[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
RE: Resend of: Re: RULES or SPECIFICATIONS?
Dear Daniel ....
Your interpretation is an interesting one --
I'm saying that if we treat each aspect separately, we will most likely
reach agreement sooner (in both areas).
One aspect is the rules
One aspect is specification of the equipment
Both need discussion - both need the agreement of most people involved.
Tony
Dr. Tony Wilcox
Centre for Automatic Identification and Intelligent Systems
Technology Innovation Centre
Millennium Point
Curzon Street
Birmingham B4 7XG
United Kingdom
Tel. 0121 331 7510
FAX. 0121 331 5401
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-micromouse@cs.rhul.ac.uk
[mailto:owner-micromouse@cs.rhul.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Daniel Chia
Sent: 01 July 2004 15:21
To: micromouse@cs.rhul.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Resend of: Re: RULES or SPECIFICATIONS?
Oh, so what you are saying is that the rules for the competition should
be
standard, but the maze specs should be dependant on the organiser?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 21:25
Subject: RE: Resend of: Re: RULES or SPECIFICATIONS?
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>