This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - 123savethewhales
2381
« on: January 26, 2010, 10:15:21 PM »
two things
1. I have no idea what this means
*GMID_ATTACHMENTPT
{
*NODE_NAME Point01
*NODE_TM
{
*NODE_NAME Point01
*TM_ROW0 0 0 -1
*TM_ROW1 0 1 0
*TM_ROW2 1 0 0
*TM_ROW3 -17 -8 0
}
USER DATA type = startpoint
id = 1
2. The compiler I was using (GMF Compiler Material Upgrade) mess up the color of the arena when I compile/decompile it.
2383
« on: January 26, 2010, 09:19:39 PM »
I run into some problems with the current version of LLA  I was wondering if someone can move the starting point to the 4 corners with LOTS of wall clearance so really big bots won't get stuck (as illustrated below).  Thanks a lot for anyone who can help.
2384
« on: January 26, 2010, 09:14:02 PM »
We need a physics of RA2 tutorial... THIS.
Is why I hate Runescape.
Instead of letting people experiment, we Give them guides.
I actually miss the days when I could play a game and learn by myself how to become good at it.
Last time anything like that happened was when I was 10. every game I played since has a guide for every pixel.
Hurry up, I want the cheat sheet next!
2385
« on: January 26, 2010, 07:42:41 PM »
up as in forward ?
easy enough to do, I can do it some time today if nobody else does Yeah I mean forward. Some of my UHWs are getting stuck to the edge of the screen...... Actually it will be better to move starting point to the 4 corners, with as much clearance from the wall as possible.
2386
« on: January 26, 2010, 06:28:02 PM »
Someone's gotta say it, but how much HP does the drum extender have? It would need 400 hp/kg to function, and best if it weights 2x the current kg so it can have a nice 3200 hp to withstand a few hits. I should be helping CB, but I told him that I don'tthink I would have time(which is fact); but still... So he's workingaway pretty much by himself.... Well if he needed someone to balance the numbers on the components, he can drop me a PM.
2387
« on: January 26, 2010, 06:05:43 PM »
My next bot is far more promising. I have been toying with the idea of effectiveness of wedges based on the amount of frontal weight. Well, everyone knows that if you put too much front weight on a VS it will just tip over right? Well, you can build a chassis to sustain the extra front weight like this. I also am finding that sides of the bot react differently to the ground than the base. Some of the designs I have come up with absolutely LOVE to be touching the floor with sides other than the base of the chassis. Needless to say, this bot sticks to the ground very well. It drives and rides like it is on rails... rather than being rocky and unstable like most of the heavy VS-ers I have built. I think there is something valid to the possibility that different sides of a bot react differently to the floor depending on the chassis shape and weight distribution. I think my next version of this might have a wider and fatter nose with more ground coverage. I might be able to get rid of the hinge/skirts altogether and just beef up the front to take a beating. Well, you know someone gonna say it, but how good is the wedge? Can it outwedge the standard metal hinge/small wedge consistently?
2388
« on: January 26, 2010, 03:58:38 PM »
you only need 4-8 ant batteries anyway so you don't need to stack.
2389
« on: January 26, 2010, 02:22:23 PM »
2390
« on: January 25, 2010, 08:25:05 PM »
Well, while I deleted most of my failed bots here are a few that remains. Failbot 0, a mix of cataclysm and SnSnSnS, the black disk on the bottom is just to see how the spacing will be when I mount it on the motor. Failed due to spacing issues. I might build a working version of this later.  Failbot 1 - it's like refraction, except the skirt hinge doomed it from being able to trap the opposite bot well.  Failbot 2, I wanted to minimize chassis and mount a dual perm vertically on a MW, and instead of weapon I would simply use titanium skirt to OOTA. Unfortunately it didn't really work  Failbot 3 - The drive and direction was distorted in hope that it will constantly stay on the left side (while trying to drive strait) and continue pushing the opponent bot off to it's right. It didn't really worked.  Failbot4 - was intending to be an SnS/VS. But give up after building one arm due to low damage output  Failbot5, not much to say about it, it just didn't worked 
2391
« on: January 25, 2010, 11:41:30 AM »
Would you take a team with 6 UHW?
2392
« on: January 25, 2010, 01:25:56 AM »
Yup, but a sphere's surface-to-volume ratio is lower.
Anyways, the gain will be or not be significant depending on the heigth of the chassis. Might even be a weight loss...
...This calls for an optimization math problem. Anyone for it ? I don't feel like doing math right now 
Edit: :O quote pyramid
The math is too case specific to do, and way too arcane when dealing with complex chassis. Here I will simply compare square base rectangle with cylinder. The sphere in theory is the most volume in the smallest surface area (impossible in RA2) The cylinder has the most volume/surface area that is doable in RA2 Because parts cannot fit perfectly in round surfaces, you end up with wasted volumes when using cylinder Square based rectangle has a lower volume/surface area than cylinder. However they (in theory) will not have wasted volume The parameter of 1 cm^2 square = 4, the parameter of 1 cm^2 circle = 2(pi^(1/2)), or 3.5449. In short, the efficiency ratio of square to circle is 4:3.5449, or 113%. Assuming heights are equal, when height = 0, there are 0 efficiency gain. The taller the chassis, the more the gain, caps out at 13% as height approach infinity. Actual percent gain is determine by both height and the area of the circle or square. As long as excess volume of cylinder does not create more surface area then the inefficiency of the square based rectangle, then cylinder is more efficient, else square is more efficient. I suggest forgetting all the math.
2393
« on: January 24, 2010, 08:42:00 PM »
Slipper is fine.
Though I think you can benefit a lot if you can connect NPC fast to the chassis.
2394
« on: January 24, 2010, 08:29:06 PM »
2395
« on: January 23, 2010, 11:42:41 PM »
Once I can start tooling around on it, I'll probably go down to a dual-mag. The quad-mag is just a little too big to fit in the bot. Wouldn't you have to rebuild the chassis anyway since you have to lower it? In a sense the whole point of moving to mag is so your chassis (and hammers) isn't so high.
2396
« on: January 23, 2010, 10:28:52 PM »
For internal motor, try lowering the chassis and use mag 4, or mag 2 if you don't have the weight.
2397
« on: January 23, 2010, 07:51:12 PM »
1. Use Large Bike Wheels should allow this to be fully invertible.
2. Try to put a titanium halfsheet on the bottom of the bot if you can. Top armor will also help.
2398
« on: January 23, 2010, 07:34:08 PM »
Now try to kill the new Crosswind with a flail shell spinner.........
2399
« on: January 23, 2010, 07:30:52 PM »
I don't know what to say. I think it's the UHW that got me the 1 extra vote.
And my very biased DSL votes were (base on function and aesthetic)
1. Click - You can't beat the style
2. The Ounce - It just so happen that most bots I have trouble with on NAR v2 comes from The Ounce
3. Scrap - Bots look too crazy
4. Naryar - #1 in terms of function, but falls short in looks.
5. Pwnator - Would get a higher vote if he builds more.
2400
« on: January 21, 2010, 07:52:36 PM »
AMP isn't what makes a battery good.
|
Show Posts