Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrisms
I think the problem here, forgive me if it's been stated, this thread is massive... IS that you have *two* seperate entities that function on their own. If it were two "configurations" to me, it would be the exact same parts, being modularly changed. Not two completely different drive bases. Two me, two configurations would be "arm on. arm off" or, alternatively, if you're drive train is modular "omni wheels, or we can swap them out for regular tank drive" But the fact that, to me, it looks like two seperate entities, both with their independent drive systems, motors, and sensors, makes me tend to agree with FIRST on this one. you have two robots. Two amazing robots at that, i have no idea how you managed to make weight, we always have to put ours on a diet at the end of build, i can't see what we'd do if we had double the drive base.
|
You say that swapping different arms (presumably with different motors and sensors) is fine.
(1)What about an arm with a substantial frame at the bottom of it?
(2)What about an arm with a substantial frame and drive motors (but no wheels) at the bottom of it?
(3)What about an arm with half a drive system at the bottom of it?
(4)What about an arm with the whole drive system at the bottom of it?
You'd probably not allow (3) or (4) judging by your post, but the problem is that the actual rules give no guidance on where this line is drawn. Where does an 'interchangeable arm' stop and a 'robot' begin? In order for there to be consistency, there needs to be a consistent answer to this question, which there isn't. It comes down to the thoughts of the person deciding. Most people in the thread would allow all four options above, some wouldn't allow (4), and some wouldn't allow (3) or (4). The GDC response doesn't help to determine where that dividing line between interchangeable mechanism and
robot is, though I imagine the rulebook will next year. By a strict reading of this year's rules, it appears that all four are allowed.