[robocup-small] robocup-small Digest, Vol 67, Issue 1

[Jose Angelo Gurzoni Junior]

I agree with Mani, increasing the field is a good idea but increasing the number 
of robots is something that has deeper effects, for which we may still be not 
ready. 

More robots may be a great idea, after we stabilize on the new field size and 
see the effects.

One other reason for the field increase without more robots is that more robots 
may defeat the biggest advantage that we all seem to agree on a bigger field, to 
force the robots to pass and move more during the game, as well as (hopefuly) 
reduce the number of throw-ins.


Cheers
Angelo Gurzoni Jr
RoboFEI Team






________________________________
De: Mani Monajjemi <mani.monajjemi at gmail.com>
Para: Omid Bakhshandeh <omidtnt2004 at yahoo.com>
Cc: robocup-small at cc.gatech.edu
Enviadas: Sexta-feira, 24 de Setembro de 2010 3:33:25
Assunto: Re: [robocup-small] robocup-small Digest, Vol 67, Issue 1

Hi all,

>From my point of view, increasing the field size is a good idea,
however increasing the number of robots per team will make the SSL
harder for new-comers to join. In addition, extending the number of
robots for many currently active teams might be so expensive, besides,
maintenance of  for example 10 robots is much more challenging and
expensive than maintenance of 5 or 6 robots.

I think it would be better if we consider mixed-team competitions as a
solution to put more robots on a expanded field.

Regards,
Mani Monajjemi
Parsian Member

On 9/23/10, Omid Bakhshandeh <omidtnt2004 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi dear all,
> What is your idea about changing the field size after 3 years and add more
> robots  to small size game to decrease the distance between real  soccer
> game
> and small size robots cooperation? I think SSL-Vision will support the size
> ,
> all team can test and inform others about the size of field.
>
>
> Best Wishes
>
> Omid Bakhshandeh
>
> MRL Member
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "robocup-small-request at cc.gatech.edu"
> <robocup-small-request at cc.gatech.edu>
> To: robocup-small at cc.gatech.edu
> Sent: Tue, September 7, 2010 8:30:01 PM
> Subject: robocup-small Digest, Vol 67, Issue 1
>
> Send robocup-small mailing list submissions to
>    robocup-small at cc.gatech.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>    https://lists.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-small
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>    robocup-small-request at cc.gatech.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>    robocup-small-owner at cc.gatech.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of robocup-small digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Dear all (KANJANAPAN SUKVICHAI)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:20:04 +0700
> From: KANJANAPAN SUKVICHAI <fengkpsc at ku.ac.th>
> Subject: [robocup-small] Dear all
> To: <robocup-small at cc.gatech.edu>
> Message-ID: <d5f16dde301f1558d41dce9b9e6ef055 at ku.ac.th>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>
> Dear all,
>    It has been 2 months after robocup 2010, Singapore.  Before TCs start to
> discuss about Robocup 2011 rule, we would like to welcome all of you send
> any comments or suggestions to us in order to make next Robocup better.
>
>
> Cheer!
> KANJA
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> robocup-small mailing list
> robocup-small at cc.gatech.edu
> https://lists.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-small
>
>
> End of robocup-small Digest, Vol 67, Issue 1
> ********************************************
>
>
>
>


-- 
Mani Monajjemi
_______________________________________________
robocup-small mailing list
robocup-small at cc.gatech.edu
https://lists.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-small



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cc.gatech.edu/pipermail/robocup-small/attachments/20100924/25256a51/attachment.html