> the difficulty in setting up a physical maze for the robot
Couldn't you just buy a sheet of plywood, some wood strips, and a bit of wood glue? I mean, setting up a maze will take some time, sure, but it's hardly difficult. Or am I missing something?
Yes you can build your own, but it's tougher to get right than you might think. Those tiny robots are incredibly sensitive to the conditions of the maze, and you can get things wrong quite easily. You could build the whole thing to all the millimeter tolerances, then learn that oh no, your white paint actually has some undisclosed additives that absorb IR light instead of reflecting it, meaning you have to complete re-paint and re-sand all the walls in your 9-square-meter maze. Oops.
You can do it, but it's still quite tough; in many ways tougher and less fun than building the mouse.
Why would you construct an entire 9 square meter maze without testing a small portion? If only for having a physically convenient way of quickly validating hardware and software changes?
Why would you paint the entire thing without testing the materials, or asking the organizers what paint they use / how to validate your own maze, or asking among fellow competitors?
They need to be dimensioned and finished quite accurately. Most plywood has a slight bend to it. At the speeds and accelerations needed to be competitive, any imperfection would mean your car will fly off the track or hit a wall.
There was a short demonstration on the state-of-the art of Robocup kinematics [1]. I guess the next micromouse tournaments will equally benefit from end-to-end training of the mice.
Couldn't you just buy a sheet of plywood, some wood strips, and a bit of wood glue? I mean, setting up a maze will take some time, sure, but it's hardly difficult. Or am I missing something?