Point is being missed - there are two issues 1. Competition Rules 2. Maze Specification I think they should be treated separately ... Tony -----Original Message----- From: owner-micromouse@cs.rhul.ac.uk on behalf of A Johnstone Sent: Thu 01/07/2004 12:28 To: micromouse@cs.rhul.ac.uk Cc: Subject: Resend of: Re: RULES or SPECIFICATIONS? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 07:48:35 +0100 From: owner-micromouse@cs.rhul.ac.uk To: micromouse-approval@cs.rhul.ac.uk Subject: BOUNCE micromouse@engels.cs.rhul.ac.uk: Non-member submission from ["Daniel Chia" <danielcjh@yahoo.com.sg>] >From adrian@cs.rhul.ac.uk Thu Jul 1 07:48:35 2004 Received: from smtp011.mail.yahoo.com (smtp011.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.173.31]) by engels.cs.rhbnc.ac.uk (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id i616mXdB027225 for <micromouse@cs.rhul.ac.uk>; Thu, 1 Jul 2004 07:48:34 +0100 Received: from unknown (HELO Dan) (danstryder01@218.186.176.220 with login) by smtp011.mail.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Jul 2004 06:48:32 -0000 Message-ID: <008d01c45f38$4ec1af60$6501a8c0@Dan> From: "Daniel Chia" <danielcjh@yahoo.com.sg> To: <micromouse@cs.rhul.ac.uk> References: <B66F30C4D87CF549BC80F271F08B279C01B1EF1C@ticex1.uce.ac.uk> Subject: Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 14:54:49 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 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: "Tony Wilcox" <tony.wilcox@tic.ac.uk> To: <micromouse@cs.rhul.ac.uk> Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 5:02 Subject: RULES or SPECIFICATIONS? > 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 > > > > > >
<<winmail.dat>>