Shooter vs Dumper Trade Study

[Swampdude]

So what are the pros and cons of either design and why is one better than the other?

I'll start:
To me, shooting assumes you can't get to a trailer to score and you need to score from a distance (I guess because of the limited drive capabilities). But having 3 trailers to score in seems like there will always be one nearby. Also shooting seems like it will take too long and have more chances for jamming. Also in Aim High hitting a stationary target was hard enough, so how do you hit a smaller moving target with non-uniform objects (broken balls) consistently?

A dumper assumes you can get up close to a trailer, scores all at once and less mechanisms to jam. Doesn't care about ball shape.

I realize there's hybrids but ultimately it seems you still fall into one of these categories. Yes/No?

[Kellen Hill]

I personally think that effective dumpers will score a majority of the points and dominate the game. Unless you have a shooter like Wildstang in 2006 of course.

[MrForbes]

A short range turreted shooter will allow you to score when you are close to the goal, and from either side of your robot. A dumper probably requires you to be lined up and right next to the goal. Since the goals will probably be driving away from you, using the finest evasive maneuvering techniques, you'd have to be really lucky to be able to dump a load of balls in a functioning robot's trailer.

[ggoldman]

There are times during game play where a dump is very viable..and easy.

When another team is unloading into the airlock, the trailer is stationary.

When another team is at the outpost getting the empty cell, the trailer is stationary.

When another team is pushed up against a wall by two robots, the trailer is stationary.

A dumping bot of sorts only needs to get to a trailer goal once or twice in a match to make a big difference.

[Pjohn1959]

[QUOTE=Swampdude;800801]So what are the pros and cons of either design and why is one better than the other?QUOTE]

So why not build something that does both effectively? ;)

[Jonathan Norris]

How about a shooting dumper?? :cool:

[Bongle]

Advantage to a shooter is that presumably, it can act as a dumper simply by slowing the spinning of its power mechanism (wheels, etc).

Based on our tests so far, it appears that tracking and auto-targeting opponent's trailers' is possible:
-We successfully wrote code that can distinguish an opponent's trailer
-The same code can give you distance and heading information within a few % points of the true value.
-By tracking the change in distance and heading, you can determine both the position and velocity of an opposing team's trailer, and thus lead it by an appropriate amount.

But:
-The enemy trailer will pretty much never be moving at a constant velocity
-There appears to be fairly substantial slowdowns in the camera code. It's not really real-time, more like 500ms-behind-real-time. We don't know how much this can be fixed, that'll be tonight's meeting's topic.
-The balls are irregular, and will become even more irregular as regionals proceed. Thus, muzzle velocities will be unpredictable.
-'Camping' and shooting will not be effective: you'll be a sitting duck for dumpers. Handling the accelerations that your robot is undergoing as well as the accelerations of your target will make your shooting much less accurate

When we were doing our original analysis, we essentially decided that shooters will have more opportunities to score, but will convert fewer of those opportunities into actual points.

[David Guzman]

In my opinion a shooter robot will be more reliable than a dumper robot.

While a dumper robot can score massive points when given the opportunity, it is relying on the mistakes from the opposing alliance to be able to make a dump.

A robot with a shooter will need to use the camera to track the trailers to be a threat. If the camera is used successfully and the shooter is geared correctly so it can score a lot of balls very quickly, then it will dominate.

I think the combination of a good shooter and a good dumper in an alliance will be very powerful.

[Donut]

There is a hybrid option that really doesn't fall into these two categories though. A shooter doesn't have to use a turret and camera (and may not want to since it restricts you to one ball at a time), but could instead pursue a similar strategy to a dumper of getting close to an opponent's goal and unloading a large amount of balls into it. Being a shooter allows you to power the balls (instead of relying on a gravity dump) and gives you a few foot range rather than requiring your robot to be right next to the opponent.

[Travis Hoffman]

How about a shooting dumper?? :cool:

How about a turreted shooting dumper? :cool::cool: :)

[Brandon Holley]

How about a turreted shooting dumper? :cool::cool: :)

Bingo.

[Goldeye]

But:
-The enemy trailer will pretty much never be moving at a constant velocity
-'Camping' and shooting will not be effective: you'll be a sitting duck for dumpers. Handling the accelerations that your robot is undergoing as well as the accelerations of your target will make your shooting much less accurate


The low friction and thus low acceleration minimizes the effect of these problems.

[Mr B]

It seems to me that the biggest constraint of dumping balls into a goal is the size limit of the robot <R11>. Without being able to exceed the perimeter, dumpers would have to be right next to a goal and be relatively unmolested to score a high percentage of balls. Still, a team that figures out a way to dump a load reliably and fast would be a force.

[Bongle]

The low friction and thus low acceleration minimizes the effect of these problems.

If your shooter has a moderate speed (8ft/s), then a robot just 10ft away could accelerate hard enough to be 1.5ft away from where you expected it to be (if you assume constant velocity). If you add in the inevitable imprecision of an orbit-ball shooter, the amount of balls you'd get in would be low.

A powered dumper seems to be the way to go.

[RoboGeek99]

So what are the pros and cons of either design and why is one better than the other?

I'll start:
To me, shooting assumes you can't get to a trailer to score and you need to score from a distance (I guess because of the limited drive capabilities). But having 3 trailers to score in seems like there will always be one nearby. Also shooting seems like it will take too long and have more chances for jamming. Also in Aim High hitting a stationary target was hard enough, so how do you hit a smaller moving target with non-uniform objects (broken balls) consistently?

A dumper assumes you can get up close to a trailer, scores all at once and less mechanisms to jam. Doesn't care about ball shape.

I realize there's hybrids but ultimately it seems you still fall into one of these categories. Yes/No?

Well the way you phrased it...it sounds like ur really kinda biased toward a dumping mechanism...here is my take on the matter not my team's

Shooter
Pros:Fast, Unlimited Range (Close or Far), Reliable
Cons:May be inacurate, requires a lot of practice, complex

Dumper
Pros:Drop all at once, accurate is used correctly
Cons:Needs to stay in the 28*38, needs to be right next to the opponent's trailer

I might forgotten something but after looking at all of these as unbiased as possible im leaning toward going with a shooter mechanism (thinking of a softball/tennis ball shooter powered by globes and an archimedes screw or conveyor system to get the balls in place)
Either way yall go good luck!

[MrForbes]

im leaning toward going with a shooter mechanism (thinking of a softball/tennis ball shooter powered by globes

You might want to consider a CIM or Fisher Price motors.

[JesseK]

Ya know, you don't need compression on the tetrix balls if you create a continuous rotating catapult design... Just from a 4" stroke 1" bore air piston we got 4 feet out with a non-tweaked catapult.

Of course, it's difficult to fit within the dimensions, would be very unreliable while moving, and isn't very safe when compared to other designs.

But it would be fun to see it nonetheless.

An interesting note is that in hybrid bots, the 'dump' portion wouldn't be as effective as a pure dump bot due to the fact that inevitably the shooter has to take up some room.

[GarrettF2395]

My analysis of the 2 designs brought me to side more towards the shooter, because of a dumpers limited range and, how it is implemented.
(Just so you know, this is a way over simplified version of my assessment.)

When driving a dumper bot your driving strategy would be to corner your opponent and immobilize them long enough to score.
This means you have to stop them from moving (which will be difficult on the low friction floor) AND stop moving your own robot for a potentially long period of time.

But with a a well programmed camera targeting shooter, you theoretically never have to stop moving in order to score.
That being said...
A shooter is never going to be exactly accurate.
Which means that for the sake of accuracy, you will want to drive slower.
This would make you an easier target for the payload specialists... but at least you wouldn't stop moving.
This assessment brought me to a specific design....
However... as we say in the Ninja Monkee world... If I told you...
I would have to knock you unconscious with a banana... :p

[Jared Russell]

I have gone back and forth on this in my head. I can see scenarios where either one has a clear advantage.

I think this year you will see shooters in the winner's circle, and you will see dumpers (and everything in between). The difference is going to be in how well a team/alliance can execute their gameplan.

[Paul Copioli]

Here is my prediction:

A lot of teams will try a turreted shooter that can dump by spitting. Only a very small percentage of these teams (<10%) will be successful ....

Of coarse we are trying the above and hope we will be within that 10%, but odd numbered years have not been that good to us lately.

[Kyle Love]

I like the idea of the shooters that can dump. Through some shooter testing that 1646 did, we found that it's quite possible for a "long range" shooter to also be a decent short range "dumper". In between the two will be the questionable distances, teams who can consistently vary their shooting distance, very quickly, will be able to run the score up real quick.

[amariealbrecht]

personally i think that a shooter has many pros and cons...for example you can shoot balls at a rapid pace (if you organize this correctly with your speed) and then a shooter will have a good chance of hitting the trailor...especially if it is on a swivel

with a dumper you are very limited to the amount of time it takes to dump one basket of balls and you need to be concerned with the space gap between your dumper and the trailor you are trying to dump into.

for this competition i think the shooter will have a greater chance at making it through the competition

[gburlison]

I think that shooters dominated Aim High because the top goal was worth more points. With the balls worth the same amount, I think that either design can be effective. I think that a good dumper will be easier to build, so I expect to see more good dumpers in the finals of Lunacy than there were in Aim High.

[Karthik]

but odd numbered years have not been that good to us lately.

Talk about setting the bar high, you've made it to Einstein twice in odd-numbered years, 2001 & 2005...

[Manoel]

odd numbered years have not been that good to us lately.

Oh well, one of the teams I'm most inspired by predicts their performance using numerology... :rolleyes:



Perhaps that's why their robots always seem to work like magic... :D

[cloud_254]

it may be just me but low speed shooters may be key in this game. they can "shoot" the ball a small distance accuratly. the only down side i see is the proximity that u would need to be.

[=Martin=Taylor=]

I'm gonna offer my support of the short range shooter (1-5').

This is a controllable design, there is sufficient power in the kit to get a large quantity of balls traveling this distance, and it will allow you to score in more situations than pure dumping.

That being said, I'm going to admit that my team has dropped the turret.

Although it was originally part of our design we found in prototyping that it wasn't useful in short range scoring. Even with the trailer on ice there is still sufficient drive train controlability to properly aim the robot.

It will be interesting to see how this effects us, since so many teams are building turrets.

[Creator Mat]

I don't think the dominate game plan this year in tele-operated mode is going to be getting balls and scoreing with your robot. I think the dominate strategy is going to be who can gather the most balls and hoard/ return the most to your teams throwers. I think this because it is going to be a lot easier (in my opinion) for your throwers to score then the robots. so where im going with this is a dumper with an effective ball gathering system is better. For the the purpose of less time standing at reloading station.

Pros: team throwers don't have to be as accurate and can rapid fire and a simpler robot (remember K.I.S.S.)

Cons: this is a maybe and don't quote me on this but somehow i heard that there is a rule that you can only put 1 ball at a time in the reloading station (i.e. no mass dumping of 10 balls at once) so this might rule out a dumper.

Food for thought

[EricH]

Cons: this is a maybe and don't quote me on this but somehow i heard that there is a rule that you can only put 1 ball at a time in the reloading station (i.e. no mass dumping of 10 balls at once) so this might rule out a dumper. Tell whoever told you that that they need to read the manual. There is no such rule.

The exception? Empty Cells. Empty Cells (and only Empty Cells) can only be herded/possessed one at a time. All other balls are fair game, any time, anywhere on the field.


Shooters: longer range, more adjustable. Also have the accuracy factor, which can go either way.

Dumpers: mass quantities, very high accuracy. You do kind of have to get close to the target, though.

[Ian Curtis]

I don't think the dominate game plan this year in tele-operated mode is going to be getting balls and scoreing with your robot. I think the dominate strategy is going to be who can gather the most balls and hoard/ return the most to your teams throwers. I think this because it is going to be a lot easier (in my opinion) for your throwers to score then the robots. so where im going with this is a dumper with an effective ball gathering system is better. For the the purpose of less time standing at reloading station.

Pros: team throwers don't have to be as accurate and can rapid fire and a simpler robot (remember K.I.S.S.)

Cons: this is a maybe and don't quote me on this but somehow i heard that there is a rule that you can only put 1 ball at a time in the reloading station (i.e. no mass dumping of 10 balls at once) so this might rule out a dumper.

There is no such rule! In the future try not to post "rules" you think exist. All it does is beget more confusion. :)

Anyways, I too think one of these turreted shooter deals takes way too much time and effort to make precise. I'd much rather slam into a trailer than try to line myself up precisely (or trust the camera to line me up) from three feet away.

[spc295]

I think that shooters dominated Aim High because the top goal was worth more points. With the balls worth the same amount, I think that either design can be effective. I think that a good dumper will be easier to build, so I expect to see more good dumpers in the finals of Lunacy than there were in Aim High.

I agree. but I would also like to say that I think a dumper on a turret will be the best. because it does not matter how you pin an opponent

[Creator Mat]

Thanks for making that rule clear for me

[MrForbes]

Regarding the PAYLOAD SPECIALIST retrieving balls....the tongs must be used to get balls from the AIRLOCK to the FUELING PORT....so even though you can dump balls into the AIRLOCK as fast as you want, the PS probably can't put them into play very quickly.

[CDH Jeff]

my question is, anyone here ever heard of a shotgun?

[647techangel]

i think making a dump bot is sticking to good old K.I.S.S:cool: , because if you think about it you have 3 "shooters" already (payload specialist).:D

[redbarron]

We have been debating on how to score since kick off but have decided to go with a shooter. When you are a dumper you are relying on getting close to the opponents trailer. Though you can can score more balls at once you will be sitting still while dumping. I am in no way saying that there will not be a team that will pin a bot and dump their load in about 5 seconds, but it will be kind of sad to see for example a load of 7 moon rocks get "dumped" as a super cell lands in the dumping robots trailer resulting in -1 points for the load of seven you just worked hard to get rid of. A shooter can be run at low speeds and if the balls are delivered to the shooter fast can be just as, if not more effective than a dumper.

Just my .02

[ScottOliveira]

i think making a dump bot is sticking to good old K.I.S.S:cool: , because if you think about it you have 3 "shooters" already (payload specialist).:D

Unfortunately those shooters are immobile. The robots have to come to them to be in accurate range. While they can be pushed, remember that it means your team's robot(s) are right next to it, and a shot slightly off aim could easily land in one of your team's trailers (it doesn't matter who throws it, a ball in your trailer counts for the other team).

A robot capable of scoring on its own (if built correctly) almost completely negates the possibility of scoring on itself (although it could still hit a team mate).

[MattB703]

.... I am in no way saying that there will not be a team that will pin a bot and dump their load in about 5 seconds, ....
Just my .02

5 seconds is an eternity for a good dumper design. all of our prototyping says that we should be able to dump 7 balls in about 2 seconds. (not counting the time it takes to chase down and pin an opponent of course)

:D

[spc295]

I think the dumpers will do better, because a shooter has to deal with broken orbit balls, the dumper just uses gravity.

[Aren_Hill]

I think the dumpers will do better, because a shooter has to deal with broken orbit balls, the dumper just uses gravity.

not all dumpers will just use gravity, teams who really want a good dumper are gonna figure out how to effectively "hurl" the balls out of there robot quickly and in large quantities

[ScottOliveira]

I think the dumpers will do better, because a shooter has to deal with broken orbit balls, the dumper just uses gravity.

But a dumper will have to deal with them too. If the dumper has any way to refill, whatever collection mechanism it uses will have to be able to deal with them. And whatever hopper it uses will have to be designed that broken balls do not get stuck/cause a jam.

[TheOtherGuy]

Have there been any videos posted of dumpers? I'm curious to see if there is any cloggage or missing because the balls are interacting with each other as they come out...

We're probably going with a short range shooter; tests show it's very accurate, and at a rate of ~3-4 balls per second, we should be able to unload just a little slower than a dumper... just with the added benefit of being to start earlier ;) Not that dumpers aren't a viable strategy. I predict we might see one on Einstein this year.

[ebarker]

In this thread, what is the definition of dumper ?

a - a low dumper, over the wall in the corner

b - higher up, into a trailer

c - higher up, into the trailer and the corner


b and c are shooting dumpers

a could be an active or passive shooting or other type of dumper

[JesseK]

not all dumpers will just use gravity, teams who really want a good dumper are gonna figure out how to effectively "hurl" the balls out of there robot quickly and in large quantities

That's what all of these air propulsion system prototypes are REALLY about, ha! I came to that realization a couple of days after kickoff...nice to see someone else has it too.

But as a team we decided on a shooter, and we're not looking back this far into it.

[Swampdude]

After the no descoring rule change (design #1 scrapped), we went to a full up turret style shooter design, basically done and we all loved it. But ditched the idea after seeing all the easily broken balls (design #2 scrapped). If you think about it, each regional only has so many, and over 120 are in play each match, as the matches go on and on these balls will start coming apart and by late saturday you may be dealing with a lot of jamming. I know they won't be inspecting 120 balls between matches. It just takes 1 to jam up and end your match. Also its true a dumper needs to handle the balls also, but not nearly in such a precise way. A shooter seems risky to me, but I'm sure many will do very well with it. I can see how a shooter has the advantage if done top notch, but only within a few feet of a moving goal. I don't think pinning a trailer for a couple seconds will be that hard with a good drive system.

[Team2339]

Jeff's hint about shotguns is our strategy. we are dumping, hopefully with two rates, one close, the other 5 to 8 feet, or over one robot to a basket or the station. It is simple and something we can finish in 6 weeks.:) The scoring would be a % of balls shot, then pick um up and shoot again:D

[Swampdude]

If you're planning to take a big basket of balls and sling them all at once in a given direction, I hope you're considering the equally opposite force applied to your bot while its sitting on a slippery floor at the point of release.

[drueb12]

As a rookie team would it be smarter to dump rather than to shoot ? Especially if u are 2weeks into the competition and not started building.:confused:

[EricH]

Aa a rookie team would a rookie team would it be smarter to dump rather than to shoot ? Especially if u are 2weeks into the competition and not started building.:confused:At this point, KISS wins. Dumper would be the way to go; you'll need to get enough speed on the balls to send them about 1-2 feet before they go below trailer level. Whether or not you do floor pickup, also allow for a floor release to feed the Payload Specialists.

[waialua359]

Whether shooter or dumper, a camera-tracking turret (or equivalent) is a MUST considering that no robot and/or target will be stationary for a long period of time. Drivers that have to "aim" will be too late when their robot has to do what they are thinking at that given moment in time.

Strategies that make the HP as the greatest offensive threat for an alliance seems interesting. I wonder if this will be the first time that a HP on an alliance will be a reliable force to reckon with??

[hillale]

If you're planning to take a big basket of balls and sling them all at once in a given direction, I hope you're considering the equally opposite force applied to your bot while its sitting on a slippery floor at the point of release.

Why not employ that wonderful friend of everyone's? Gravity! Obey it, it's the law.

[Ian Curtis]

Why not employ that wonderful friend of everyone's? Gravity! Obey it, it's the law.

We have found that another common friend (and typical foe when it comes to collecting balls) Friction rears its head and causes these nice elastic orbit balls to seize up and resist that oh-so-appealing 9.8 m/s^2.

[hillale]

We have found that another common friend (and typical foe when it comes to collecting balls) Friction rears its head and causes these nice elastic orbit balls to seize up and resist that oh-so-appealing 9.8 m/s^2.

Come on, you've got plenty of room above, let's say the middle length poles on the trailer, to create a large enough pitch in the floor of a hopper for balls to overcome their inertia and friction. A trap door maybe with a fairly large area maybe including part of the front of your robot? ;)

[Goldeye]

If your shooter has a moderate speed (8ft/s), then a robot just 10ft away could accelerate hard enough to be 1.5ft away from where you expected it to be (if you assume constant velocity). If you add in the inevitable imprecision of an orbit-ball shooter, the amount of balls you'd get in would be low.

A powered dumper seems to be the way to go.

By similar arguments, a moving robot further than 1-2 feet away will, at the least, be a challenge to reach and dump into, particularly for long enough to dump all the stored orbit balls. I don't know the radius of the goal offhand. Isn't the radius about 1.5ft? If the error due to acceleration is just that, then the only real concern is the precision of a shooter. I can't comment on that :)

Also, 10 feet really isn't that close. Robots can easily get within 5 feet of eachother, I just envision trouble getting closer (and staying there)

There's no right answer, and teams will get both ways working, but I feel confident saying this just from the nature of this year's driving: if you can build a device that aims independently of your robot and propels the balls (at least slightly), you will have a much easier time getting balls in the goal. There are still other tradeoffs, of course.

[Tom Line]

Come on, you've got plenty of room above, let's say the middle length poles on the trailer, to create a large enough pitch in the floor of a hopper for balls to overcome their inertia and friction. A trap door maybe with a fairly large area maybe including part of the front of your robot? ;)

Exactly. We've already proven to ourselves that you don't need one of those fancy spiral/loop systems to efficiently get the balls to feed. You can spin the hopper and pulll balls out ala the killer bees giant gumball machine in '06. You can put a screw in ala a washing machine center post (vertical style, not front load). You can have an agitator/swing arm device. Most all of these will fit above the 34 inches, or a short conveyor belt will let you go all the way down to the robot base with your storage.

[swamp_child]

So now that we've seen footage of a ton of bots and we've seen some practice matches in the form of scrimmages, what mechanism do you guys think will come out on top?

[AdamHeard]

So now that we've seen footage of a ton of bots and we've seen some practice matches in the form of scrimmages, what mechanism do you guys think will come out on top?

I've seen that amazing shooters and dumpers are both amazing at scoring on a stationary goal, or in a 1v1 environment.

Some of these teams may have done 3v3 practices and know the answer, but publicly no one has any idea of what will truly come out on top.

[rees2001]

I hope the strategy is a Dunker!

[jamie_1930]

I find that a shooter can easly work as a dumper as well by turning down the firing speed and increasing the loading speed so I would always prefer a shooter over a dumper. Also from seeing tuesday's matches dumpers can be ineffective if the trailer is not properley pinned.

[artdutra04]

It doesn't matter if you went with a shooter or a dumper. There will be successful teams from each camp.

The only thing that matters is having a better strategy than your opponent, by using your robots' strengths and zeroing in on your opponents' weaknesses.

[AlexD744]

It seems to me that the biggest constraint of dumping balls into a goal is the size limit of the robot <R11>. Without being able to exceed the perimeter, dumpers would have to be right next to a goal and be relatively unmolested to score a high percentage of balls. Still, a team that figures out a way to dump a load reliably and fast would be a force.

I wonder what this means about pinks design. ;)

[travis48elite]

Well both systems have there ups and downs. However, I would have go towards the dumper system due to the fact that shooters run the risk of collecting a damaged game piece and getting it jammed in their shooter and then they are out for the rest of the match. Where as for a dumper it does not present such a hazard to jamming their mechanism. Yet with a dumper once you activate you mechanism you are pretty much hoping you will score all you pieces in the trailer however, this never happens most of the time. The only way you can accomplish this is by pining the robot's trailer to the wall and score. Ultimately, I would have to go with the dumper just because come championship who knows if we are even going to have enough game pieces for the four fields in each division.

[gorrilla]

what about the "ninja" robots,they will score only 2-4 moon rocks at a time but will do it the entire match, every time,from anywhere....?

[Aren_Hill]

Yet with a dumper once you activate you mechanism you are pretty much hoping you will score all you pieces in the trailer however, this never happens most of the time.


If you pay attention to the midwest matches, you will see more balls spat out in error by the shooters than the dumpers, at least our dumper. Our auxiliary guy had fast enough fingers to save the majority of the balls if we triggered and they moved, and even if they did miss they fell right in front of our massive intake....and came right back in the bot to be scored typically seconds later.

[thefro526]

From what I've seen so far, Dumpers in General are the way to go.

For now or at least for the next few weeks, Dumpers, Both Non-Powered and Powered, are going to reign supreme. Drivers, Don't take this the wrong way, but at this point in time many Dumpers are easier to drive than shooters, the big issue is that many Shooters still need to work bugs out of their targeting code.

I think Powered Dumpers will have the most success in the long run but it's still possible for shooters to break into the game strongly. As for Gravity Dumpers I think their days are numbered. Once most teams work the bugs out of their shooters we'll see Gravity Dumpers fall out of favor.

[Norman J]

I might forgotten something but after looking at all of these as unbiased as possible im leaning toward going with a shooter mechanism (thinking of a softball/tennis ball shooter powered by globes and an archimedes screw or conveyor system to get the balls in place)
Either way yall go good luck!

My team has a conveyor to a shooter and it works quite well, but at Kettering, I noticed that if a robot is pinned, a power dumper can drive right up and unload. Happened to us from 65.

But I have heard many people voice the theory that as the season progresses and driving improves, dumpers will be dodged more easily and we won't see any more 12-15 ball game changing dumps. Drivers should be experienced enough by then that they either won't get pinned or will be able to get out of one fast enough. In such a scenario, shooters will be able to easily compete with dumpers. I'm not sure about that, just repeating what I heard.

[BurtGummer]

After attending the LA regional this weekend, I saw both systems do great. I saw 1717 with their shooter, although they usually kept it within a 5 foot range. Their advantage was being able to aim however they wanted, so if they got pinned there were more possibilities for them to score on the pinning robot than if they were a dumper. Their distance was also easily controlled by retractable hood on the turret. Their drive system was also very nice, but I did not get to see what exactly it was. From a distant observation, it looked like each front wheel was steered like a car. I'm not sure about the rear wheels. Overall a very well built robot, and we had the pleasure of working with them and winning a round 88 to 6.

Team 399 was a dumper, and also did extremely well. Once they were filled, they could haul across the field and dump their whole load with ease. We were one of their victims, and we saw it coming before they even got to us, because they had an advantage on speed. Also another very well built robot.

So both designs worked well, although 'shooters' kept close ranges.

[AdamHeard]

After attending the LA regional this weekend, I saw both systems do great. I saw 1717 with their shooter, although they usually kept it within a 5 foot range. Their advantage was being able to aim however they wanted, so if they got pinned there were more possibilities for them to score on the pinning robot than if they were a dumper. Their distance was also easily controlled by retractable hood on the turret. Their drive system was also very nice, but I did not get to see what exactly it was. From a distant observation, it looked like each front wheel was steered like a car. I'm not sure about the rear wheels. Overall a very well built robot, and we had the pleasure of working with them and winning a round 88 to 6.

Team 399 was a dumper, and also did extremely well. Once they were filled, they could haul across the field and dump their whole load with ease. We were one of their victims, and we saw it coming before they even got to us, because they had an advantage on speed. Also another very well built robot.

So both designs worked well, although 'shooters' kept close ranges.

207, 330, 399 and proved for me at LA nonturreting dumpers work great.

1717 and 1726 proved to me that "turreted dumpers" that can get balls out FAST at point blank, using the turret just to account for missalignment, have the potential to be amazing. They were less consistent than the simple dumpers as they require much more software, but when they shined they SHINED. Witnessing 1717 strafe sideways following a goal while they're turret was locked on to the target and filling it was the single most impressive sight I've seen this season.

[Spylake]

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight I think the results favor the hybrid, short range volume shooters followed very closely by dumpers. A dumper's success turns out to be directly related to the speed of the dump mechanism. The fast dumpers like our alliance leader Team 179 Swamp Thing were very effective.

Overall, I think, the tracking long range shooters were the least effective. The challenge of tracking and ranging along with the required leading of a moving target is a daunting one.

It will be interesting to see if more software development before Atlanta will improve their performance substantially.

[kwojcik]

1717 Aux-pilot here. I'm very happy with the way that our turret played out, but our distance calculations were bogus the turret aiming was a little sketchy at times and I constantly had to be re-targeting vision targets even at point blank, sometimes resorting to complete manual mode.

We have left-right swerve drive, complimented with a very physics-based traction control system that we feel really gives us max power. I know the talk around LA was that you cannot get out of pins, but after retuning our traction control (we had brand new wheels, and they got worn in) in one of those championship matches we were able to vector out of a very very well placed pin using our traction control system in which the other robot actually hooked into our ball collector(not sure which team, but nice driving).

As far as shooting vs dumping, the lighting made distance shooting completely unreliable and we resorted to point-blank power dumps. Ideally, I feel like a very good shooting robot would dominate because they could avoid being caught in the chaos, but then again it would be hard to find a safe place to shoot from within the chaos

[thefro526]

From what I've seen, and I've watched quite a few matches, most of the Robot Scoring is done within 2 feet of the trailer. Essentially, all Robots whether they're "Shooters" or "Dumpers" are all playing the same game. Pin or impede your target and score on it.

I'd have to say that Powered Dumping is still the way to go. A Power Dumper has the ideal cross between Range and Qaunitity of Balls Delivered and that makes them deadly effective. Power Dumpers have shown that they don't have to rely on pinning as Much as An "Gravity" or "All or Nothing" Dumper because of the range that they have.

As far as Shooters go, they're all playing the Power Dumper game. I've yet to see a shooter that constantly scores from long range into a trailer. It seems like most of the get within a few feet of a robot or pin and robot and score. This has been very effective for teams that chose to adapt to this strategy but even then most Shooters (Robots like 1114 being the exception) just can't keep up with the raw amount of balls that a Powered Dumper or Gravity Dumper can deliver.

Then there are "Gravity" and "All Or Nothing" Dumpers. They're still holding their own but no one knows how much longer they can do it. Many teams are now getting to their second regional time and have all of the bugs worked out of their systems. The thing that saved many Gravity Dumpers in earlier weeks was the fact that they were more simple and easier to drive than a Shooter or Powered Dumper. Don't get me wrong, Gravity Dumpers will still have a very important role in this game, it just may change. On a final note, we've seen one "All or Nothing" Dumper do some amazing things, Check out 179 and 1345.. Those robots are possibly the epitome of the Unpowered Dumper.

So as we sit in Heading into Week Four, I'd Have to say Powered Dumpers are the most effective, Shooters are Working their way into the Game, and Gravity Dumpers are doing what they've always been doing - Being Reliable.

Then again, this is all just my opinion and what do I know?

[gorrilla]

seeing how effective our shooter was,
versus how easy it was for dumpers to score alot,
im thinking about changing our robot to power-dumper,

we have a-while untill atlanta to figure it out....

[Jimmy Cao]

Dumpers really had their way at Cass Tech this last weekend. 67 was clearly the best, with an extremely fast dumper (at least, I'll call it a dumper. It didn't shoot, hence it dumped =P).

However, 217 stood out as the best shooter. With their adjustable shooter and good camera aim, they often managed to load and score 2 supercells in the last 20 seconds of their matches.

As the season progresses, I still predict that power dumpers will do extremely well. Even as drivers get better at avoiding dumpers, dumpers get better at getting to goals. However, at the championship level, dumpers may find it more difficult to get "easy" targets, and will need to spend more time chasing someone around to get a pin in order to score.

Just my $.02

[Creator Mat]

Has anyone seen a long range shooter??? I have heard people in the forums mention "ninja" bots but i have not actually heard a name of a bot.

[CSideris28]

The best robots that I have seen this year are able to bump into a trailer, and during that seemingly instantaneous period of contact, are able to unload anywhere between 5 - 15 balls. Teams like 20, 111, 121, 175, 254, 1625, as well as many others fit this description. Although teams like 40, 217, and 1114 have had success with turreted shooters, they are in a very small minority. I don't think that anyone will disagree with me when i say that a higher percentage of power dumpers than shooters have been effective, and that fact is what makes me favor power dumpers in general.

[RMS11]

At peachtree, shooters stole the show with the first, second, and third seed teams had shooters, and the 8th seeded alliance had 2 shooters, although all these teams mainly shot from close range. There were also some dumpers, but in the end the most successful teams were able to turret and have control of the balls used at once, so it did not end up being all or nothing.

[Akash Rastogi]

The best robots that I have seen this year are able to bump into a trailer, and during that seemingly instantaneous period of contact, are able to unload anywhere between 5 - 15 balls. Teams like 20, 111, 121, 175, 254, 1625, as well as many others fit this description. Although teams like 40, 217, and 1114 have had success with turreted shooters, they are in a very small minority. I don't think that anyone will disagree with me when i say that a higher percentage of power dumpers than shooters have been effective, and that fact is what makes me favor power dumpers in general.

This is so biased but there's no way you can talk about shooters and leave out 188 and 1771. They are another 2 that are great shooters.

[Chris is me]

I don't think there needs to be a distinction made between "shooter" and "dumper" as much as one needs to be able to track how many balls make it into the trailer and how many seconds it takes to dump said balls. I've seen a number of shooters that unload as fast as many dumpers, and lumping them into categories like that doesn't really give the full story.

An advantage to a "shooter" (especially turreted models) that's been underutilized is the defensive capabilites retained while unloading. A shooter is free to pin one robot against a wall while firing against another (this was roughly what my team was going to do against 1625, but other problems arose). There's also a great advantage in a tracking shooter being able to move and hit at the same time, as the key to the game is really "don't get hit".

All in all, it comes down to the bottom line: In (arbitrary amount of seconds), the number of balls that are in the trailer is all that matters, regardless of design.

[Tom I]

I'll throw this one out for public scruitiny...
My team (811, the Cardinals) decided early on that throwers would probably have the advantage in this years game. We thought the functionality of a shooter would benifit us in competition. When we got to the GSR, we found that reality was a different situation. Our shooting performance was no where near as good as we hoped, and we all too commonly unloaded a hopper full of balls into the space where a trailer had occupied moments before. We reassessed the situtation, and actually made a slight change in our design... we added a lexan deflector just past our shooter, which knocked the balls comming out of our shooter downward. This way, we got the full speed and power of our shooter, but aimed down to dumping. With this adjustment, we became a much better scoring team, and we were pleased with the results. In this game, shooting was a very difficult task. If accomplished it was invaluable, but it was very difficult for most teams.

[artdutra04]

After reading through this thread again, there certainly is a large amount of confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias) here. Not every where, not every post, but there's a lot of it.

Always challenge your own ideas. It's the only way to avoid confirmation bias (and most conspiracy "theories").

[jamie_1930]

I will always prefer a shooter over a dumper.

[Oblarg]

Keep in mind, shooters don't always have to be shooting for trailers.

:)

[kc2pix]

Our team has a powered dumper. It has a tray with a slanted bottom, (like paint roller tray shaped) and the back wall moves forward to launch the balls forward. We can launch several balls at a time, into a trailer that we don't need to be directly up against. The balls come up through a trap door in the front of the tray. The only problem we had was that balls kept falling over the edge. :ahh:

We were very proud of our design.

[sdcantrell56]

Our team has a powered dumper. It has a tray with a slanted bottom, (like paint roller tray shaped) and the back wall moves forward to launch the balls forward. We can launch several balls at a time, into a trailer that we don't need to be directly up against. The balls come up through a trap door in the front of the tray. The only problem we had was that balls kept falling over the edge. :ahh:

We were very proud of our design.

The purpose of this thread is to decide which is better, although IMO there is not one better design. So along these lines how many balls can your system make per dump and how accurate is it. A lot of dumpers that tilt that I have seen, miss a vast majority of balls which makes there high capacity pretty worthless. I am also not a fan of relying on gravity to move things quickly.

[swamp_child]

The purpose of this thread is to decide which is better, although IMO there is not one better design. So along these lines how many balls can your system make per dump and how accurate is it. A lot of dumpers that tilt that I have seen, miss a vast majority of balls which makes there high capacity pretty worthless. I am also not a fan of relying on gravity to move things quickly.

based on what I saw at Fl, we averaged more balls per match than almost any other team. That being said i think the best mechanism is a power dumper like 1625 or 1649 or a ? shape like 190 or 79

[sdcantrell56]

I know at peachtree we averaged the most balls per match, and we were a turreted short range shooter. We are capable of 4-6 balls/second though so we're not exactly a slow shooter. We really used our robot like an aimable dumper the whole time since we never got the tracking to work with the lighting. It also helped that we had fans to chase down anyone. I know based off of some preliminary statistics, we have one of the highest average match scores in the country (82).

[Aren_Hill]

May i inquire as to what your average balls per match was? (1771)

[sdcantrell56]

Im not quite sure Aren. I believe average was probably between 15 and 25 for the robot plus 10 for the human player.

The point average was 82

[MrForbes]

We reassessed the situtation, and actually made a slight change in our design... we added a lexan deflector just past our shooter, which knocked the balls comming out of our shooter downward. This way, we got the full speed and power of our shooter, but aimed down to dumping.

heh...that sounds familiar

[Alex Cormier]

I have been thinking a lot lately...

With a few regionals under the books, and teams not as effective as they thought they would be. I am startign to hear a trend of teams switching from a shooter to a dumper. Have you seen or hear of this happening? I would like to see some more before and after pictures (like 1024, 103).

[martin417]

I have been thinking a lot lately...

With a few regionals under the books, and teams not as effective as they thought they would be. I am startign to hear a trend of teams switching from a shooter to a dumper. Have you seen or hear of this happening? I would like to see some more before and after pictures (like 1024, 103).

I know 832 modified their shooter during the regional to allow for shooting downward. If that makes it a dumper, then they did the trick (and quite well too) they won the regional with it, along with 2655 and 2415.

[sdcantrell56]

I think this trend just reinforces my statements earlier in the year. Any robot whether they are a shooter or a dumper will not do well with a poor execution of said shooter or dumper. Also there will be more successful dumpers than shooters simply because creating an effective shooter is much more difficult than a dumper. To be a good shooter requires a lot of programming and careful design to increase your throughput until it is nearly similar to a dumper. I think we are starting to see that the hybrid robots, very high throughput "shooters" are starting to do very well and I think will become even more effective as the season progresses.

[hillale]

Does anyone have scouting numbers from the regionals they've attended as to how many moon rocks individual robots have been scoring? Not average match score, or OPR, but an actual count that the robot itself contributed to their alliance?

[MrForbes]

Our main problem was with the lighting, even after discussion with the NI rep (thanks Steve!) we had glare issues, made worse by having our camera aimed upward enough to see most of the vision target at close range.

I don't know if we'll be able to make the camera work, it seems that programming changes end up taking a long time to debug, and time is a scarce commodity at a regional.

Here's our "dumper" conversion, complete with bunny ears

(I don't have our scouting data, I should have grabbed the clipboard...oh well)

[Andrew Y.]

we also had to modify our shooter into a high speed dumper.

The adjustable turret angle allows us to shoot anywhere from 0 to 16ft
We found that in a match, adjusting and shooting is NOT a realistic option. without some DARN GOOD and FAST autotracking code.

So our robot is set up to shoot 1-3ft in front of the robot. We pull up next to a trailer and "shoot" Our 2nd driver can pan the turret as the enemy trailer moves.

We averaged 8-14 balls a round with robot and 15 balls from our human player. We are hoping with experience, our drivers can improve skills and get it up to 20 per match
I believe this is what 832 and 1771 did also?

[rees2001]

I would suggest that what this thread comes down to is execution & driver skill, much like most FIRST games. A shooter with high throughput can beat simple dumper. A power dumper can beat a shooter. It doesn’t matter which design you decided on what matters is the speed in which you can score 10+ balls. If you need 25 balls to score 10+ in one shot (power dumper) or you need 15ish balls to score 10+ (power shooter) it still comes down to how fast it happens. If your robot shoots/dumps too slowly your target will be gone. If your co-driver can’t easily operate your mechanism, your target will be gone. If your software doesn’t react quick enough… stop me if you’ve heard this, your target will be gone. Many of you will say that your target will not be gone if you are pinning them. That’s nice if the robot pulling up to your trailer doesn’t deliver the balls faster than you.

What this game comes down to is how fast can you deliver the balls you have? The longer it takes the farther away your target just got, or the more balls that just got unloaded on you.

Execute or lose.

[sdcantrell56]

We did end up basically shooting with our hood all the way down and within about 1-3ft of the trailers. We had an incredible autotracking code working under flourescent lighting which was about 95% accurate, but we never had time to adjust it for the lighting and thus it never worked the same. At times we would see it lock on but it was jittery at best. With some more time I am sure we could get autotracking working and our ideal situation would be to track robots within 5ft and adjust on the fly. We designed our shooter to have an adjustable hood to control distance as well as a turret. Luckily for us our shooter is very high throughput and we can shoot down at the same velocity.

[Paul Copioli]

I have read all of the posts and I pretty much agree with some small parts of posts, but in general disagree with most posting here. Why? Let me explain.

This game is about the little things. Here are the sum of little things that I think you must have mastered by the Championship to be on Einstein.

Teamwork & Strategy:
This game is about teamwork and fluid strategy, more so than every other game in the 3 v. 3 era, including Aim High. Compared to last year when the drive coach was a glorified cheer leader, this year's game is a game where crafty coaches and talented drivers will make a big difference ... but not the only difference.

Super Cells
I can't believe how many people just don't get it. There are so many teams that do not use the super cell. There are 60 points per alliancethat teams are leaving on the table consistently. An average volume scoring alliance can beat a massive volume scoring team if they effectively use the super cell.

Robot to Human Interaction
This is the most neglected part of this game by teams. I often hear people say, "humans outscore robots" or, "if your robot can't score as much as a human player, don't bother". The ability for an alliance to use robots to lure trailers to strategic points on the field is a huge weapon to have in your arsenal and the ability for skilled human players to lure trailers to robots is just as powerful. I see barely any teams doing this.

Smart Human Player
Notice I did not say accurate human player. If you have a human player that is not very accurate, but really smart, then you can use this to your advantage. If they are both, then look out. I will take a smart human player that is a little less accurate than a laser accurate human player that makes dumb decisions.

If you are a massive power dumper that can puke 20+ balls at one time, or are a strategic shooter that can strafe on the run, then good for you but you better get some more tools in your arsenal because that will not be enough to be the best. Who's better? Shooters or dumper? I don't care because there is a way to win with any combination. In this year more than any that I can remember, average robots with excellent execution will beat out excellent robots with average execution.

What we should be doing a trade study on is what strategies work in what situations, but that may get way too complicated.

[Chris Hibner]

Paul is very wise, as always. Once again this is why the good teams are usually good no matter what the game is.

As far as dumper vs. shooter goes, I don't think it matters that much. The real issue is throughput. If your robot has a rapid fire, the shooter can achieve the same quick score capability as a dumper (see 217's robot).

[Enigma's puzzle]

The robot is your tool, and you built your tool. I dont care if you built a 200 function swiss army knife if you cant use it to its strengths it is no better than a simple butter knife. Paul is right.

The Key to this game is making the other alliance play to your strengths, If you have an ace human player, pin a robot in his corner and make his job easier, and get him as many balls as possible. If you have a 40 ball dumper have the kitbot with bumpers pin for you. If the other alliance has a 20 foot accurate shooter, position yourself in front of it. so it shoos into the side of your robot. The other team has a awesome dumper pin it, or dance face to face with it, it cant score if it is only in front of your trailer. MAKE THE OPPOSITION PLAY TO YOUR LIKING.

[R.C.]

I like Paul's advice. Every team has its strengths and weakness and the COACH matters way more this year. No more front row seat. The only difficult part is executing strategies. We found this out at LA. Some teams have a hard time executing, others do it with ease. If I really had to redo this game over again. I would stick with our bot as most would and just tweak it (but isn't that what the comps are for?).

Good Luck Teams and

Dumpers = Shooters. Just depends how you set up your bot to be honest and how well YOU CAN EXECUTE.

[cziggy343]

I know based off of some preliminary statistics, we have one of the highest average match scores in the country (82).

keep in mind also that you had a lot of help with the schedule in quals. im in no way denying that you had a great robot, b/c you did, but the 82 points was not all yours. for example... our average points per match was 56, but we personally scored (guessing) anywhere between 15-25 rocks each match.

i also agree with paul though. it's scary how many upsets that i have seen this year. at peachtree, the finals consisted of the #7 seed vs. the #8 seed with the #8 seed winning. this proves that what kind of robot you have does not matter as much as the percision at which you execute your strategy.

[gorrilla]

we're about to change our shooter into a high speed dumper before atlanta....

probobly gonig to just mount a plate in-front of our shooter...

and speed up our STOD...

[JesseK]

Heh, a definite revamp of our moonrock output mechanism is in order for us before Atlanta. I would say that gravity feeding is plenty fast, so long as the balls do not jam themselves up. It's not as fast as, say, 2 FP's geared properly but it sure is a lot less weight. Also, it seems that shooters that fire downward seem to do better than arched or horizontal shooters.

Hmm, I strongly disagree with Paul regarding the small things when it comes to Qualification matches. Strategy execution in qualifications is too dependent upon luck and the alliance partners... sure one's own team can execute but perhaps the alliance partners simply can't do what Paul has described. I can only speak from my own experience on the field.

Many times at regionals, our alliance simply couldn't match our opponents capabilities offensively, so we'd discuss a strategy around human players. Sometimes, autonomous left us in with such terrible field position (or even worse, bots were already pinned against the wall with terrible field position) that it became very difficult to mount a comeback. For qualifications, we couldn't expect to dictate to our alliance anything and have it actually happen, even with the simple things and with veteran teams (Match 47 (http://soap.circuitrunners.com/2009/fl/) -- Team #25 scores ~10 balls into their alliance partner's trailer during autonomous). I can't count the number of matches where our alliance came up with a strategy, we began executing the strategy, then for whatever reason the alliance partners deviated, failed to come through or kept getting in the way. Maybe it had to do with luck, or the opponents' counter-strategies, or ... whatever. It was nonetheless extremely difficult to fend for our self when that happened since our bot isn't a strong scorer as an arched shooter, which makes the little things moot and a 'dumper vs shooter' trade study perfectly necessary when doing scenarios & design at the beginning of the season. I wish we could have had more forethought into this during weeks 1, 2, & 3. To be honest we ran at 100% this build season and I have no regrets about it; we will simply upgrade for Atlanta.

Now, for eliminations I agree with Paul ... in elims, I agree that 'shooter vs dumper' doesn't matter so long as the moonrocks go into the opponents' trailers faster than the alliance's. Actually I think we need to examine 'what strategy when' type situations. Sure, it will get complicated, but it's better to be shared than to not. Even the FTC students on our team who have barely seen the FRC game have come up with some creative and effective solutions when asked. For example, when your primary scorer has a catastrophic scoring mechanism failure 30 seconds into a match, what do you do? We did 3 empty cells in a match when we were only supposed to do 1, while the broken team swapped roles with us and played defense (though all three super cells missed their targets thereby losing us the match ... heh).

Food for thought I guess.