[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: RULES or SPECIFICATIONS?
Hi,
I feel that if the rules or specifications are there, they should be
adhered to. Just like even though pool has different sized tables, even the
bca has specifications and tolerances as to the pool table, hole size, noses
etc etc. In addition, pool is played by humans. We have the ability to
adjust, to see whats going on.
For a mouse, and a racing mouse to be exact, small differences in the
rules might make a big difference. For example, if the rule for the gap
between adjoining sections says no more 2mm, you might decide that a simple
roller of a certain diameter will cut the job. But if you go to competition
and find that that gap is 5mm, your roller might not cut it. But if you just
plop a big roller there, its going to be useless if the gap really is 2mm.
Cos then you would have extra weight, extra space taken up, might be more
difficult to find parts, etc, etc.
Perhaps if there is problems with the maze you could modify ur maze
specs to be a bit more tolerant, else I feel that they should be adhered to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Chia
"Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration."
- Thomas Edison
E-mail: danielcjh@yahoo.com.sg
MSN: danstryder01@yahoo.com.sg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Niman" <J.Niman@mmu.ac.uk>
To: <micromouse@cs.rhul.ac.uk>
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 15:08
Subject: Re: RULES or SPECIFICATIONS?
> Tony,
>
> I think your analogies are incorrect.
>
> It matters a lot to a micromouse how the maze is built, it matters very
little to a football or
> pool player what the exact dimensions of the pitch or table are.
>
> I agree that it is unrealistic to expect all mazes to be identical in
dimension, but the rules
> should specify the tolerance and the important characteristics of the
construction as far as a mouse
> is concerned.
>
> As I recall, and I could be wrong here, the rules of football do lay down
pitch dimensions...
>
> Jerry
>
>
> Jerry Niman Tel +44 (0)161-247 1474
> Head of Information Systems Email J.Niman@mmu.ac.uk
> the Manchester Metropolitan University Mobile +44 (0)7770 638104
>
>
> >>> tony.wilcox@tic.ac.uk 30 Jun 04 22:02:01 >>>
> Duncan and all ...
>
> There is a big difference between rules of competition, and specifications
for the maze, timing
> gear etc. This is one area where I think IEE/RHUL/TIC and APEC have got
it wrong.
>
> Analogies:
> You can play exactly the same game of pool on any number of different
sized tables, with different
> sized balls and pockets.
> You can play exactly the same game of football on any number of pitches
with different surfaces and
> lighting conditions.
>
> We can formulate a very well-bounded set of COMPETITION RULES, which are
clear and unambiguous.
> There isn't really a lot of work to do to the current set(s).
>
> But as for the physical elements - the maze, timing gear, environment ...
>
> We have a known FORMAT for the maze - 16*16 with 180mm*180mm cells, using
12mm*50mm walls, and
> 12mm*12mm pegs.
>
> Other than that ...
>
> We have a guide as to colours - red, white and matt black.
> We have tolerances specified for dimensions.
> We have wood specified for the base - but no mention of material for the
walls and pegs.
> We have suggestions about the location of optical timing gear.
>
> By their very nature, mazes are going to vary - if you want to specify the
dimensions and
> construction of the maze such that every one is identical - you would need
a production line, a lot
> of cash, and a host of international standard specifications to boot.
>
> It is the task of the mouse designer to ensure that his mouse can cope
with small variations in
> reflectivity, colour, ambient lighting etc.in the same way that it is the
designer's task to cope
> with peg-slots and wall gaps.
>
> My abstract view of micromouse :- autonomous vehicles that use their
senses to best advantage to
> solve a problem presented in a defined, but imperfect, environment.
>
> We can only do our best to provide as near-perfect a maze as our resources
will allow. The mouse
> designer does his best to cope with the allowed variations.
>
> So let's separate the RULES from the SPECIFICATIONS ... if we work on
smaller bits, we may get to a
> solution faster!
>
> Regards
>
> Tony
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-micromouse@cs.rhul.ac.uk on behalf of Duncan Louttit
> Sent: Wed 6/30/2004 9:54 AM
> To: micromouse@cs.rhul.ac.uk
> Cc:
> Subject: RE: Rules
>
>
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> The problem is that the current rules don't reflect reality. For
example,
> I don't see how you can use posts with 3mm wide slots 3mm deep and still
be
> within the spec. of 1mm maximum gap in the walls and a 5% tolerancs on
> dimensions.
>
> What has happened is that the competition has changed but the
rules
> haven't. If you design a mouse according to the rules and it fails because
> the maze doesn't comply with them, you will be put off. What is required
is
> a clause by clause evaluation to ensure that the rules represent the
> competition as it is run so that we don't confuse new competitors.
>
> It is vital that the rules be updated by someone (or team) who
have recent
> experience in building mice. We need to ensure that the information
> necessary to design a mouse is provided by the rules. Implying that the
> size of handicaps is insignificant is not good enough. If someone is
> spending hundreds or thousands of hours working on a mouse, they at least
> need to know how it will be judged. Modern competitive mice are highly
> optimised and tiny details of the maze or the rules may become
significant.
>
> On the same lines, it is also vital that rule changes are made in
a timely
> manner. I would suggest that any rule changes for next year's competition
> should be finalised not later than the end of September so that builders
> have plenty of time to deal with the revised rules.
>
> Regards,
>
> Duncan
>
>
>
>
>