View Single Post
Old Dec 29, 2011, 09:04 PM
peteryu is offline
Find More Posts by peteryu
Peter Yu
peteryu's Avatar
United States, CA, San Jose
Joined Dec 2011
6 Posts
Originally Posted by wanabigaplane View Post
Peteryu - The more carefully and thoroughly we read the rules, the more difficulties and conflicts we discovered. We arrived at our final interpretation at the time of writing the D1, and we considered that we had it right when our D1 was accepted.
Jack - CanberraUAV.
Hi Jack,

For our D1, we just said that our UAV was going to have an independent FTS. That's it. This was due to (A) not knowing exactly what the system architecture was going to look like and (B) just quoting exactly what the rules said. I don't know how in-depth the organizers were in examining the finer points of the rules, but I suspect they were neither very strict nor had they sought to answer these more in-depth questions. Either way, parsing the competition rules to micro-analyze small details seems superfluous to me. It seems unlikely that the competition organizers would hand us technical rhetoric that has some deep, underlying meaning to it. If they haven't addressed it directly, it's anybody's guess. Let's wait for the organizers to reconvene and comment on this officially.

peteryu is offline Find More Posts by peteryu