Hi Gary
That one looks great however to be a walker it has to walk. And to the best of my knowledge this one never did reliably, if it did it didn't turn corners!!!
Find another one you like.
And that differs from scuttle how?
By not being cam-driven at all, but with separate freedoms of motion.Originally Posted by typhoon_driver
I'd need to see plans to make sense of it
I wouldn't have an issue with a 25% increase in weight for a shuffler/hopper/pure non rotary. But for a 100% increase in weight I want to see a full on walker. Not something that just skirts around the rules
Bear in mind that in a feather you are getting an additional 13.6kg. That is a huge weight increase and a good weight to allow you to build a rugged chassis and mechanism. Then you have the rest for a weapon!
Last edited by typhoon_driver; 13th April 2013 at 18:59.
This seems reasonable to me....
Really good comments Guys,
Now I want your interpretation on the rules as written in the book.
My views so far.
1/ A walker must employ moveable legs to support its weight.
Dose this mean the only thing to touch the ground are the legs or feet? I would think so.
2/ Each leg must have at least 2 degrees of freedom.
There are 6 mechanical degrees of freedom available, how can you prove this on a robot? my test would be adjustment, the machine should have the capacity to, for instance adjust stride length or Height of any leg independent of each other.
3/ Robots with rolling or sliding mechanisms will not be classified as walkers.
4/ Walking such as linear actuator operated legs.
I have grouped these together as at first they seem to contradict each other! A "linear actuator" IS "a sliding mechanism" the only way I can make sense of this is to assume the rolling or sliding is referring to the bit that touches the ground you can't have 12 boots stuck on a wheel and call it a walker, or have a foot that doesn't ever leave the ground. the "such as a linear actuator" seems to be an example of what they mean. Or dose it mean you have to use linear actuators?
I can't think this is so for 2 reasons, Firstly if this is true this is the only time in the rules they dictate design. Secondly this rule would make combat robots too expensive for anyone to run in a combat environment. you would have to have a lot of spare linear actuators to make this work.
remember we are trying to find a path through the rules that are there to encourage walkers in the community so lets keep this positive.
Thanks
Craig
*nips off to go and check what it says for Number 4*
Yeah, I'd agree with everything you've said there, Craig.
http://tritonrobotix.com/wp-content/...n/gearcrow.jpg
Here's a true walker!
How the heck did that thing walk! Surely it would topple over? Either that or Gary is having us on... hehe, wouldn't surprise me. If we look back at all the robots in RW then Millennium Bug, Anarchy, Stomp would all be illegal. In technogames then Scuttle wouldn't pass, Ulysses would fail to.
The only true way it seems would be to make a machine like one of the 4 legged Mech-warriors... which would be dam expensive and difficult.
Either that or someone bites the bullet and goes for something like Mechadon... but NST would have it in bits in seconds!
I think it seems to be gravitating towards less that 100% extra for a cam walker, maybe 25% or 33%. That way most of the extra weight would be used in the walking mech and mean that you couldn't get an extra big weapon as a result.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks