faq
code
osdn
awards
privacy
slashNET
older stuff
rob's page
preferences
submit story
advertising
supporters
past polls
topics
about
jobs
hof
|
| 'BYO Battlebot' | Preferences | 184 comments | Search Discussion |
|
|
| The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by
whoever posted them. Slashdot is not responsible for what they say.
|
Idea! (Score:3,
Interesting)
by JoeLinux on Saturday July 14, @11:10PM PST (#3)
(User
#20366 Info) http://www.pacificnet.net/~isamu/joe_html
|
I say why not use REAL weapons: guns,
flamethrowers, EMP devices, etc. That would pique my interest. Have
the announcers discuss why a particular bot has to have a Faraday
cage around it when the other robot does something. Also, it would
bring testing to a whole new level. Fireproofed, shock proofed, etc.
Just my $.02
JoeLinux
All things are
possible, except skiing thru a revolving door.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Re:Idea!
(Score:1)
by ROBOKATZ (deeznutsclan@hotmail.com) on Saturday
July 14, @11:32PM PST (#19)
(User
#211768 Info) http://deeznutsclan.cjb.net/
|
Well, naturally arming these so-called
"robots" with real weapons (guns, knives, etc) could pose a
threat to the public and a liability to the producers. In
addition, I'm not sure where battlebots is filmed, but they
would have to make sure that they comply with local gun
laws, in some states (like California) that could be tricky,
and the consequences for non-compliance are
severe.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Why not? (Score:3,
Informative)
by Fred
Ferrigno (slashdot at
spamcheck.bizland.com) on Saturday July 14,
@11:48PM PST (#25)
(User
#122319 Info) |
Because they're all banned.
There are reasons for all of them, if you think about it,
mostly for the audience's safety and judging purposes. I
don't think they're trying to make the bots
wussy.
--
Turing test - tell the computer
to simulate Alan Turing, then ask him if he's "just a
simulation". |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Idea! (Score:2,
Interesting)
by Fixer
(ihate@spam.org) on Sunday July
15, @12:08AM PST (#35)
(User
#35500 Info) |
| As others have said, those weapons are
illegal under the current rules, entirely for safety
reasons.
Now, how about "Extreme Battlebots": The arena is open,
dozens of remote cameras are the only spectators for a
thousand feet around. Use whatever weapon systems you want,
up to and including explosives (within a reasonable limit,
of course).
You'd have to go off-shore, more than likely, due to the
explsoives, but otherwise it could work. Now, would anyone
want to compete? And, how do you deal with the 'bot that is
nothing but a satchel charge with wheels?
Still, it'd be fun to watch.
Goedel's Theorem: You
don't know what you think you know. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Bad Idea!
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15, @12:36AM
PST (#41)
|
| Because then some moron, after seeing
these battlebots on TV, would buy or build a one and test it
on his grirlfriend's 3-year old son like this
Texan idiot.
There should be more control on what people can see on
TV.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Idea! (Score:3,
Funny)
by boaworm (boaworm@check_bio.gov) on Sunday July 15,
@02:23AM PST (#73)
(User
#180781 Info) |
| You'll have one heck of a time to find
yourself a railgun ;)...Try Hollywood though, Arnold had one
in Eraser.
Although.. they are not telling you the whole truth.. it
will cost you $200 since it is no fun having a fight on your
own.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Idea!
(Score:3, Funny)
by Marcus
Brody (red_leader,spacebattleship.com,uk,earth)
on Sunday July 15, @05:12AM PST (#84)
(User
#320463 Info) |
Michael seems to think it possible:
" ...is controlled off a laptop with quake-style
controls!"
Like yeah right. I would love to see a BattleBot that
could strafe or rocket-jump, cycle through a variety of
weapons AND go mental with a quad damage, all at the same
time...
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Idea!
(Score:2)
by Detritus (jlimpert@acm.org) on Sunday July 15,
@02:40AM PST (#75)
(User
#11846 Info) |
| I say why not use REAL weapons:
guns, flamethrowers, EMP devices, etc.
BATF agents are not known for their sense of humor. There
is a licensing category for "destructive devices", but it
would be a lot of trouble and expense. Plus, California has
some of the worst weapons laws in the country. One way
around California's stupid laws might be to become a movie
producer. There are exemptions written into the laws for
Hollywood.
You want the truth? You can't handle the
truth! |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Idea!
(Score:1)
by Saeger on Sunday July 15, @04:57AM PST (#83)
(User
#456549 Info) |
| I'm still waiting for the first use of a
water canon as a weapon; the same type of high-pressure deal
that the bomb squad uses to destroy suspect packages.
I suppose the water stream would still technically be a
projectile though...and the producers probably wouldn't be
too happy with Mike Tyson KO's.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Idea!
(Score:1)
by Eristone
(eristone@SPAMOLICIOUS.earthlink.net) on
Sunday July 15, @09:26AM PST (#122)
(User
#146133 Info) http://home.earthlink.net/~eristone
|
Unfortunately, the Battlebot rules say
no water. In fact, here's everything they say.
11.2 Forbidden Weapons
The following weapons
may not be used:
Electricity - The use of electricity
as a weapon shall be forbidden. This includes, but is not
limited to the following:
Stun Guns/Cattle Prods
RF jamming equipment, etc.
EMP
Liquids -
The use of any liquid as a weapon shall be forbidden. This
includes, but is not limited to the following:
Water
and other liquids
Liquefied gasses
Chemicals or
corrosives
Foams, Adhesives, etc.
Explosives
or Flammable Solids - This includes, but is not limited to
the following:
DOT Class C devices
Gunpowder/Cartridge Primers
Military Explosives,
etc.
Gasoline, alcohol, ether, etc.
Lights -
Lights that are bright enough to obstruct an Official,
Contestant, or Judge's vision shall be forbidden. This
includes, but is not limited to the following:
Lasers
over 5mW output.
Any Strobe Light
Flood type
lights
Visual Obstruction - Any attempt to impair
the vision of another Contestant shall be forbidden. This
includes, but is not limited to the following:
Visible
smoke
Lights/lasers directed at the Contestants, etc.
A BattleBot that smothers/covers another BattleBot
is permitted.
Projectiles - Untethered projectiles
are forbidden. Tethered projectiles are allowed. Tethered
projectiles can carry a tremendous amount of energy, the
restraints must be strong enough to absorb this energy
without sustaining any damage. The length of the tether as
measured from the body of the BattleBot to the tip of the
projectile must be less than 10 feet. Contestant may be
disqualified for intentionally using a tether as an
entanglement device (see #8).
Heat/Cold - Heat or
cold specifically generated to damage an opponent is
forbidden.
Flame Throwers
Plasma Torches, etc.
Liquid Nitrogen
Entanglement Devices - Any
device specifically designed to entangle another BattleBot
shall be forbidden. This includes, but is not limited to
the following:
Any type of net.
Fishing Line,
String, etc.
Tape
A grappling hook type weapon
is not considered an entanglement device.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re: Faraday Cage
(Score:2)
by No Such
Agency (deep_fried_gmos@yahoo.*nospam*.ca) on
Sunday July 15, @06:12AM PST (#87)
(User
#136681 Info) |
Your Bot wouldn't be too mobile with a
Faraday Cage - the things have to be tethered to a 30 ft.
groundspike to dissipate external electrical
fields...
Plant hackers have root access! |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Idea!
(Score:1)
by RestiffBard
(restiffbard@ureach.com) on
Sunday July 15, @09:14AM PST (#120)
(User
#110729 Info) |
If you want to see robots with weapons
they are allowed on robticon on TLC mind you roboticon is
even more lame than battlebots. I've seen nets shot from one
robot and there was one that had a poorly implemented
flamethrower. considering that we only have two choices for
robot action on tv I'd have to say that battlebots is by far
the more interesting show. roboticon is just boring. ahmet
zappa is a dweeb.
--to .sig or not to .sig, whats the
signifigance |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Idea!
(Score:2)
by Rogerborg
(slashdot at colinmacdonald dot
org) on Sunday July 15, @04:34PM PST (#149)
(User
#306625 Info) http://colinmacdonald.org/
|
I say why not use REAL weapons: guns,
flamethrowers, EMP devices, etc.
Because some of the poor beasties can barely wobble into
the arena under their own power as it is, let alone if a
Cyberdyne T-200 is EMP'ing the area. Explaining the
importance of shielding your systems might be instructive,
but it's hardly entertaining - except maybe to us, and we're
hardly a mainstream audience. ;)
"Enough techno
babble, gadget girl. Will it work or not?" - Farscape, the
best known antidote to Voyager. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Idea!
(Score:1)
by db_two (nsurfer@nite-surfer.com) on Monday July
16, @07:40AM PST (#171)
(User
#445268 Info) http://www.nite-surfer.com/
|
I was thinking either a Taser Gun where
the BOT shoots out a line and jolts the enemy's circuitry.
Or have an electric welders contacts mounted on
several sides at the ends of some reinforced spikes. A high
powered motor to charge, penetrate and zap the opponents.
And to combat the flippers .... the wheels are
mounted to extendable lifters that can rise and then drop
when the flipper gets underneath... However when the frmae
drops back down the spike mounted to the underneath of the
car damage the flipper.
Cool thought -- not sure if
they can work.
David Byrd
CEO - 21st Century
Tech., Inc.
URL: http://www.nite-surfer.com
See our
Illuminated Keyboard |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
Improving BatleBots
(Score:4, Funny)
by ffatTony on Saturday July 14, @11:11PM PST
(#4)
(User
#63354 Info) |
|
I'll be first to admit comedy central's battlebots is dull. My
friend came up with a way to spice it up. His solution... your
200lb, saw covered robot vs a sack of fluffy animals (puppies,
kitties, or duckies would all do).
I didn't say it was a good idea
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Re:Improving
BatleBots (Score:2, Interesting)
by Fred
Ferrigno (slashdot at
spamcheck.bizland.com) on Saturday July 14,
@11:53PM PST (#28)
(User
#122319 Info) |
The new season (which just started
airing) is a little better. First off, the hazards are much
more dangerous, and can actually do damage. (The hammer,
which was rather useless previously, seriously crushed one
bot that was on its way to victory.) Secondly, there were
many more contestants this year, so not only is there a
better crop of bots, but the producers can afford to be
selective and not show the really boring and pointless
matches.
It's an upward cycle, really. The more
people that see it, the more people that participate and the
better the competition.
--
Turing test -
tell the computer to simulate Alan Turing, then ask him if
he's "just a simulation". |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Improving
BatleBots (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on
Monday July 16, @09:24AM PST (#173)
|
And the more people wonder what
brain-damaged casting agency picked (yet again) the Sclar
twins and an (who would have thought) even worse token
bimbo for post-game interviewers.
Thank God for
Tivo.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Improving
BatleBots (Score:2)
by IronChef on Saturday July
14, @11:54PM PST (#29)
(User
#164482 Info) http://wrongcrowd.com/
|
See if you can catch the first
episode of the new season. The mechanical carnage was
intense. It had more action, more twisted metal, than the
whole first season put together. Very cool stuff. I can only
hope the rest of the fights are as violent.
---- The
price of freedom is eternal vigilance. (Try actually
thinking about that for a minute.) |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Improving
BatleBots (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday
July 15, @01:07PM PST (#142)
|
It might also be interesting if all the
bots were made of PVC like the one in this article. That
way, weapons (sawblades etc.) would actually do some
damage.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Improving BatleBots =
hostages (Score:1)
by SimCash on Monday July 16,
@05:40AM PST (#168)
(User
#107073 Info) http://www.simcash.com/
|
| How about duct taping a bunch of cute
furries to the outside of your R/C vehicle (these aren't
really bots except to marketers and ID10ts). Then you could
attack with impunity while the victim blathered on about how
the use of animal shields was inhuman.
Ever see "Road Warrior"? And yes, I thought about saying
"duck tape ducklings".
Mod this one all you want - my morning die
roll made my persona today a "+3 karma whore/elfin
wizard" |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
Now just add one of those
web-controlled guns... (Score:2, Funny)
by DeadMonkey (dan@cowspotting.com) on Saturday July 14,
@11:12PM PST (#5)
(User
#54395 Info) http://www.cowspotting.com/
|
I'm sure you guys all remember the security bots
and the moral dilemnas... well, why not make this bot totally Quake?
Nailguns are cheap and lightweight...
;)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Everybody's
got something to hide except for me and my
monkey...
www.cowspotting.com |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
|
|
That's still retarded.
(Score:5, Insightful)
by ROBOKATZ (deeznutsclan@hotmail.com) on Saturday July 14,
@11:14PM PST (#6)
(User
#211768 Info) http://deeznutsclan.cjb.net/
|
| Battlebots is completely lame because the robots
are human controlled. And because they are human controlled, they
are cannot, by definition, be called robots.
Just because the device the human is using to control the "robot"
is a computer and the "robot" has a computer onboard does not make
it a robot.
With the cheap processing power available today and the current
state of AI there is no excuse, bar incompetence, for this
competition to not consist of truly autonomous robots. Until then,
Battlebots will continue to be a show pandering to the lowest
common denominator, relying on sex and loud music to attract an
audience.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Re:That's still
retarded. (Score:0)
by davidcorny on Saturday
July 14, @11:20PM PST (#11)
(User
#467721 Info) |
Just because the "robots" are controlled
by human operators doesn't mean that it is not interesting
or challenging. Maybe not everyone can be 31337 programmer
like you but they can still handle a glorified rc with
precision
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:That's still
retarded. (Score:3, Insightful)
by RevRigel (rigel@mail.utexas.edu) on Saturday July
14, @11:40PM PST (#22)
(User
#90335 Info) |
They allow autonomous bots, just none of
the autonomous robots choose to compete against the human
controlled robots. It's my understanding that there are
certain exhibitions fights (such as Mark Setrakian's
Mechadon, Snake, etc.) for robots that fall outside the
rules but are still entertaining for the audience, so
autonomous bots tend to fight there, but I believe they're
few and far between.
I'm into autonomous robots myself,
and am considering getting into BattleBots, but at least
with some fly-by-wire intelligence on board, perhaps with
some sensors as well.
I think your assertion about 'the
current state of AI' is a little misguided. When was the
last time you sat down with a compiler and tried to write
something to make a robot do anything, much less be
intelligent, or engage targets with deadly force at its own
discretion? Don't you think there's a reason the military
still mostly has 'dumb' weaponry..aside from being guided by
GPS and recognizing its target optically in a highly
preprogrammed manner, it's still dumb.
Another thing
is..the more intelligent a robot is, the less likely you are
to want to see it destroyed. What would it say about humans
if we took intelligent, thinking beings and threw them in a
pit to fight to the death just because they were machines? I
think it's better left as an extension of the phallus (not
that Battlebots isn't fun :).
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Lame
oversimplification (Score:1)
by pdiaz on
Monday July 16, @07:56PM PST (#184)
(User
#262591 Info) http://acm.asoc.fi.upm.es/~pdiaz
|
while(1):
find_enemey()
kill_enemy()
BAD.
- while(1): What happens to batteries?. And
when you kill the enemy?. And when the enemy attacks
you first?
- find_enemy(): How do you find the enemy?.
Is the shortest path save?. Alternative paths?.
Surprise factor?
- kill_enemy(): How do you kill enemy?. With
wich arm/leg?. Is it posible?. What is the best
attack?
Planet Cluster:
Clustering & H.P.C.news and documentation |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:That's still
retarded. (Score:4, Informative)
by bryan1945
(MonkeyGod@monkeyworld.com) on
Saturday July 14, @11:46PM PST (#23)
(User
#301828 Info) |
Until then, Battlebots will continue
to be a show pandering to the lowest common denominator,
relying on sex and loud music to attract an
audience.
Damn, are you watch the Robo-Playboy
channel?
Also:
ro·bot
n.
1.A
mechanical device that sometimes resembles a human and is
capable of performing a variety of often complex human tasks
on command or by being programmed in advance.
2.A machine or device that operates automatically
or by remote control.
3.A
person who works mechanically without original thought,
especially one who responds automatically to the commands of
others.
I don't see the term "AI" anywhere in there,
whiz kid.
"Groovy" - Ash |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Where you find
AI (Score:1)
by yerricde
(slash@pinzigeight.8m.zig.com (take off
every zig)) on Sunday July 15, @08:05PM PST (#157)
(User
#125198 Info) http://www.pineight.com/
|
|
I don't see the term "AI" anywhere in there
Then what is "a variety of often complex human tasks on
command" other than tasks that require artificial
intelligence?
You'll probably say next: I said "AI," not "things
that mean exactly AI."
Buzzword compliance and trademark compliance can be
Almost Worthless(tm); for instance, FreeBSD and GNU/Linux
do not carry the UNIX trademark but are drop-in
replacements for a UNIX system.
They laughed at my
CLI-less Mac and then at my GUI-less BSD box. KDE shut
them up. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Where you find
AI (Score:1)
by RedHat Rocky
(SpamMeHere@wkks.org) on
Monday July 16, @04:52AM PST (#165)
(User
#94208 Info) |
Being able to perform complex human
tasks does NOT imply AI. Assembly line robots in the car
industry certainly don't use AI to get things done,
rather they simply replay what they were told to do.
That is certainly not what is typically meant by the
term AI.
Anything is possible given time and
money. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Assembly
line (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on
Monday July 16, @10:00AM PST (#174)
|
|
Assembly line robots in the car industry
certainly don't use AI to get things done
Notice that yerricde mentioned complex
human tasks. A robot doing simplistic manual labor is
not performing a complex task.
That is certainly not what is typically meant by
the term AI
AOL(tw) wants you to think "robot boy who thinks
he's Pinocchio" when you hear "A.I."
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:That's still
retarded. (Score:1)
by batwingTM on Sunday July
15, @12:51AM PST (#47)
(User
#202524 Info) |
| I agree, wouldn't this be excellent if
the robots actually had to rely on their sensors and their
programming.
When I was doing engineering at University we had to
build responsive systems using Lego Dacta (educational tool
kits, Mindstorms was born from this). Our group build a
roving unit that would sense and object in front of it, if
is was blue or yellow lego bricks it would attack it (swing
an arm and knock it down) otherwise it would try to find a
path around it.
Now that was 7 years ago, I think we could develop a lot
more fun robotics and programming now.
Good evening and welcome to Slashdot Robot
Fighters
I like the idea of that
Trav
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:That's still
retarded. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday
July 15, @01:02AM PST (#52)
|
you been reading too much asimov, genius
head. that, and the "20 Years Forward" highlights from the
issues of 2010 that they put in the current issues of
scientific american. just a few highlights, but I'm sure you
think it's TODAY. do you also think that the "200 years
back" refers to the slave labor of TODAY that's being slowly
alliviated (sp) by steam? loser.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:That's still
retarded. (Score:2)
by fantom_winter on Sunday
July 15, @04:51AM PST (#82)
(User
#194762 Info) |
With the cheap processing power
available today and the current state of AI there is no
excuse, bar incompetence, for this competition to not
consist of truly autonomous robots. Until then, Battlebots
will continue to be a show pandering to the lowest common
denominator, relying on sex and loud music to attract an
audience. Mod this message down! First off, this person
doesn't know what robots are (as already pointed out).
Secondly, the amonut of AI to make a bot survivable in a
hostile environment is quite high, and has not really been
attained yet. Thirdly, battle bots is cool. :)
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:That's still
retarded. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday
July 15, @08:54AM PST (#114)
|
The reason they don't do this is because
it would be boring. 99% of the bots would go in circles
until the found their opponent (if they ever found it) and
then charge at it repeatedly until someone turns it off.
Effective, but boring as hell to watch.
Most of the
hobbyists that make these bots are not AI programmers, so
there would be very little good, interesting AI.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:That's still
retarded. (Score:1)
by Saeger on Sunday July 15,
@10:40AM PST (#132)
(User
#456549 Info) |
| Special case "AI" sucks though.
Instead, maybe what someone needs to do is, create a new
bot named Eurisko^2; give it a baby neural net and a
basic genetic algorithm to follow; add-on the requisite
computer vision and extra-sensory feedback; feed it its
capabilities and the battlebot ruleset, and then...set the
thing loose in a parking lot full of angry kiddies wielding
spiked baseball bats, hammers, flails, power-saws, fireplace
pokers, and wedge-shaped shovels (oh my!). Let it evolve in
training, tuning its neural pathways with do's and dont's,
like any good pavlov dog would.
Of course, anything learning in meatspace is slow, so
you'd actually want to simulate those trillions of battlebot
matches on that 'beowulf cluster of toasters' in the
basement; breeding the best bot with the best strategy to
fare against the most varied set of other possible enemy
bots.
(Yeah, I know none of this NN & GA stuff is that
simple, because if it was, it would have been applied by
now. :-)
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:That's still
retarded. (Score:2)
by Rogerborg
(slashdot at colinmacdonald dot
org) on Sunday July 15, @04:18PM PST (#148)
(User
#306625 Info) http://colinmacdonald.org/
|
there is no excuse, bar incompetence, for this
competition to not consist of truly autonomous robots.
If you read the article, you'll find out exactly why
there are no autonomous contenders - because they'd have to
be completed by hackers.
- PVC was chosen primarily because we are computer
people, not mechanical people [...] we hit a column with a
rubber mallet. The joint shattered (the hard plastic) and
hit every wall in the garage!
- the bot was retired before the armor was built [...]
it never saw a fight
- if certain relays were closed at the same time the
system could short itself out, so care had to be taken
when issuing commands to not do that!
- This is what happens when you hook the batteries up
backwards. A big bang, lots of smoke, and a blown cap.
- This is what happens when you don't use fuses.
Something starts to smoke... Fortunately, it was
repairable and nothing expensive broke!
- Everything on the bot is complete and works, except it
draws too much power
Note to the easily angered, I'm not dissing these guys,
this is a fun project, and well documented. But it kind of
typifies the hacker culture of build one to throw one away -
then get bored and go on to something else. Hell, I've got a
hand built car sitting in my garage that I never
drive. Like these guys, I built it to learn how to do
it, not to actually drive it around or anything.
;)
"Enough techno babble, gadget girl. Will it
work or not?" - Farscape, the best known antidote to
Voyager. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:That's still
retarded. (Score:1)
by Dan D. (ndfabian_AT_unm.edu) on Monday July 16,
@07:12AM PST (#170)
(User
#10998 Info) http://www.unm.edu/~ndfabian/
|
I'm wondering if you've ever tried to
build a self-motivated robot.
While I completely
agree that AI would be a nicer way to have bots fight, its
damn near impossible with the current state of sensor-ware.
It's far too imperfect and slow.
Oh actually unless
you're talking about the kind of sensor-ware that ends up in
high-grade military weapons. Then it probably wouldn't be
battlebots anymore. It would be an entirely different
monster.
I do however think you could have AI
augmented bots, that do things like attempt to auto-aim the
on board weaponry after the human controller has gotten them
close. Or some kind of in-bred overriding defense
response.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
Count me out.
(Score:1)
by MWoody
(sd@mwoN0SPAMody.com) on Saturday July
14, @11:14PM PST (#7)
(User
#222806 Info) http://mwoody.com/
|
I'm not watching that Battlebots show again
until they change it so those !@#$!@#$'in [i]annoying[/i] announcers
have to give commentary while dodging killer robots. Or hey, I'm not
picky; while [i]not[/i] dodging aforementioned killer robots, if
they should so decide.
---
"And now you're gonna die,
wearing that stupid little hat. How does it feel?" - D-FENS,
Falling Down |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Re:Count me out.
(Score:2)
by IronChef on Saturday July 14, @11:56PM PST
(#30)
(User
#164482 Info) http://wrongcrowd.com/
|
I use my ReplayTV to delay the
show... I zip through the boring crap at 20x speed and only
watch the matches. I can take the commentators for a couple
of minutes at a time. I can't take ANY of the crapola
between bouts.
With a Replay, Tivo, or even VCR to
skip ahead, Battlebots is about 5 minutes out of your week
-- perfect.
Live TV is for chumps.
---- The
price of freedom is eternal vigilance. (Try actually
thinking about that for a minute.) |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
It's not just a saying any
more. (Score:2)
by darkonc on Saturday July 14, @11:20PM
PST (#10)
(User
#47285 Info) http://www.getyourassingear.com/
|
| Now when someone says, "My laptop can blow yours
out of the water", they may not be exagerating.
Bulletproof portable anyone?
--
Killing a person is hard
-- killing an idea is murder. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
|
|
Next step, flying bots...
(Score:2, Interesting)
by gnovos on Saturday July 14, @11:24PM
PST (#12)
(User
#447128 Info) |
I don't know why someone hasn't come up with a
flying bot yet? It would not be too hard to strip an RC helicopter
for parts and put a powerdrill pointed down right under the rotors
(or two power drills of you have to balance the torque). You just
zip around the ring, line up the drills right over the power source
of your enemy bot and just bore into them while they flail wildly
trying to poke you with thier little ineffectual weapons...
...Man, I wish I had either money or free time to play with
battlebots!
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Re:Next step, flying
bots... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday
July 15, @09:02AM PST (#117)
|
I'd just mount a 2 foot tall wire
antenna (not hooked up to any radio equipment of course) or
something to the top of my bot so you can't get near without
getting your rotors bent up. :) Not that flying bots are
legal or very safe for spectators anyways...
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
And it runs Windows??
(Score:0, Troll)
by ROBOKATZ (deeznutsclan@hotmail.com) on Saturday July 14,
@11:25PM PST (#13)
(User
#211768 Info) http://deeznutsclan.cjb.net/
|
| Come on. What kind of moron can't wirewrap up
their own memory controller and program on EEPROM with their own
tiny BIOS. Hell they wouldn't need any external interfaces they
could probably directly memory map the controls. All their software
would probably easily fit on an 8k EEPROM.
Now, I could (maybe) understand the need for an OS if they were
running a high end processor with some real AI doing fighting and
moving, with some cheap image recognition (X10 cam, anyone)? But
sheesh.. It's just remote controlled by a laptop.. If you were
slightly insane you could just build analog controls to compensate
for the inadaquecies of RC..
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
|
|
Slight problem with the $100
robot... (Score:4, Insightful)
by bryan1945 (MonkeyGod@monkeyworld.com) on Saturday July 14,
@11:30PM PST (#17)
(User
#301828 Info) |
and that problem is that when your "Doom-bot"
runs up against your competitor's $4000 titanium shell that laughs
at whatever sad-assed weaponary you have. There is a reason that the
'bots (at least the ones that win at least once) on Battlebots cost
a shit-load of money- quality parts. Yeah, I could stick a stuffed
monkey in a Barbie car with spikes on the front, but I think that
the kill saws and the hammer will make short shrift of said device.
This ain't "lawnmower vs. weed-whacker" kids!
"Groovy" -
Ash |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Re:Slight problem with the
$100 robot... (Score:2)
by Mononoke
(osxxxrocksATaolDOTcomDOTcomDOTcomDOTcom)
on Sunday July 15, @07:10AM PST (#96)
(User
#88668 Info) |
Yeah, I could stick a stuffed monkey in a
Barbie car with spikes on the front, but I think that the
kill saws and the hammer will make short shrift of said
device. This ain't "lawnmower vs. weed-whacker"
kids! A
variation of this has been done. It actually won a
couple of fights due to its manuverability and the talent of
its drivers.
( "Buddy Lee Don't Play In The Street" was the bot:
http://www.battlebots.com/battlebots_detail.asp?ID =66
)
--
YOU ARE IN A MAZE OF TWISTED ANONYMOUS
COWARDS, ALL ALIKE. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Windows controlling it?
(Score:5, Funny)
by Soko (NOrsokoloski1@SPhome.AMcom) on Saturday July 14,
@11:32PM PST (#18)
(User
#17987 Info) http://members.home.net/rsokoloski1/
|
From the site:
Yep! This is a
486DX2/66 running Windows 98 on a 340 meg laptop hard drive.
...gives new meaning to "Blue Screen Of Death", don't it?
What the hell, it's only Karma. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Re:Windows controlling
it? (Score:2, Funny)
by SirStanley
({spamisbadmmhhk}ravskel@moseisley.com) on
Sunday July 15, @01:23AM PST (#56)
(User
#95545 Info) |
Here at the Univ. Of Pitt. We have a
single CS honors class it is a robotic type class. we don't
get to build robots, however We do get to write software for
robots. We used these groovy little things called Pioneer
2's Thy rocked. We slapped laptops into their serial ports
and could control the bot through the laptop. But it gets
cooler. We installed X on the laptops and slapped Wireless
cards into the lappys. We exported X-sessions over our
wireless network and ran our GUI apps for the robots from
far far away. Which was good. Cuase they were fast little
boogers and there are still a few dents in the wall from
when ours shot off at full spped and our PID control
couldn't keep up =b But X + Laptop or some form of box +
Wireless == killer bots
--------========+++Dont Feed The
Lab Techs+++========-------- |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
You call this a
Battlebot?! (Score:5, Informative)
by jsse on Saturday
July 14, @11:47PM PST (#24)
(User
#254124 Info) |
I've submit this cool-looking, Debian GNU/Linux powered battlebot
TuxBot
but got rejected by /. Gods.
Now this rugged
oranges box got spotlighted?
What's wrong with you
guys?
It works for me™ |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Re:You call this a
Battlebot?! (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on
Sunday July 15, @12:52AM PST (#48)
|
Uhm, upon reflection, the humor was
lost on my original post.
However it does raise
an interesting thought.
Since the slashdot crowed is
pro-linux. I can't
help but wonder if the PHB's would
hire this guy
(the original artical identifies him as
the
programmer) to work in their IT deptartment
and
promote opensource.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:You call this a
Battlebot?! (Score:1, Redundant)
by Anonymous
Coward on Sunday July 15, @08:16AM PST (#110)
|
Being the person in the picture and
being odd most my life this doesnt really effect me. It is
a bad picture though. When the publicity shots for
BattleBots.com come up there is a much better picture.
Here is more info: Team TuxBot builds BattleBots for fun
and not profit. All profits from competition will be
donated to the EFF and FSF. Unfortunately we didnt advance
far enough to win money this time. (Cant say how far due
to an NDA) All of our programmers are allready Free
Software developers whom work for Brainfood.com. Our
sponsors are/were Linux Journal, Tri-M Engineering, and
Brainfood.com. As for build reports I've got them and they
need to go up. Suffice to say we were too busy making the
bot ready to actually compete to keep as good of records
as we should of. (We were working till 4am on this thing
then getting up around 8am for work.) If you really want
build reports I'll post what little we have. Currently
we're busy rebuilding Violator and our new bots. If you
are looking for *real* build reports then join the
BattleBots forum on Delphi. Team TuxBot is open to anyone
whom builds a Linux powered BattleBot and agrees to donate
any profits to the Free Software Foundation and or EFF.
(Or pretty much any other advocacy group) Even if they
dont join I'd really like to see the other Linux teams
agree to the donation principle. If they dont then I dont
think they are doing this for the right reasons. (AKA the
"Right thing to do") Cheers, Eric Molitor
www.brainfood.com
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:You call this a
Battlebot?! (Score:1)
by Bearly on Sunday July
15, @01:38AM PST (#62)
(User
#30369 Info) |
Yours may have been cool looking, but
this one came with a log of how it was made. More info,
pictures. Not "We made a linux robot! Yay us!" but "We made
a linux robot! It works like this, and here is how we built
it, and here's why we think linux'll help."
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
BYO? (Score:1)
by Halster (spambox@mrc.tas.edu.au) on Saturday July 14,
@11:48PM PST (#26)
(User
#34667 Info) http://users.bigpond.com/XDouglas/
|
"Bring Your Own" Battlebot? Shouldn't this read
D.I.Y. or something, instead of inventing an acronym?
"How much truth can advertising buy?" - iNsuRge - AK47
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Re:BYO?
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15,
@12:54AM PST (#49)
|
So BYOB means Build Your Own Beer?
I think not.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:BYO?
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15,
@01:44AM PST (#64)
|
my school has BYO Burger night, and
there is sure as hell meat on my plate when i go to the
cafeteria, so maybe the beer people should focus on less
acronyms cause BYO = build your own.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Here's an idea...
(Score:3, Funny)
by kennyj449 (kennyjNOSPAM449@yahoo.com) on Saturday July 14,
@11:58PM PST (#32)
(User
#151268 Info) |
We (the /. crowd) can rip off the PVC ghetto
bot, cover it in paper machet armor (not like it would make a
difference anyway against ramming or flipping), write JonKatz on two
sides, write Alex Chiu on the other two, and stick a picture of the
AYB alien on the top. Battlebot fodder that represents the three
most hated presences on the Internet, getting mauled in its first
match.
We'd have to make sure there'd be a visible Windows
logo too. Maybe have it light up when the bot dies. I'm thinking
BatSignal here.
What would really be great would be if it
actually won a match.
Although actually, knowing how junkyards
come into play, there IS a decent weapon available - the phallic
sonic ramrod. Take any working, but junked vibrator (just be sure to
wear gloves...), overclock it (double the voltage, stick a Peltier
in there, etc. etc.) attach a sharpened roof nail to the end, and
voila - a ramrod that vibrates the opposition apart while offering a
superb visual effect for prime-time TV. Extra points for getting
somebody to use it as originally intended without serious
injury.
"B4k4" http://www.megatokyo.com |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
"Impossible to drive" says the
article (Score:5, Informative)
by IronChef on Sunday July
15, @12:09AM PST (#36)
(User
#164482 Info) http://wrongcrowd.com/
|
Quoth the article: Most battlebots are just
glorified RC cars. They use off-the-shelf speed controllers, and
stock RC controllers. Unfortunately, this makes them impossible to
drive.
It's not the use of R/C car parts that is the
problem. A good R/C car is a dream to drive, very controllable. The
problem seems to be with the operator's choice of controllers. I
keep seeing these sort of twin-stick
controllers in use for simple wedge bots with no extra weapons;
why the hell don't the operators use pistol-grip style
controllers?
I could never really get the hang of twin
sticks, but I can pilot a car pretty well with a pistol grip. AFAIK
all serious R/C car guys use them, and for good reason.
The
Battlebots arena is PLAGUED with really awful driving. I'm sure a
heavy bot isn't as easy to drive as an R/C race car, but c'mon, most
of these guys could do a lot better, and I think better controls
would help. (I saw one guy using a freaking joystick... I think he
got his clock cleaned, too. Use the right tool for the job,
Chester!) The videos they show of the designers tearing up junk in
parking lots... not a great way to practice. A parking lot is a lot
bigger than the arena, and poor control won't be punished as much.
Especially when you are wrecking a TV or an aquarium, instead of
another bot.
I know some bots need more than just movement
controls, and a 2-channel pistol grip isn't adequate. Nonetheless,
it sure looks like some teams are sabotaging themselves with a poor
choice for mobility controls. Mobility is life; precise driving
should be the first requirement for any bot.
Seems to me a
team should have one driver and one gunner (yep, some do, I know),
or perhaps one operator using some innovative controls like
footswitches to operate the weapons. A pistol grip with 2 foot
switches for the bot's gadgets -- that would be the way to go!
---- The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. (Try
actually thinking about that for a minute.) |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Not so easy indeed
(Score:2)
by kazzuya (davide@<homepage>) on Sunday July
15, @03:21AM PST (#77)
(User
#135293 Info) http://kazzuya.com/
|
I think the main issue is that those
robots drive like tanks. That way the design is much easier
and it's also easier to get out of hot spots or to face the
enemy without having to look like trying to parallel
park.
Now, regarding the article, if they think that
their AI will do a better job.. ..good luck !
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:"Impossible to drive"
says the article (Score:1)
by Magus311X on Sunday
July 15, @05:43AM PST (#86)
(User
#5823 Info) |
First, glorified RC cars are not a bad
thing. I wish my REGULAR car was as ludicrous as my Nitro
RC, and I have a shiny new sports car as it is. 1.2 bhp on
the dyno for something that weighs about 1.15 kg. Talk about
power to weight ratios! Plus a full PCS system including a
working 3rd channel for making needle valve adjustments on
the fly, tunable modulated hard braking (ABS), etc. This car
has nearly as many tuning options as a real race car. With
proper gearing and a 2-speed transmission this thing can get
to 60 as quickly as most sports cars. Top speed is about 70
(gear-limited).
I think people on battlebots are
just too cheap sometimes to drop in a $250 all digital
3-channel control system. In my opinion, its damn worth it.
-----
I fingered everyone on my system,
and then, I fingered myself. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:"Impossible to drive"
says the article (Score:2)
by Klaruz on Sunday
July 15, @06:26AM PST (#92)
(User
#734 Info) |
-- I think people on battlebots are
just too cheap sometimes to drop in a $250 all digital
3-channel control system. In my opinion, its damn worth
it. --
As the other poster said, most of these run
like tanks. It would be rough to get good control out of a
tank like car using a pistol style control. Allthought, it
would be interesting to see how they control a tank style
system using the two sticks as forward/reverse for each
side, considering the left stick is usually a throtle that
doesn't snap back to the middle like the stick on the
right. Maybe there's a way to modify the radio to fix that
problem, I've never looked into that... If you read the
build your own battle bot thing, the author recomends a 6
chan heli radio. That's still twice as many chans as your
high end 3 chan pistol system. You need that kind of
control for turning on saws and droping blades, and
whatever else it is your bot does.
Besides, using
a stick system isn't that hard, I do cars and airplanes
right now, maybe helis soon. You get used to the controls
for both. I'm precise with either a car or a well built
plane. Allthough since I don't normally do cars, I'm much
better with a stick type radio I use with my planes. It's
just a matter of practice.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:"Impossible to
drive" says the article (Score:1)
by Klaruz
on Sunday July 15, @06:29AM PST (#93)
(User
#734 Info) |
Oh yah, I completly forgot, a 6 chan
heli radio, or aircraft radio costs over $300. Most
profesional bots will probobly have an 8 chan radio, a
high end futaba most likely, you're looking at about
$1000 for one of those.
R/C cars are fun, but
they don't hurt your wallet like planes and helis
do...
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:"Impossible to
drive" says the article (Score:3,
Informative)
by dougmc
(dougmc + slashdot at frenzy dot
com) on Sunday July 15, @07:20AM PST (#100)
(User
#70836 Info) |
| Three channels typically isn't enough
for a serious battlebot.
For a car, two channels is the norm and you can get a
third channel for more money -- but that's it. For more
channels, you'll have to get plane equipment or spend a
*lot* of money on specialised hardware.
`All digital' isn't required (I assume you mean PCM?)
FM or even AM ought to be fine (but BattleBots prohibits
AM, so it's moot) -- after all, modern R/C equipment has
an effective range of around 1.5 miles -- far further than
you can even *see* your plane. For a bot, it's unlikely to
ever go more than 100 yards from you. At that range,
interference isn't much of a problem, even for AM, unless
somebody is on your exact frequency.
One thing to note that they don't seem to tell you --
in the US, airplane radios use the 72mhz band, which the
FCC has designated for aircraft only. To use it for a
ground craft is *illegal*. For ground craft, you're
supposed to use the 75mhz band. (There's also the 27mhz
band, but few people use it because it's also used by CB
radios and there's only 6 channels there anyways. And
there's also the 50 and 53mhz bands, but you need to have
a ham radio license to use these.)
Futaba
will convert some of their higher end radios from the
72mhz band to 75mhz band for $40.
If you do actually make your own robot, please don't
use 72mhz equipment! There may be a flying field a half
mile away that you don't know about, and you could crash
somebody's plane without even knowing it.
(I emailed the coolrobots.com guy about this, and his
email bounced -- mailbox full. Guess it got /.ed ...)
--
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:"Impossible to
drive" says the article (Score:0)
by
Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15, @08:15AM PST (#109)
|
| A full x86 setup with 802.11 doesn't
cost more than $500 and allows arbitrary kinds of
controls. The only problem could be people jamming the
2.4G band, or too many bots causing excessive delay.
~
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:"Impossible to
drive" says the article (Score:2)
by dougmc
(dougmc + slashdot at frenzy dot
com) on Sunday July 15, @11:22AM PST (#136)
(User
#70836 Info) |
| A PCM radio is just as vulerable
to interference as a FM radio -- in fact, it sends
it's signal the exact same way that a FM radio does.
The signal itself is different, however -- it has
servo signals, checksums and failsafe information.
If the signal is lost for a fraction of a second,
servos stay in the location of their last known `good'
signal. If the signal is lost for longer, they go to
the `failsafe' setting, which probably turns off all
the motors if the bot is configured properly.
With FM, interference usually just causes your
servos to stop moving and stay where they were -- but
sometimes the right interference can cause `glitches'
-- which could be dangerous. Normally they don't occur
under normal conditions, but from what you said, a
BattleBots tournament isn't a normal condition.
PCM radios have higher latency than FM radios --
your imputs translate to servo movement more slowly --
but it's a pretty small difference and most people
don't even notice.
That all being said, having a 300 lb robot with a
chainsaw in front, having a PCM radio (with it's
failsafe settings correctly set) is probably a good
precaution, especially if the interference is as bad
as you say it is.
So, what frequency band was your radio equipment
on? :) What did most people use? (do you know?)
--
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:"Impossible to drive"
says the article (Score:2)
by dougmc
(dougmc + slashdot at frenzy dot
com) on Sunday July 15, @07:06AM PST (#95)
(User
#70836 Info) |
| Actually, this wouldn't help much at
all. You'd have a narrow little view of the action.
Much better to practice with your bot and learn how to
use the 3rd person perspective to your advantage.
People have tried putting cameras on R/C planes and
cars with various degress of success -- but it rarely
works as well as an experienced pilot/driver with a good
view of the craft.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:"Impossible to drive"
says the article (Score:4, Informative)
by dougmc
(dougmc + slashdot at frenzy dot
com) on Sunday July 15, @07:51AM PST (#104)
(User
#70836 Info) |
why the hell don't the operators use
pistol-grip style controllers? Many battlebots
drive like tanks. With no steering servo, these pistol-grip
controllers won't work well, unless you do some sort of
mixing (where the steering control adjusts the speed of the
two wheels/tracks.) Could be done, but adds complexity,
making things less reliable.
Also, you'll be very hard pressed to find a pistol grip
controller with more than 3 channels. Of course, if you have
a seperate driver and gunner, giving the driver a pistol
grip controller and the gunner a standard two stick airplane
controller (on two different channels, of course) would
probably work great.
Also, the two stick controllers aren't bad for R/C cars
at all. I've got both, and while I do prefer the pistol
grip, it's not that big of a deal. But then again, maybe I'm
biased because I mostly fly R/C planes rather than drive R/C
cars.
--
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:"Impossible to drive"
says the article (Score:1)
by MattHawk (SmPcAhM@woh.rr.com) on Sunday July 15,
@11:16AM PST (#135)
(User
#215818 Info) |
There are a few builders who use RC Car
style controllers, typically to good effect. The best
controllers for Battlebots tend to be custom ones - They are
becoming increasingly common(Including Battlebots that use
computer joysticks for control :) The main reason for the
Aircraft style radios being so common is all the extra
features - I can't think of an wheel-style radios that have
the programmability of a Futaba 8-series aircraft radio, nor
that have so many channels (Several robots actually use all
the channels on the 8 and 9 series radios).
IMHO, as
a bot builder myself (I competed in the May competition),
the main enemy for bad driving is lack of practice. I ran so
close on construction time that I only had about 10 minutes
to practice driving before the competition; After that, I
had to box it up to ship it. Some people drive for the first
time in the box :) Another problem is spatial orientation -
It's sometimes hard to aim weapons when you're not looking
from directly behind the bot. Someone at the most recent
competition tried putting a VR camera in the nose of a bot
to drive that way. They recorded the feed from it; There
might be some exciting shots of the camera charging at and
coming very close to a spike :)
p.s. To those of you
who are talking about "Why isn't it autonomous" - There used
to be an autonomous element in the competition. It fizzled
out after a couple years because no one could program an AI
good enough to do any damage. Actually, most of the
autonomous matches involved the bots bumping into the
corners for 3 minutes trying to find each other :). If you
think about the complecxities - Image recognition; Trying to
navigate in relation to the edge of the box and the hazards
AND the opponant who is trying to outmanuver you; What
happens when it sustains damage to a critical sensor;
computers being fragile enough that the average battlebot
fight would absolutely demolish one; and the very writing of
the code to process it all; It just seems to be a bit much,
and it has proven to be so in the past. Look at humans
driving - we have the best computer in the world in our
head, and most of us can't do it very well :). It's a cool
idea, but it seems the time hasn't come for it...
yet.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:"Impossible to drive"
says the article (Score:1)
by DRACO-
(davids@\*dontspam*\hal-pc.org)
on Monday July 16, @12:04AM PST (#162)
(User
#175113 Info) http://www.trapnet.com/
|
|
Those wedge bots use a trac type drive system.. left
stick controls the left trac/wheel and right stick controls
right trac/wheel. If you ever drive a dixon lawnmower or a
bulldozer it all comes natural. Both sticks forward for
going forward, both sticks back for going backwards. 360
left with right stick forward and left back, 360 right with
left forward and right back. simple right turns with left
stick forward and right stick slowed or off (or yanked back
momentarily for braking).
The pistol grips dont provide the right control for
trac/separate side driven vehicles. Pistol grips are ok for
stuff that drives like a car.
Joystick controls would be ok to control either design,
car or trac. For a car style with joystick design
forward/rev would control for/aft movement motors and
left/right would control steering. For trac style forward
would activiate both tracs to go forward... back would
activate both tracs to go back. and left would possibly do
360 unless you programmed the 360 movements with buttons,
and had left just kick the right trac forward. ditto right.
But with a trac/joystick, there could be confusion of the
zones where it would stop going forward and start trying to
turn. (need some programming)
If i had an unlimited supply of $ i wouldnt mind putting
my traxxas nitro powered rc truck in the ring after buying
all the metal replacement parts and adding a modified roll
cage and add some kind of anti roll mech. My traxxas tends
to roll pretty often as a cause of braking too fast or
trying to turn at full speed (gotta remember star trek
rules.. warp speed in straight lines, and turn on impulse
speeds). I would also want to fix my reverse gear so i can
repeatily ram someone (my reverse sometimes gets stuck or
becomes nutral). I know this thing has a lot of weight and
can pretty well ram anything. Add short peircing spike to
the front and back, and start her up!
I have taken my traxxas indoors onto concrete gym floors,
confusing donuts are very easy :P power slides, and brake
slides on smooth concrete require skill. (I love doing that
stuff while ppl are standing around gawking.. just power
slide right in front of them, then come back and brake slide
to a stop at their feet and blow full throttle in reverse to
left or right for some awesome donuts!) Im sure playing
around in one of those robot war places would be simular
surface.
DRACO-
** To bend the spoon, you have to first realize there is
no spoon, it's a butterknife you idiot! |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:"Impossible to drive"
says the article (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on
Monday July 16, @01:47PM PST (#179)
|
>I'm sure a heavy bot isn't as easy
to drive as an R/C race car, but c'mon, most
>of
these guys could do a lot better, and I think better
controls would
>help.
the lack of tactile feedback would be a problem . . .
(I saw one guy using a freaking joystick... I think
he got his
>clock cleaned, too. Use the right tool
for the job, Chester!)
Hey, yeah! one of those microsoft joysticks with
feedback :)
hmm, *are* the cars allowed to transmit information
back?
>A parking lot is a lot bigger than the
>arena, and poor control won't be punished as much.
OK, so add weird women in peculiar black outfits and
whips at the parking lot . . .
hawk
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:"Impossible to drive"
says the article (Score:2)
by hawk (dochawk@psu.edu) on Monday July 16,
@02:18PM PST (#183)
(User
#1151 Info) http://www.personal.psu.edu/reh18
|
>I'm sure a heavy bot isn't as easy
to drive as an R/C race car, but c'mon, most
>of
these guys could do a lot better, and I think better
controls would
>help.
the lack of tactile feedback would be a problem . . .
(I saw one guy using a freaking joystick... I think
he got his
>clock cleaned, too. Use the right tool
for the job, Chester!)
Hey, yeah! one of those microsoft joysticks with
feedback :)
hmm, *are* the cars allowed to transmit information
back?
>A parking lot is a lot bigger than the
>arena, and poor control won't be punished as much.
OK, so add weird women in peculiar black outfits and
whips at the parking lot .
. .
hawk, recovering once more from an anonymous post
. . .
These opinions will not be those of Penn State until it
pays my retainer. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
Hack on the fly?
(Score:1)
by perlchimp (root at perlchimp.com) on Sunday July 15,
@12:11AM PST (#38)
(User
#263475 Info) http://perlchimp.com/
|
Once you start introducing real power to these
bots, it won't be long before people start using electronic counter
measures.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Re:Hack on the
fly? (Score:2)
by e7 on Sunday July 15, @12:43AM
PST (#44)
(User
#117450 Info) |
Not sure how you'd get away with ECM ...
the rulebook
says :
If you employ magnets/electromagnets in your
BattleBot design you must inform the Technical/Safety
Inspectors of their presence and demonstrate that they
will not cause radio interference. You may be disqualified
at anytime if your BattleBots is found to cause radio
interference. Darn ... good idea tho
:)
Tangent to e7's Law: Moore's Law predicts a
statistical decline in the average IQ of computer users.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Hack on the
fly? (Score:2)
by Mononoke
(osxxxrocksATaolDOTcomDOTcomDOTcomDOTcom)
on Sunday July 15, @07:18AM PST (#99)
(User
#88668 Info) |
If you employ magnets/electromagnets in your
BattleBot design you must inform the Technical/Safety
Inspectors of their presence and demonstrate that they
will not cause radio interference. You may be
disqualified at anytime if your BattleBots is found to
cause radio interference. Are there any
battlebots that don't employ magnets/electromagnets? I
don't remember seeing any steam-driven bots, but I could
have missed something. I've seen a few gas engines, but
they were just for show.
I guess the real technological breakthrough would be
interfacing the electronics to the mechanicals
without using solenoids.
--
YOU ARE IN A MAZE OF TWISTED ANONYMOUS
COWARDS, ALL ALIKE.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
wireless attack ==
ECM? (Score:1)
by e7 on Sunday July 15, @12:47AM
PST (#45)
(User
#117450 Info) |
guess i wasn't paying attention ... heh
... i wonder what the judges would say to a bot with an
802.11b controller, let alone a DOS attack against said
bot.
Tangent to e7's Law: Moore's Law predicts a
statistical decline in the average IQ of computer users.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
Or... (Score:0)
by
Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15, @12:58AM PST (#50)
|
...Or, you could just watch
the Best of
Backyard Wrestling video...
I dunno, there's something about
that commercial
that puts a BIG smile on my face...cant quite
figure out
what it is...hmmm....
...oh yeah, the sight
of morons willingly maiming and crippling each other.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
This season rocks!
(Score:0, Informative)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15,
@01:32AM PST (#61)
|
I saw the battle bots live in SF and I can
assure you that a number of fights just totally rocked. I don't want
to spoil the finals for folks, but lets just say that it was pure
carnage. There were a number of times that I was a bit worried that
one of the bots would break through the 1/4 inch plexiglass around
the arena.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
|
|
Robotsoccer
(Score:1)
by ckuijjer on Sunday July 15, @01:46AM PST (#66)
(User
#112385 Info) http://www.wins.uva.nl/~ckuijjer
|
Just a quote i heard at the european robot
soccer competition in amsterdam, 2000. It was about the iranian
people winning with their team because they didn't have the money
for expensive hardware (so no harddrive) and therefore had to do it
all in RAM (or floppy i guess). The punchline was that a lot of the
harddrives locked up and crashed the robots. So just don't use a
harddrive like they did but a floppy linux release or so, though
that would probably be hard to get X on.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Re:Robotsoccer
(Score:2)
by Detritus (jlimpert@acm.org) on Sunday July 15,
@02:29AM PST (#74)
(User
#11846 Info) |
It would be easier to put Linux, or the
operating system of your choice, on a flash card. From what
I have read, these can be used as a direct replacement for
an IDE hard disk.
You want the truth? You can't handle the
truth! |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Robotsoccer
(Score:2)
by Rogerborg
(slashdot at colinmacdonald dot
org) on Sunday July 15, @05:04PM PST (#151)
(User
#306625 Info) http://colinmacdonald.org/
|
|
Yes, but flash is expensive and (electrically) fragile.
It's also hellishly slow to access, but that's probably
not an issue here. It's light and low powered (when
reading), but again, that's not an issue in a typical
battle bot.
Maybe I'm a luddite, but I'd prefer a cheap,
electrically robust hard drive.
"Enough techno
babble, gadget girl. Will it work or not?" - Farscape, the
best known antidote to Voyager. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Robotsoccer (Score:1)
by AnarchoFreak_00
(jbell@soupisgoodfoodBUTSPAMISBAD.net)
on Sunday July 15, @09:48PM PST (#161)
(User
#126755 Info) http://www.soupisgoodfood.net/bentmetal/
|
| Yes, but flash is expensive and
(electrically) fragile. It's also hellishly slow to
access, but that's probably not an issue here. It's
light and low powered (when reading), but again, that's
not an issue in a typical battle bot.
Maybe I'm a luddite, but I'd prefer a cheap,
electrically robust hard drive.
Flashcards may be more electricaly fragile. But they
are more mechanicly stronger than a HD, since they have
no moving parts.
Don't forget these are battle bots. It gets a little
more intense than just "opps... I dropped my laptop."
(and one could even consider that intense).
Also, if you talking about CF cards (I think they can
be used just like an IDE drive, with an adapter). You
can get them quite cheaply now, especialy for a 8-16MB
card. That's plenty of room. Unless you install win98 on
it. But since you can get linux on a iPaq. I shouldn't
be too hard to get a striped down version of linux on to
a CF card.
* *
*
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Robotsoccer
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15, @07:27PM
PST (#155)
|
just out of curiosity, where do you plug
in the cable to download/boot the poop to the little puppy?
(some of us like to be sick and twisted) :)
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
real battlebots
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15, @02:17AM PST (#70)
|
I have an idea to really spice things up. How
about battle bot vs human. It would be a hoot to have body parts
spewn all over the pexiglass windows flame throwers frying run away
prisoners.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
what I'd like to see:
(Score:1)
by Solidus
Fullstop (solidus_fullstop(doesn't like
pigmeat)@yahoo.com) on Sunday July 15, @02:17AM PST (#71)
(User
#254873 Info) |
I would like to play Quake or UT with nimble
little humanoid robots in a big concrete arena. The robots I
envision stand about 2 feet high (.6m) and look the part of the
models in games like those mentioned. The weapons they carry are
real. You start each game with 10 robots, a new one spawning onto
the field after each death- until you run out.
These little
buggers would make a great military force for real-world endeavors
like Urban Combat and wilderness patrols.
The western world
is training a new fighting force without spending a dime. If they
were to develop these bots, I would enlist to fight with them.
Solidus Fullstop, Esq.
"hey, you stole
that sig from me!" |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
|
|
Plastic tubes?
(Score:1)
by perlyking on Sunday July 15, @02:45AM PST (#76)
(User
#198166 Info) http://www.tarbard.co.uk/
|
I havent watched enough battlebots to know about
that programme but I know this robot made of PVC tubing wouldnt last
long against any decent robot (i.e some of the ones in Robot Wars) -
onboard computer or not.
--
"There ought to be limits to
freedom." |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Re:Plastic tubes?
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 16, @08:45AM
PST (#172)
|
Wow! You can look at pretty pictures and
then post criticism based on them! Wouldnt it be better to
actually read the article before forming an opinion??? Like
the 4th paragraph on the page: "What about armor? Though the
bot was retired before the armor was built, here is the
idea: The armor is mounted on springs which are attached to
the frame. The strength of the springs is just barely enough
to keep the armor off the ground (around 2"). When an attack
comes from the top, the springs compress which drives the
entire shell to the floor. Once the armor is on the floor
(which is before the springs completely contract) the force
of the attack is transfered to the floor through the primary
supports in the armor. Thus, the attackers force never
actually contacts the weak PVC frame."
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Plastic
tubes? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday
July 16, @11:39AM PST (#177)
|
Er.. have you ever seen hypnodisc?
This would last about 30 seconds against it.
You will
also find that armour composed entirely of vapourware will
have a tough job deflecting blows (yes this great armour
doesnt exist does it).
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
wheel reinvented ?
(Score:4, Informative)
by beanerspace (abuse@[127.0.0.1]) on Sunday July 15, @03:28AM
PST (#78)
(User
#443710 Info) |
I'm wondering how much time (not to mention cpu
cycles) these guys could have saved if these guys had hacked a much
simpler operating system ? Perhaps using some old-school PD source
such as Tom
Poindexter's Crobots or perhaps or one of it's various
mutant prodginy such as the linux based C-Robots
?
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
|
|
quake-style controls
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15, @04:27AM PST (#80)
|
looking at the design of the ghetto-bot in
question, it seems that 'strafe', the coolest aspect of quake type
control, is missing.
It would be awesome to have a (rugged)
camera on the 'bot and the ability to see/control it ala quake. Then
get some hardcore deathmatch champ to kick some ass!
The
current battlebot movement strategy is like playing quake with one
finger.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Iron Sumo! (Score:2,
Informative)
by Saeger on Sunday July 15, @04:38AM PST (#81)
(User
#456549 Info) |
| Forget BattleBots!
The Asian Invasion continues...with Robot Sumo!
...coming to a tube near you this fall, and hosted by Ota Shinichiro of
Iron Chef fame (minus his energetic english translator--he is afraid
of robots)!
;-)
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
|
|
The best robot I have
seen... (Score:2, Informative)
by Afreet1 (will@picard.freet.org) on Sunday July 15,
@06:21AM PST (#89)
(User
#224290 Info) |
is Agamemnon by Team Delta. I first read about
it in Nuts
'n Volts. Team
Delta made this bot with a built in camera and video relay to a
VR Helmet and thrustmaster joystick. The weapons consisted of a weed
whacker and a pneumatic punch. It is a welcome relief to find that
not all bots are made up of that dumb wedge/no weapon
idea.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
|
|
The Ultimate Battlebots
competition (Score:2, Funny)
by karmma on Sunday July 15,
@06:21AM PST (#90)
(User
#105156 Info) |
| Wouldn't you really love to see Crow and Tom
Servo from MST3K go at it in
a steel cage death match?
I know I would.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Uh oh, guys!
(Score:1)
by SumDeusExMachina
(god_from_the_machine@*REMOVETHIS*hotmail.com) on
Sunday July 15, @06:26AM PST (#91)
(User
#318037 Info) |
It says here in the article that the bot runs
Windows 98 on board! Better archive this article before the editors
realize it and pull it from the site...
"Everybody knows
what's best for you" - Bad Religion |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Interesting Indeed, but /. has
been duped. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July
15, @06:31AM PST (#94)
|
As someone who has actually built a BattleBot
and competed in the competition, I must say that the PVC "BattleBot"
that was linked is an utter piece of manure. It would not last a
quarter of a second with 99% of the bots in the competition. Its
control system is not innovative, nor unique. In fact, there are
robots that have much more involved and high-tech control processing
systems that have either been custom built or bought. On-board linux
computers and custom microcontrollers are not unique by any stretch
of the imagination. Many of the builders are moving towards having
much of the difficult and annoying tasks accomplished by the
BattleBot itself, with the driver simply telling it where to go and
when to do it. While none so far have been truly autonomous, there
have been a couple of valiant attempts that did not quite pan out
once in the BattleBox. If you watch the newest season of BattleBots
that is currently running on Comedy Central, I think you will be
surprised at the level of mechanical engineering involved as well as
the software that is needed to make a large number of the BattleBots
function. That hunk of PVC wouldn't survive a few seconds with any
lightweight BattleBot, much less a decent one.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Stompbots (Score:1)
by
GoldMace on Sunday July 15, @07:14AM PST (#97)
(User
#315606 Info) |
I like the show, but I wish they had the
stompbots in a separate class. They're usually more interesting to
watch than all the wedge shaped designs that are not much more than
big radio controlled cars. Unfortunately, they don't usually win
because they can't ever catch the fast cars.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
|
|
Allready been done...
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15, @07:34AM PST (#102)
|
We competed with a Battlebot with an MZ104
onboard computer (x86 100mhz, 32 megs ram, 16 meg disk on chip)
running linux. With both ricochet and 802.11b wireless hookups. Our
sponsors were Linux Journal, Tri-M engineering, and brainfood.com.
It was submitted to slashdot but they chose not to feature it.
Search www.linuxdevices.com for what happened. Or watch A&E for
an upcomming documentary or just watch Battlebots.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Slashdot's Slashbot
(Score:5, Informative)
by GeorgeH
(george@NOSPAM.hotelling.net?Subject=S)
on Sunday July 15, @07:40AM PST (#103)
(User
#5469 Info) http://george.hotelling.net/
|
I'm surprised no one has mentioned that Slashdot
has their own battle bot
in the works. I'm also surprised that I came across this on
sourceforge instead of reading it on Slashdot.
--
Slashdot:
Because if they said it on the Internet it's gotta be true! |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Re:Slashdot's
Slashbot (Score:2)
by Rogerborg
(slashdot at colinmacdonald dot
org) on Sunday July 15, @04:46PM PST (#150)
(User
#306625 Info) http://colinmacdonald.org/
|
We will release ALL of the code that is used in the
bot and out under the GPL. (But only after I've tested it
all)
Kind of missing the point of open source? Release early,
release often, gain strength from your screw ups, enhance
your kung fu powers, and so on.
"Enough techno
babble, gadget girl. Will it work or not?" - Farscape, the
best known antidote to Voyager. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
why don't they change the name to
reflect (Score:1)
by Archfeld (me@home.com) on Sunday July 15, @08:01AM PST (#105)
(User
#6757 Info) |
the actual process. This is RC wars, a ROBOT
implies programing and a self guided mechanism.
Make them
program in the enemies' size and characteristics, then allow the 2
programs to go at it :) Not that I don't watch and enjoy the show as
it is but the mis-use of the term has always annoyed me.
"Do
androids dream of electric sheep ?" - Phillip K. Dick |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Floppy drive based bot
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15, @08:21AM PST (#112)
|
Here's something I found last night after doing
some searching: http://ohmslaw.com/robot.htm Its a DIY robot built
from an old floppy. It is steered by the head actuator and uses the
motor to drive. Here's another site with the same idea but more
details: http://www.generation5.org/aisolutions/floppy.shtm
l
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
They used to be cool...
(Score:0)
by rainbow6 on Sunday July 15, @08:23AM PST (#113)
(User
#50401 Info) |
Back in the day about 4-5 years ago, before
Comedy Central picked up on it, they had the Robot Wars competition
in one large 4 or 6-hour event on the Discovery Channel. No
sportscasters, stupid interviews, etc. It was thouroghly better than
what they do today...and I think a bit of the rules about weapons
and such were more relaxed. Pertaining to topic, what is the point
in making a battlebot if it's not "yours"; i.e.: your design and
manufacture. Just my 10/500ths of a dollar
The Voices cannot
decide on whose base belongs to whom. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Re:They used to be
cool... (Score:1)
by Dusty on Monday July 16,
@06:37AM PST (#169)
(User
#10872 Info) http://www.urquell.demon.co.uk/
|
|
Back in the day about 4-5 years ago, before Comedy
Central picked up on it, they had the Robot Wars competition
in one large 4 or 6-hour event on the Discovery Channel. No
sportscasters, stupid interviews, etc. It was thouroghly
better than what they do today...and I think a bit of the
rules about weapons and such were more relaxed.
I think you'll find Robot Wars is
still going, even after all the nonsense about who owned the
name.
See also robotwars.com and SMIDSY
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
XP Bot ... not ...
(Score:1)
by beanerspace
(abuse@[127.0.0.1]) on Sunday July 15,
@08:54AM PST (#115)
(User
#443710 Info) |
| Considering the amount of hardware that gets
tested, swapped, broken and added to such an endeavor, I was
wondering just how frustrating it would be to attempt such
development on Windows XP ?
Or better yet, I can see it now, during the day of the
competition. The bot's about to get sliced-n-diced by the entry from
Ginsu*matic while the operator of the XP bot is trying to get
through the MS validation process on a cell phone.
Then I thought about all the times I've been on the road for
trade shows ... all the last minute hardware changes ... but I
digress.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Questioning the sprung armor
design idea (Score:1)
by elmer-12 on Sunday July 15,
@08:55AM PST (#116)
(User
#117845 Info) |
From the article, "When an attack comes from
the top, the springs compress which drives the entire shell to the
floor. Once the armor is on the floor (which is before the springs
completely contract) the force of the attack is transfered to the
floor through the primary supports in the armor. Thus, the attackers
force never actually contacts the weak PVC frame." - and the
floor pushes back on the primary supports, causing them to buckle,
yes? Am I missing something or does this part of the design really
work?
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
|
|
Survival Research Labs
(Score:2, Interesting)
by _ska on Sunday July 15, @09:08AM PST
(#119)
(User
#114561 Info) |
Battlebots sounds pretty weak compared to the
stuff SRL does. Not
having/watching a T.V., I am uncertain about the details of these
shows, but to me it sounds like SRL takes both Battlebots and
Scrapheap-mumble to a whole new level.
S.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Re:Survival Research
Labs (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July
15, @09:42AM PST (#124)
|
*laugh* Yeah, but battlebots isnt
getting banned by fire departments around the nation, are
they? =P Dont get me wrong, I love the SRL guys, it's just
their "artisitc Expression" is quickly falling to "safety
concerns." hence the "Wanan promote an event? We'll come out
for free if YOU SECURE ALL THE PERMITS! YES THATS RIGHT! FOR
FREE!" type deal.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Definitely
weak... (Score:3, Interesting)
by cr0sh
(andrewa@phoenixgarage.NOSPAM.org) on
Sunday July 15, @08:26PM PST (#159)
(User
#43134 Info) http://www.phoenixgarage.org/
|
I went to the Phoenix show (1996?), and
recently (October 2001) helped Mark Pauline and David
Therrien set up for a demo here in Phoenix (at
X.E.R.O/ChemLab) to show off one of the pulsejets that was
to be used on their new hovercraft (which was supposed to
make an appearance at the Ultraviolence show in Phoenix -
but it got cancelled thanks to a lovely interaction between
the SF Fire Marshal and the Phoenix Fire Marshal - thanks a
lot, guys! Bastards!), and also a video showing of various
prior shows.
The demo went off without a hitch -
though every time I saw the pulsejet running - glowing white
hot and screaming like a banshee on speed, being manipulated
by Mark and company using asbetos gloves, next to the 50
gallon tank of propane that powered it - I wondered if we
weren't all going to end up crispy critters.
If you
haven't seen an SRL show - you don't have any idea what you
are missing - picture being in the middle of a war zone,
along with a crash-up derby, and a lot of fire, heat, and
smoke - plus a ton of noise that manages to rattle every
tooth and bone in your body, while deafening you despite
wearing ear protection, incidentally making your ears ring
for hours after the show - and you might have some
idea about what happens during one.
I put in that
time to help on the show - all volunteer, mind you - hoping
to help out later for the real show - and then it doesn't
happen! Gah!
Anyhow - yeah - SRL makes Battlebots
look weak, weak, weak - of course, SRL does beaucoup
planning to keep accidents, etc from happening - while
Battlebots is more "anachistic" in that fashion, in a way. I
tend to think of Battlebots as a tamed down SRL real battle
(whereas the destruction of SRL's machines, while real -
doesn't tend to utterly destroy them, as sometimes happens
with Battlebots), and a different form of entertainment
(plus, without all the smoke, flames, heat, and falling ash
- it is easier to see what is happening)...
Worldcom - Generation
Duh!
It's not an attitude, it's an aptitude... |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
What did they need a computer
for? (Score:3, Interesting)
by Animats (slashdot-replies@downside.com) on Sunday July 15,
@09:51AM PST (#125)
(User
#122034 Info) http://www.animats.com/
|
| His site has the full design for a bot that
runs on an onboard 486 and is controlled off a laptop with
quake-style controls!
It looks like they put in a computer, then used it to emulate a
really dumb R/C controller. Why?
Watching those things, it's clear what's wrong. People are
driving them visually, which means too long a reaction time. They
need some onboard smarts.
The idea here is to get
inside the other guy's OODA cycle , so he's reacting to what you
were doing, not what you are doing.
The first step is to get some onboard heading control. Put in
some cheap rate gyros, then control orientation with a knob attached
to an encoder. Want a 90 degree turn, spin the knob 90 degrees. That
way, you'll get the desired heading on the first try.
Second, some kind of system that senses the opponent at close
range and maintains position relative to them so the weapons can
work would be a big win. Ancient though they are, the old Polaroid
sonars would probably work. Use the piezo ones, not the electret
ones; they're more rugged. And use separate send and receive
sensors, so there's no minimum range. The idea is to make the
weapons stay on a target long enough to have an
effect.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Better Yet... BYO Lego
Bot (Score:1)
by GuruThrill (willgorman@hotmail.com) on Sunday July 15,
@10:09AM PST (#129)
(User
#110402 Info) http://www.battlebricks.com/
|
Hello All,
Just wanted to tell you all
about something much more realistic then entering a bot in
BattleBots (plus more flexible ;-)) Build your own Lego Bot! A few
of us in Albany, New York have started a group called BattleBricks,
where we build bots for various competitions once a month and try to
destroy our fellow opponents. Quite fun!
Check us out:
http://www.battlebricks.com//
Will
When Good Plastic Goes Bad
http://www.battlebricks.com/ |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Comments on the design
(Score:3, Informative)
by chroma on Sunday July 15, @10:36AM PST
(#131)
(User
#33185 Info) http://www.mindspring.com/~chroma/
|
| I've been building combat robots for a few years
now, and competed at BattleBots Treasure Island 2001. I thought I'd
offer some insight on this robot.
PVC is a bit weak for BattleBots. I used it on my first robot, The
Tunabomber, but that was for DragonCon's Robot Battles, where
they don't have killsaws or robots like Whacker and Ziggo.
Incidentally, my website has a tutorial similar to the one
referenced in this story, but with more detail.
An onboard PC is certainly overkill for control. I do give it
points for hack value, though. Competitors who want computer control
functions usually use the IFI system.
This also allows you to use PC joysticks to control your robot
remotely (a joystick setup was mentioned in an earlier post, this is
almost certainly what was used).
I wonder why the guys who built this robot didn't compete with
it. After going through all that effort, it should be worth it to
get to the competition, if only to see your robot ripped to shreds.
Finally, please moderate down all those people who talk about how
easy it is to build a winning robot, unless they've actually done
it. Slashdotters: as with Open Source, it's put up or shut
up.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Impossible to control? RC?
What? (Score:1)
by RyuuzakiTetsuya
(taiki at el veshiem daught kaum) on
Sunday July 15, @11:35AM PST (#137)
(User
#195424 Info) |
Last I checked, one of the highend super
heavyweights used a Logitech iForce Joystick. I'm not sure HOW, but
all I know is that's what he used. I know that at the heavy/super
heavy levels, competetors use other similarly complex control
devices as well. The glorified RC Cars are really on the light and
some on the middle weights. Which when you're limited by weight, you
don't have much anyway. maybe a saw blade, or something. I'm
wondering why no one's taken advantage of a spike, the tethered
weapon rule, and the firing technology of choice by hasbro. Spring
loaded. It's off topic but think about it!
"Don't sweat the
petty things and don't pet the sweatty things." - Carlin. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Mauler, Battlebots
(Score:2)
by abischof (alex@removethis.spamcop.net) on Sunday July 15,
@01:05PM PST (#141)
(User
#255 Info) http://www.handcoding.com/
|
As mentioned, Christian Carlberg has made
some terrific robots (Minion, in
particular, has won
the Super Heavyweight title in the past).
But, of the
Battlebots, my favorite is Mauler. A spin-bot, Mauler rapidly
spins and can do some serious damage to other robots. It's a
shame, though, that Mauler has such low reliability -- in past
fights, it always seemed to just sputter and die (mostly from
encounters with the hazards). If Team Mauler could just make a more
robust version, I think they could really go far in the
event.
On another note, I've had to do without cable tv (due
to my current unemployment), including Comedy Central. So, I'm
looking for someone that could tape BattleBots for me. Perhaps you
could fill a VHS tape at SLP, and then I'd PayPal some money to
cover the cost of the tape and expenses. Or, something like that --
e-mail me if you're interested.
Alex Bischoff
Need an HTML / CSS / JavaScript
coder? |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Palm Pilot a better
option? (Score:1)
by AnarchoFreak_00
(jbell@soupisgoodfoodBUTSPAMISBAD.net) on
Sunday July 15, @03:34PM PST (#147)
(User
#126755 Info) http://www.soupisgoodfood.net/bentmetal/
|
| I would have thought that something like a Palm
Vx(or any palm really) would have been better. Way smaller, lighter,
takes less power, more reliable, and probably easier to progam for.
It may not be as powerfull. But motion control for something like
radio gear doesn't even require the power of a 286, let alone a 486
with a 340MB(!) Harddrive.
* *
*
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
weapons allowed?
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15, @07:32PM PST (#156)
|
any reason why some sort of hi-velocity spear
with electric charge attached couldn't be used? imagine! puncture
the opponent, apply the juice, startt seeing smoke come out of the
other bot's seams! cool!
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
what would be cool is...
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15, @09:10PM PST (#160)
|
if the robots had AI in addition to remote
control. That way the AI would help the controller person have
better control. Right?
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Re:late night
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15, @01:23AM PST (#55)
|
Something about this fp puts me at peace.
There's no swearing, no stupid sayings, no negativity.. just a nice
late night style first post.. that's so calming and relaxing.
Looks like it's going to be a great night.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
|
| |
