.
Quote:
|
All you need to know is that I have enough experience. I don't want to get into how many years. And if you looked at my psuedo code, that is a basic state machine. Maybe you just overlooked that I posted a solution. In case you care about my background, I have been an aspiring game programmer so I know plenty about looping code, and running differently on a frame by frame basis to achieve a psuedo procedural algorithm. Also, I can imagine it - heck, I can see it put to code, just bug ridden and very flawed. Please try to sound less insultive next reply.
|
Are you saying my code is "bug ridden and very flawed"?
I don't believe he was trying to insult you as very few people ever do that on these boards; he was just pointing out that looping is very easy and doesn't require huge amounts of memory or a lot of resources. I agree with him whole-heartedly. Our autonomous code takes up 2 bytes, both of which are used for other things during regular operation.
Quote:
|
Last year's sensors could be quite different.
|
They are the same.
Quote:
|
I think most teams have overcomplicated autonomous code.
|
And many (including myself) would argue that line-following is overly complicated.
Please, take a deep breath and relax for a few minutes. You don't need to argue with everyone. What you may consider "overcomplicated" may be the easiest solution for some and may be a better solution for some types of robots. For example, read back to the first page and notice that Jeff Waegelin said dead-reckoning "works better" for his team. Are you saying that you are more qualified to assess what solution is best for every robot? As far as I know, such a uber-leet programming god doesn't exist. Especially not when it comes to FIRST.