Scioly.org

So if the problem in that sense lies in what constitutes part of the arm, require whatever the 'highest point measured' to also have contributed to the rest of the tasks AKA actual claw/actuator that did the rest of the run (or a good part of it). That way no separate device on the arm whos only purpose is to give height.

On the topic of highest being stationary height: yes i totally agree. But NOT powered down as Mr. Anderson wrote in his summary. Lots of systems on powering down return to a home state. How about not caring if its on or off as much as caring that It can stay stationary for the duration of measuring/obviously not some projectile/cheap ploy.

Good thoughts?

I agree on taking the measurement while the device is still powered on. For teams achieving large heights, the servos/motors they are using will have to provide a lot of torque. However, turn off the power, the servos/motors provide way less torque, and the arm comes crashing down. Now a comment on the 30 x 30 x 30 cube others have suggested. This size limitation on height would be unfeasible unless the field gets much smaller.

blazer wrote:Now a comment on the 30 x 30 x 30 cube others have suggested. This size limitation on height would be unfeasible unless the field gets much smaller.

Yes, don't add any size restrictions without considering the size of the field

Thanks to everyone for your input, you've helped me greatly in proposing a rule that should work for all. It should make an even better event next year. I hate ties.

Note, that doesn't mean you will see a rule that meets your desire in every aspect, but it should be fair and doable.

Comments on size noted as were all others.

Thanks greatly,

Jeff Anderson
Livonia, MI

And yes this does mean I have to turn something in that's close to final, so while I'll monitor for brilliant ideas, it may be hard to implement anything else after today or so.

And a big THANKS again!

Thank your for asking us for our input; it means a lot that you would do that.

How about adding bonus points for better programming? You know, instead of just making this event even more expensive?

fr00tl00p wrote:How about adding bonus points for better programming? You know, instead of just making this event even more expensive?

How would you suggest judging that?

How about just adding more objects to pick up and move. It keeps everything the same, but removes the ceiling effect of last year.

chalker7 wrote:

fr00tl00p wrote:How about adding bonus points for better programming? You know, instead of just making this event even more expensive?

How would you suggest judging that?

Well, you could simply award an extra point for every object that was placed in a goal without direct human interaction.
You could get creative and do something like having the robot use a marker to write "Science" on a piece of paper, you could do it using a controller, but an autonomous design would beat a human controller at something like that any day.

If you are intent on the height thing, how about block stacking? There will be a bunch of blocks and the higher a stack of blocks you can make the more points you can get. That would solve the measuring problem stated earlier. It would rule out all the cheap designs that just putting an object up high allows, like rockets and balloons, without having to write sketchy rules.

Also, how come you can't just use time to prevent ties? Fastest robot to get a perfect score wins.

These are just a few of the ideas I can think of right now, I don't want to come off as rude or anything, I just really dislike the current idea of holding an object up high.

I must say, I really like that block stacking idea, though it may be too late