Compass Sensor use in FLL
A new question was just added to the Q&A section of FLL today about Compass Sensor use. The answer is a definite "no" for 2006/2007, but use in future competitions is undecided as of yet.
A new question was just added to the Q&A section of FLL today about Compass Sensor use. The answer is a definite "no" for 2006/2007, but use in future competitions is undecided as of yet.
Comments
Should be interesting seeing how that works...
Jim
Jim
When they start to roll off the production line, I'll send you a free one :)
There are warnings in the FLL forum that the its use may be problematic given that u-sensors on other robots may be in use. The forum stresses that they should be placed as low to the table as possible and to be activated for only short periods of time.
-Jonathan
*chokes*
My coach would kill us if we relied solely on the rotation sensors.
Jim
Lol, that's what we're doing.
I don't think your coach would kill you if he/she saw how our missions ran. ;-)
-Jonathan
As to "relied only on roation sensors", I would use what I can, especially the rotation sensors. You can use them for so many things beyond "dead reckoning", for instance. and even dead reckoning is no longer quite so "deadly" as it was with the RCX. The US sensor as a touch sensor is an excellent one, Jim - also, you can filter out "false" signals under a lot fo conditions (for instance, stop your robot - if the US return keeps changing distance, ignore it and wait for a "good" reading that is stable).
--
Brian Davis
Maybe I confused you when I used the term "activated"
I don't remember the original quote but I suppose they were referring to the following:
pgm1
1- move forward forever
2- u-sensor wait until < 10
pgm2
1 - move forward 6 rotations
2 - move forward forever
3 - u-sensor wait until < 10
pgm2 uses the u-sensor for a shorter period thus limiting exposure to other robot interference
Every NXT bot with a US sensor plugged in will be causing interference as long as the NXT is turned on.
John Hansen
Still, would pgm2 reduce the chance of being adversely affected by interference caused by other robots?
I suppose this is a moot question. Why take a chance?
-dl