Code center > Suggestions

Wha??

<< < (2/3) > >>

PurpleYouko:
We already have torque.  :blink:

How do you think worms can swim?

Did you check out Carlo's Vermis P or my new swimmer test bot (in my last release)?

Numsgil:
The bot gets a read back of his angle with respect to a tie, buth that angle itself doesn't effect anything in the simulation.  The robot is free to spin around without effecting the ties.

So you can orient yourself from a single tie, taking only the energy necessary to spin (which at this point is still free) or you can change the angle between two ties without effecting your own orientation.

It's the only model that makes sense (at least the only model I can think of that makes sense) from a physics point of view.

Numsgil:
Yes, I know there's torque.  I meant that the torque of a bot turning a long tie just by the pivot would be very small.

I'm redoing all physics to make use of vectors.  Much cleaner (and nice informative variable names!)

PurpleYouko:
If you allow all robots to spin freely on their ties then all the 2-bot MBs are going to be stuffed.
Inchworm relies on the stiffness and the fact that the ties spring back to the original orientation as do every other bot that I can think of.
This springy angle of ties is one of the few things that I really like about the way that ties work (and always have done) I would hate to lose the ability to use .fixang, tieang1 and the original tieang (which bends the tie temporarily then lets it spring back)

PurpleYouko:

--- Quote ---I meant that the torque of a bot turning a long tie just by the pivot would be very small.
--- End quote ---

Right. The individual robot should not realy impart much torque to the tie but the robot should still spring back to it's original orientation wrt the tie or else it becomes much harder to make small MBs

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page