Re: Walkers

Maybe, but I'm not ready to issue my infantry pogo sticks to make them
more 
mobile.  In the long run, IF walkers ever gain usefulness as combat 
vehicles, my guess is that the complexity of multi-leg will be a more 
surmountable problem than instability will be for bipeds, at least for 
larger vehicles.  While I advocated the game viability of walkers, it by
no 
means reflects any high regard for them.  IMO (for what it's worth,
which is 
ALSO an issue open to some debate), Bipeds would make decent infantry 
support vehicles (class 1), but for pseudotanks, quads probably are a
better 
bet.  Of course, they're best for very specialized terrains
(mountainous, 
rocky, forested), not as general main combat vehicles.

Brian

"The Irish are the only race of people on Earth for which psychoanalysis
is 
of no use."

				 - S. Freud

>From: "Andrew Martin" <Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz>
>Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
>To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
>Subject: Re: Walkers
>Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 08:25:52 +1300
>
>Iain wrote:
> > I was watching TV last night and there was a discussion on robots
and 
>how
>to make them walk. It turned out that it was *easier to programme* a
>2-legged robot than a 4-legged (or more) as the complexity of multiple
legs
>was a more difficult programming task.  Not 100% convinced myself, but
they
>were demonstrating a 2-legged robot.
>
>Several years ago, I remember seeing on a TV Documentary a tethered
>Pogo-stick-like hopping robot that could move around (to the limit of
it's
>power and communications cable) quite easily. So I think that multiple
legs
>do add to the difficulty.
>
>Andrew Martin
>ICQ: 26227169 http://valley.150m.com/
>-><-
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________