Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Robot Showcase (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=58)
-   -   Why didn't we think of that? (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106388)

davidfv 09-05-2012 15:52
Why didn't we think of that?
 
I am doing a small project and would like some help. Every year, we see a robot feature, system, programming, or unique strategy that really helps a team. Sometimes it is very simple and others are pretty complicated and take some team skill and experience. No matter what it is, we look at that design and wonder if that would have made your robot a lot better. I am looking for those hidden features or characteristics of a robot or team.

So please tell about a unique feature of a robot, a team, or a strategy that made you say: ""Why didn't we think of that?"

Please tell me the team number and feature.

If I get enough responses, I will come back with a follow-up and maybe help you answer the question.

ratdude747 09-05-2012 15:57
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
469 and 51 in 2010. Also any Direct drive minibot in 2011.

apalrd 09-05-2012 16:17
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
A few good ones:

-Several teams in 2012 were able to use a single mechanism to do many tasks, a great example of this is 67's utility arm.

-The minibot ramps in 2011 (inspired mostly by 233), along with the direct-drive minibot was one of the most copied in season designs I have seen in FRC.

I'll probably think of more, this is what I have so far.

IKE 09-05-2012 16:21
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Catapults in 2008 (1114, 1625, 16, and 118 were good examples). I know why my team didn't think about that, but it may be good for others to do that exercise.

2010: 67 after the buzzer lift or the 254&1114 3 second lift. Our lift was fast and accurrate, but 67, 1114, and 254 were in another league with the after the buzzer and PTO style lifters.

2011, the doubler roller claw with hinged jaw was popular on many top teams (111, 1114, 254, 33, 177?) and not present on lower performers (yes there were many good roller claws, and many good hinged claws, but only a handful of double roller hinged claws).

This year, Over the bumper collection 2012 (469, 341 I believe were good examples as well as many others).
2012: Stingers/Bridge assisters.

roystur44 09-05-2012 16:36
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Here is a little circuit that helped the team out testing our prototypes and robot builds. I had been asking to purchase a high amp variable DC power supply $$$ to run motors while testing our prototypes without hooking up a crio, programming and all the electronics needed. Brian Silverman and his dad told me there is a easier way and drew up this circuit on a napkin and later made the box. What it does is generate a PWM signal that is variable with the use of a pot. We can safely control motor speed with a Jag or Victor without hooking up all the electronics.

I can't tell you how great a device this thing is. I saw so many shooter videos where people just touched bare wires to a battery to get their shooter motor runnning.

https://plus.google.com/photos/10454...394?banner=pwa

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibuAAnxgExQ

Ross3098 09-05-2012 16:38
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
+ 1 - Team 67's hanging mechanism in 2010. I mean come on, scoring a hang AFTER the buzzer??

This year 469's ball intake doubled as a rebound catcher. I also believe 548,330, and 1504 deserve mention. Their ball intake and shooters were integrated into the same system.

Gary Dillard 09-05-2012 16:45
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
This year team 180 hooked up a "photon cannon" (aka, bright flashlight) to aim at the backboard, which they found gave much better realtime feedback to the driver of his target aim point than the camera (and reduced the amount of data they had to send through the radio). Team 25 saw the design at the Orlando Regional and copied it with fairly decent success.

IKE 09-05-2012 16:49
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by roystur44 (Post 1168350)
I can't tell you how great a device this thing is.
Cough, AndyMark, Cough, How much, cough...

Aren_Hill 09-05-2012 17:01
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by IKE (Post 1168348)
Catapults in 2008 (1114, 1625, 16, and 118 were good examples). I know why my team didn't think about that, but it may be good for others to do that exercise.

2010: 67 after the buzzer lift or the 254&1114 3 second lift. Our lift was fast and accurrate, but 67, 1114, and 254 were in another league with the after the buzzer and PTO style lifters.

Our 08 bot was actually a puncher :p

We also had a similar method of powering our lift to 67 in 2010, eerily similar, it was fun when we paired up at IRI with them, pulled off a double after buzzer lift in the semi's i believe.

BigJ 09-05-2012 17:03
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aren_Hill (Post 1168359)
Our 08 bot was actually a puncher :p
;_;


I can't believe we didn't really think of over-bumper pickup this year. We also didn't think of a slanted ball elevator, although we were originally going to rotate our whole tower.

Hjelstrom 09-05-2012 17:05
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Hopefully this isn't against any rules but I've been making something exactly like this for about 10 years now:

http://www.robotlogic.com/product_servotester.html


Quote:
Originally Posted by roystur44 (Post 1168350)
Here is a little circuit that helped the team out testing our prototypes and robot builds. I had been asking to purchase a high amp variable DC power supply to run motors while testing our prototypes without hooking up a crio, programming and all the electronics needed. Brian Silverman and his dad told me there is a easier way and drew up this circuit on a napkin and later made the box. What it does is generate a PWM signal that is variable with the use of a pot. We can safely control motor speed with a Jag or Victor without hooking up all the electronics.

I can't tell you how great a device this thing is. I saw so many shooter videos where people just touched bare wires to a battery to get their shooter motor runnning.

https://plus.google.com/photos/10454...394?banner=pwa

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibuAAnxgExQ

JCharlton 09-05-2012 17:14
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by roystur44 (Post 1168350)
What it does is generate a PWM signal that is variable with the use of a pot. We can safely control motor speed with a Jag or Victor without hooking up all the electronics.

I can't tell you how great a device this thing is. I saw so many shooter videos where people just touched bare wires to a battery to get their shooter motor runnning.
I'm impressed with what you made there, but I took the lazy way out :)

http://servocity.com/html/dual_servo_driver.html

Like you say, great for all sorts of tests.

For any teams still hooking straight to batteries, get yourself a small 12V battery for this, not as dangerous as the competition batteries and easier to pack around too.

BrendanB 09-05-2012 17:37
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Dillard (Post 1168355)
This year team 180 hooked up a "photon cannon" (aka, bright flashlight) to aim at the backboard, which they found gave much better realtime feedback to the driver of his target aim point than the camera (and reduced the amount of data they had to send through the radio). Team 25 saw the design at the Orlando Regional and copied it with fairly decent success.
Correct me if I am wrong, they used a bright flashlight to shine on the target and lined up visually with said target instead of using camera tracking?

I wish we could have redone our drop down intake to double as skid plates for going over the bump like 233, 33, or even powerful enough to lift ourselves over the bump like 67. I felt like we spent a lot of time working on a custom frame to cross the bump which paid off, but it would have been a lot easier to use the kit frame and put more effort into the intake/bump crossing mechanism.

theawesome1730 09-05-2012 17:39
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
For motor testing on prototypes, we have some little 12 volt black and decker drills that we modified with a lead and anderson connecters. They work quite well and are small and portable. Since it is a drill, you can change the polarity easily too by using the direction control. Only downside is that they run out of juice fairly quickly. Another thing we did is have a passive bridge manipulator. We have a wide faced bot so our tower slides out to make an almost square robot for balance. The bridge manipulator is a drop down from the slide out that rotates back to make an inclined plane when we hit the bridge.

theawesome1730 09-05-2012 17:41
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Oh yeah and this is the first year we started using anderson connectors and it has been a godsend! Changing and powering motors is so much easier.

vhcook 09-05-2012 17:48
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by theawesome1730 (Post 1168369)
For motor testing on prototypes, we have some little 12 volt black and decker drills that we modified with a lead and anderson connecters. They work quite well and are small and portable. Since it is a drill, you can change the polarity easily too by using the direction control. Only downside is that they run out of juice fairly quickly.
We did a variant on this, using a robot battery, appropriate connectors on the battery and motor side, and a drill handle. Here's the build video our mechanical and electrical captain, Izzy, made. That runs for quite a while, since you're not using a drill battery.

I really wish I'd thought of flashlight aiming and passive bridge manipulators.

MIT_MAN 09-05-2012 18:27
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrendanB (Post 1168368)
Correct me if I am wrong, they used a bright flashlight to shine on the target and lined up visually with said target instead of using camera tracking?

I wish we could have redone our drop down intake to double as skid plates for going over the bump like 233, 33, or even powerful enough to lift ourselves over the bump like 67. I felt like we spent a lot of time working on a custom frame to cross the bump which paid off, but it would have been a lot easier to use the kit frame and put more effort into the intake/bump crossing mechanism.
Us (25) and SPAM were the Flashlight alliance! haha And yes, the flashlight/headlight would paint a bright beam (or spot in SPAM's case) on the backboard and we both used these lights quite effectively to line up our shooters. The incredibly bright beams (We used a 100 watt halogen headlight and spam a modified maglite flashlight), combined with the reflective tape on the backboards, made it a very viable and effective strategy.

Chris is me 09-05-2012 18:33
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Not necessarily over the bumper but a drop down intake would have been nice. The "CD7" intake in particular was really cool. I'd consider designing it in such a way that it was motorized rather than pneumatic and could go far enough down to push the bridge as well. It'd take some development and thought.

The bridge arm 2791 used worked but was just barely strong enough and didn't work nearly as effectively as a wedge manipulator. I wish we went the simple route on that one.

BrendanB 09-05-2012 18:42
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIT_MAN (Post 1168381)
Us (25) and SPAM were the Flashlight alliance! haha And yes, the flashlight/headlight would paint a bright beam (or spot in SPAM's case) on the backboard and we both used these lights quite effectively to line up our shooters. The incredibly bright beams (We used a 100 watt halogen headlight and spam a modified maglite flashlight), combined with the reflective tape on the backboards, made it a very viable and effective strategy.
Thanks! Our team didn't have vision tracking working this season so we did a manual line up with a yellow flagpole mounted on the robot. Ingenious idea using a flashlight to light up the target!

Djur 09-05-2012 18:51
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJ (Post 1168362)
;_;


I can't believe we didn't really think of over-bumper pickup this year. We also didn't think of a slanted ball elevator, although we were originally going to rotate our whole tower.
I think 2084 was the only team with a slanted elevator. (Although we did have a very different take on "ball elevator" than most teams.)
Spoiler for a huge image:



Conor Ryan 09-05-2012 18:51
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Andy Baker is literally a pro on this topic, see some of his presentations on the FIRST site, CD-Media, and Andymark.

The history of FRC Design is my favorite presentation.

Grim Tuesday 09-05-2012 18:51
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
I started a thread on this a while back, but it seems that every year, there is a feature/design that is missed by the vast majority of teams.

In 2012 they were:
  • Drop Down Intake
  • Stinger
  • Traction on the bridge

In 2011 they were:
  • Minibot pre-deployment/ramp
  • Taking the gearboxes off of the minibot
  • Roller claws or other active tube acquisition device

In 2010 they were:
  • Tunnel traversing
  • Hanging off the side of the tower
  • Active ball possession device

Alexa Stott 09-05-2012 19:05
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrendanB (Post 1168385)
Thanks! Our team didn't have vision tracking working this season so we did a manual line up with a yellow flagpole mounted on the robot. Ingenious idea using a flashlight to light up the target!
We worked very closely with our friends on team 103 this year. As a programmer, I worked a lot on their robot as well as ours and they actually had the camera on it for vision tracking (though that particular bit of programming was done by Bharat Nain). Their drive coach also really liked being able to see the camera feed during the match. We considered implementing it on ours after a rough showing in Orlando, but decided not to after our first few matches at Lenape (our first event with the headlight) went well.

It was really awesome to be paired up with SPAM at Championships as that design decision completely turned around our season and was a huge factor in use even qualifying for CMP this year (of course, we also could not have done it without our excellent alliance partners at Mt. Olive and MAR Champs).

Back on topic:

In 2009, we sort of missed the mark with our robot design. We had a shooter that could only shoot one ball at a time. It was accurate, but we just could not compete with all the dumper bots who would score 10 balls in 2 seconds.

Meshbeard 09-05-2012 20:03
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by theawesome1730 (Post 1168370)
Oh yeah and this is the first year we started using anderson connectors and it has been a godsend! Changing and powering motors is so much easier.
I've recently started paying attention to other teams on a more national scale, and I realized that not all teams use the Anderson Powerpole connectors. It just blew my mind how such high level teams could compete without using them. I'm used to them because my team has used them ever since I joined. I guess I just took for granted that most teams use them, seeing how helpful they are. I recommend them to any team who wants to make their electronics so much easier.

link:
http://www.powerwerx.com/anderson-po...owerpole-sets/

AllenGregoryIV 09-05-2012 20:36
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIT_MAN (Post 1168381)
Us (25) and SPAM were the Flashlight alliance! haha And yes, the flashlight/headlight would paint a bright beam (or spot in SPAM's case) on the backboard and we both used these lights quite effectively to line up our shooters. The incredibly bright beams (We used a 100 watt halogen headlight and spam a modified maglite flashlight), combined with the reflective tape on the backboards, made it a very viable and effective strategy.
Can you explain how this works? Were you looking through the driver station feed or at the backboard itself? (the latter seems difficult to me with the nature of the retro-reflective tape)

Kristian Calhoun 09-05-2012 20:54
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV (Post 1168404)
Can you explain how this works? Were you looking through the driver station feed or at the backboard itself? (the latter seems difficult to me with the nature of the retro-reflective tape)
We had no camera on our robot and did not rely on the retro-reflective tape (though it did help increase visibility). Our headlight projected a vertical beam of light that our driver used to visually align the robot with the goal using the light's reflection off of the backboard itself.

slijin 09-05-2012 21:00
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday (Post 1168388)
In 2011 they were:
  • Minibot pre-deployment/ramp
  • Taking the gearboxes off of the minibot
  • Roller claws or other active tube acquisition device

In 2010 they were:
  • Tunnel traversing
  • Hanging off the side of the tower
In 2011, the opening dual roller claw was the real deal. Rotation allowed teams to deliver tubes no matter what orientation they were acquired with, and the opening allowed them to drop tubes onto the pegs.

In 2010, 469 took the cake with their redirector; quick hangers, especially 67's passive one, were also arguably the best ones.

From what I've seen/heard, 2009 was the year where rapid ball dispensing, as opposed to a turret, was the better option.

cmrnpizzo14 09-05-2012 21:03
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
braking system for 2012 so that double balancing a robot turns into a single balance. Also for Co-op bridge, there is a guaranteed 1 point for both robots being supported by the bridge after play stops. Check out 3173's robot who used this very successfully at the championships and I believe that 108 also used it.

Gray Adams 09-05-2012 21:07
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
For 2012, it would have to be over the bumper intake. It may have come up once or twice as a comment during a discussion, but we never really looked at it.

I spent about an hour playing with under the bumper intake though.

Bjenks548 09-05-2012 21:38
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
548 finally got one these this year and there's one reason why. Speed... What is the fastest way I can accomplish this task. This takes care of the 2009 dump, 2010 side hang, 2011 jaw (opening roller claw), and the 2012 over the bumper pickup. Asking not only how best to do something but how fast should help more teams figure out these little things that most people seem to miss.

Boe 09-05-2012 21:44
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmrnpizzo14 (Post 1168410)
braking system for 2012 so that double balancing a robot turns into a single balance. Also for Co-op bridge, there is a guaranteed 1 point for both robots being supported by the bridge after play stops. Check out 3173's robot who used this very successfully at the championships and I believe that 108 also used it.

We also had brakes but we didn't make it to championships :(

http://robotics.mnmsa.org/media/photos/
picture 78 on the left side shows it best

MattC9 09-05-2012 22:13
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Mad town's (1323's) shooter and intake on the 4 bar linkage. Need I say more?

CalTran 09-05-2012 22:36
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattC9 (Post 1168425)
Mad town's (1323's) shooter and intake on the 4 bar linkage. Need I say more?
I'm not familiar with it; and I can't seem to find some pics of it on their website. Perhaps a link?

DampRobot 09-05-2012 22:45
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattC9 (Post 1168425)
Mad town's (1323's) shooter and intake on the 4 bar linkage. Need I say more?
I would disagree. Having seen this robot at competition, I would say that the four bar linkage added a high COG and a lot of mechanical complexity for a very marginal performance benefit. Not a "why didn't we think of that?" in my mind.

MIT_MAN 09-05-2012 23:10
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV (Post 1168404)
Can you explain how this works? Were you looking through the driver station feed or at the backboard itself? (the latter seems difficult to me with the nature of the retro-reflective tape)
You can get a good view of how the light alignment works by checking this picture out -------> http://gallery.raiderrobotix.org/201...mpDSP/IMG_3477

You can see the light projecting a bright beam onto the lowest backboard. We know that if we are lined up with the lowest basket, since the top basket is in line with the lowest basket, we are in line with the top basket.

rsisk 09-05-2012 23:35
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalTran (Post 1168428)
I'm not familiar with it; and I can't seem to find some pics of it on their website. Perhaps a link?
Here is a good picture of it

tickspe15 09-05-2012 23:41
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Team 1318 has a dual intake with the left intake flipping out to tip the bridge and assist in pulling up robot on to bridge

Akash Rastogi 10-05-2012 00:17
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DampRobot (Post 1168432)
I would disagree. Having seen this robot at competition, I would say that the four bar linkage added a high COG and a lot of mechanical complexity for a very marginal performance benefit. Not a "why didn't we think of that?" in my mind.
While you can't really say the performance benefit was marginal or not since they, to the best of my knowledge, didn't play without raising their shooter assembly - I think the numbers speak for themselves:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...51&postcount=1

and

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...86&postcount=6

Would you also claim that 330 or 548's lifted shooters had marginal advantages? Trust me, these teams did plenty of CoG calculations. Plus, while at the key or fender it doesn't even matter, it's not like you drive around with the bot in scoring position.

Gary.C 10-05-2012 01:28
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattC9 (Post 1168425)
Mad town's (1323's) shooter and intake on the 4 bar linkage. Need I say more?
Thanks! We had hella fun designing and building the guy. At first we felt like we did something horribly stupid and joked around with our friends on 330 at CVR this year!

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalTran (Post 1168428)
I'm not familiar with it; and I can't seem to find some pics of it on their website. Perhaps a link?
Thanks Sisk for posting the pic, vids of it are here:

youtube.com/frc1323

Quote:
Originally Posted by DampRobot (Post 1168432)
I would disagree. Having seen this robot at competition, I would say that the four bar linkage added a high COG and a lot of mechanical complexity for a very marginal performance benefit. Not a "why didn't we think of that?" in my mind.
Thats quite incorrect.

As the 4 bar linkage is very very simple to do... It all depends when you saw us as well. At Davis we had major code problems and had a very rough start, as we had a new programmer that didn't fully grasp what we were doing. We've never been amazing at code, and this year we built the 4 bar so if for some reason we didn't have the code we desired. We could pick up balls, lift and score a very high percentage shot (ball variation killed a lot of key shots).

According to the scouting data that was linked in Akash's post, it shows that we were the highest point conversion robot in our division (~89-90%). Shot a ton of balls and missed very little. Unless stats lie :P

Everyone for some reason feels that we have a very very very absurdly high CG... At Davis when we had code issues, our arm was stuck midway and we traversed the bump without flipping. We've scored points and the other robot has tipped trying to push us. We did a lot of math and knew what situations we'd be in. We've had a team or two come up to us at champs before a match and tell us we have a way high CG, but then they tip going over the bridge. Its not like we drove around with our arm up like crazy people :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oww7Y...ure=plpp_video

And it wasn't honestly a ton of mechanical complexity. It added about 4lbs of extra weight and the system was pretty darn light/simple. Many people came by and checked out our setup. Most were quite surprised how simple/light the pieces were.

If we had to do it again, we would still do our 4 bar lift guy. As it allowed us to score accurately, added very little weight and made us pretty versatile. Many people thought we couldn't key shoot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MswBGkfH18&feature=plcp

But we could probably key shoot as fast as we could fender.

-Gary

n1ckd2012 10-05-2012 01:39
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
118s Co-op assist. They would tip the bridge the opposite direction to allow robots to get on. Then they hold it steady while the two other robots balance.

Looking for a video...

ttldomination 10-05-2012 01:58
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ross3098 (Post 1168352)
+ 1 - Team 67's hanging mechanism in 2010. I mean come on, scoring a hang AFTER the buzzer??
Speaking of which, anyone have an links to information or documentation behind how they made this work?

Quote:
Originally Posted by n1ckd2012 (Post 1168455)
118s Co-op assist. They would tip the bridge the opposite direction to allow robots to get on. Then they hold it steady while the two other robots balance.

Looking for a video...
I think the balance assist as a whole was a pretty 'get it or not' kind of design. Teams that had balance assist, whether it was via stingers or utility arms, could balance much, much easier than those without and it showed in their COOP scores, overall rankings, and eliminations performance.

Here's a link to 118 helping out on the balance.

- Sunny G.

AllenGregoryIV 10-05-2012 03:29
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by n1ckd2012 (Post 1168455)
118s Co-op assist. They would tip the bridge the opposite direction to allow robots to get on. Then they hold it steady while the two other robots balance.

Looking for a video...
You'd be amazed how hard it is to get teams to understand how useful this is. We have a similar system and we had a hard time conniving teams to let us use it. I don't think we had more than two teams agree at championship. Maybe if we had a lower number, or a cool lighting system :)

Peter Matteson 10-05-2012 07:22
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by IKE (Post 1168348)
2011, the doubler roller claw with hinged jaw was popular on many top teams (111, 1114, 254, 33, 177?) and not present on lower performers (yes there were many good roller claws, and many good hinged claws, but only a handful of double roller hinged claws).
Yes we did have a hinged double roller claw in 2011.

MichaelBick 10-05-2012 07:47
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary.C (Post 1168452)
Thanks! We had hella fun designing and building the guy. At first we felt like we did something horribly stupid and joked around with our friends on 330 at CVR this year!



Thanks Sisk for posting the pic, vids of it are here:

youtube.com/frc1323



Thats quite incorrect.

As the 4 bar linkage is very very simple to do... It all depends when you saw us as well. At Davis we had major code problems and had a very rough start, as we had a new programmer that didn't fully grasp what we were doing. We've never been amazing at code, and this year we built the 4 bar so if for some reason we didn't have the code we desired. We could pick up balls, lift and score a very high percentage shot (ball variation killed a lot of key shots).

According to the scouting data that was linked in Akash's post, it shows that we were the highest point conversion robot in our division (~89-90%). Shot a ton of balls and missed very little. Unless stats lie :P

Everyone for some reason feels that we have a very very very absurdly high CG... At Davis when we had code issues, our arm was stuck midway and we traversed the bump without flipping. We've scored points and the other robot has tipped trying to push us. We did a lot of math and knew what situations we'd be in. We've had a team or two come up to us at champs before a match and tell us we have a way high CG, but then they tip going over the bridge. Its not like we drove around with our arm up like crazy people :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oww7Y...ure=plpp_video

And it wasn't honestly a ton of mechanical complexity. It added about 4lbs of extra weight and the system was pretty darn light/simple. Many people came by and checked out our setup. Most were quite surprised how simple/light the pieces were.

If we had to do it again, we would still do our 4 bar lift guy. As it allowed us to score accurately, added very little weight and made us pretty versatile. Many people thought we couldn't key shoot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MswBGkfH18&feature=plcp

But we could probably key shoot as fast as we could fender.

-Gary
When I first saw you guys at CVR(through your webcast too by the way), I was really amazed. You guys were keeping up with 254. The most impressive part of the performance, was that once there was defense on you, you just backed up to the key, and had top tier accuracy.

HumblePie 10-05-2012 08:08
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boe (Post 1168418)
We also had brakes but we didn't make it to championships :(

http://robotics.mnmsa.org/media/photos/
picture 78 on the left side shows it best
+1 on the braking system as we added one between competitions. Very helpful in balancing as it helped us to a #3 seed at Palmetto. Our first competition in Orlando was a different story....... We also used a slanted elevator, and a turreted shooter. For the transition from elevator to turret..... a stainless steel mixing bowl ;) It slowed the shooter down a bit, but the consistency was pretty good as the ball was always presented to the centerline of the shooter. I heard from another team attending CMP that another team there used a bowl as well. Can anyone confirm?

CalTran 10-05-2012 09:10
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary.C (Post 1168452)
Many people thought we couldn't key shoot.

But we could probably key shoot as fast as we could fender.
-Gary
I've seen that pic before; not sure why I didn't remember it. Stupid AP Tests, clearing my head of useful knowledge and putting in useless stuff. :rolleyes:

It looks like it was designed for both types of shots. I'd say I was more surprised when I was watching MSC and saw 548 back up and take shots.

Walter Deitzler 10-05-2012 10:50
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
What about 118's 2011 tube centering wings? They were pretty cool and innovative.

Or the 16 ball grabber device from this year?

ttldomination 10-05-2012 11:09
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LedLover96 (Post 1168503)
What about 118's 2011 tube centering wings? They were pretty cool and innovative.

Or the 16 ball grabber device from this year?
I don't think 118's "wings" from 2011 was a game changer, at least not enough to make me wish I'd thought of it. Additionally, IIRC, they ended up removing the wings.

16's ball grabber device is really an example of the 'over the bumper' style of collection, one that was sported by many top tier robots. Having said that, I wish we'd thought of it.

- Sunny G.

Chris Hibner 10-05-2012 11:28
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ttldomination (Post 1168459)
Speaking of which, anyone have an links to information or documentation behind how they made this work?
I've seen it up close a bunch of times, but I'm going from memory. Hopefully one of the 67 guys can jump in on this.

Here's what I remember: a LOT of thick latex tubing around a reel, which was coupled to a winch. A small arm set a hook on the top bar of the tower which was attached to the cable from the winch. They pulled a pin (or some other link) that released the reel, causing the spring energy stored in the latex tubing to spin the reel, which spun the winch. They fashioned a BIG hand crank that hooked up to the reel so they could wind it up before each match.

Akash Rastogi 10-05-2012 11:35
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
I think people thought of it, I know I did, but I never thought I'd see someone pull it off:

2056's hanging mechanism in 2010. I loved that thing.

Btw 1625 also had a gas strut hanger in 2010 to lift after the buzzer.

Laaba 80 10-05-2012 15:10
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
I'm surprised no one brought up the pinch rollers from 2010, especially in a game where ball possession was everything.

thefro526 10-05-2012 15:15
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laaba 80 (Post 1168570)
I'm surprised no one brought up the pinch rollers from 2010, especially in a game where ball possession was everything.
While we're on 2010, 25's ball vacuum. Their ability to suck a ball out of a corner was really advantageous.

I've always wanted to replay 2010 to combine the IFI double pinch roller and 25's vacuum to create the ultimate ball possession device...

joelg236 10-05-2012 17:04
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Not sure if this is really brilliant or not, but I was impressed.

1114 uses one image to track the net. This allows for less lag, just the same accuracy and prevents blocking their view.

I thought that was cool. Maybe it's just me being a on a rookie team without a shooter. :P

mwmac 10-05-2012 23:22
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Team 2122 developed a "bump box" that would hold two balls in hybrid mode and was designed to attach to kop frame members of shooter-less alliance partners. Given the importance of hybrid scoring in this year's game we wanted a way to keep two balls off the co-op bridge and feed them into our shooter. Our programmers wrote a hybrid mode in which our robot would shoot two, back up and bump our partner and load and shoot their two balls. Worked well in finals in Spokane and we got to use it twice at Champs.

Spokane: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofefwcw56Ow

Here is a pic of the bump box mounted on 4082 in Spokane:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/60133134/DSC_5768.JPG

slijin 10-05-2012 23:40
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelg236 (Post 1168600)
Not sure if this is really brilliant or not, but I was impressed.

1114 uses one image to track the net. This allows for less lag, just the same accuracy and prevents blocking their view.

I thought that was cool. Maybe it's just me being a on a rookie team without a shooter. :P
What exactly do you mean by one image?

It sounds like they take one image at the start of the match, then use that for reference for the rest of the match, which I have a hard time believing was ever implemented (although if it's 1114...)

AdamHeard 11-05-2012 00:24
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by slijin (Post 1168687)
What exactly do you mean by one image?

It sounds like they take one image at the start of the match, then use that for reference for the rest of the match, which I have a hard time believing was ever implemented (although if it's 1114...)
Probably robot is lined up in the key and not going to move; take image, act on that. As long as the robot base doesn't move you're fine.

MIT_MAN 11-05-2012 00:27
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HumblePie (Post 1168473)
I heard from another team attending CMP that another team there used a bowl as well. Can anyone confirm?
Tigertrons Team 222 used a dog bowl I believe.

Eugene Fang 11-05-2012 00:29
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamHeard (Post 1168695)
Probably robot is lined up in the key and not going to move; take image, act on that. As long as the robot base doesn't move you're fine.
Basically, if you know the relationship between "pixels from center" of the target in the camera and "degrees from center" of your turret, you can just take a single picture once the robot base is in place and turn the turret the correct amount using an encoder or potentiometer.

slijin 11-05-2012 01:03
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HumblePie (Post 1168473)
I heard from another team attending CMP that another team there used a bowl as well. Can anyone confirm?
Multiple teams did; besides the one already mentioned, 987 used a bowl to feed their shooter from their conveyor.

Karthik 11-05-2012 11:41
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwmac (Post 1168685)
Team 2122 developed a "bump box" that would hold two balls in hybrid mode and was designed to attach to kop frame members of shooter-less alliance partners. Given the importance of hybrid scoring in this year's game we wanted a way to keep two balls off the co-op bridge and feed them into our shooter. Our programmers wrote a hybrid mode in which our robot would shoot two, back up and bump our partner and load and shoot their two balls. Worked well in finals in Spokane and we got to use it twice at Champs.

Spokane: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofefwcw56Ow

Here is a pic of the bump box mounted on 4082 in Spokane:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/60133134/DSC_5768.JPG
This is brilliant. Great work and a nice example of simplicity mixed with outside the box thinking.

Hadi379 11-05-2012 12:06
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwmac (Post 1168685)
Team 2122 developed a "bump box" that would hold two balls in hybrid mode and was designed to attach to kop frame members of shooter-less alliance partners. Given the importance of hybrid scoring in this year's game we wanted a way to keep two balls off the co-op bridge and feed them into our shooter. Our programmers wrote a hybrid mode in which our robot would shoot two, back up and bump our partner and load and shoot their two balls. Worked well in finals in Spokane and we got to use it twice at Champs.

Spokane: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofefwcw56Ow

Here is a pic of the bump box mounted on 4082 in Spokane:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/60133134/DSC_5768.JPG

Wouldn't any team using the "dump box" have to get reinspected or at least re-weighed in order to compete with it?

AllenGregoryIV 11-05-2012 12:41
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadi379 (Post 1168766)
Wouldn't any team using the "dump box" have to get reinspected or at least re-weighed in order to compete with it?
Also who accounts for that in the 30lbs, or did you bag them or build them at the competition?

Richard Wallace 11-05-2012 13:31
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadi379 (Post 1168766)
Wouldn't any team using the "dump box" have to get reinspected or at least re-weighed in order to compete with it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV (Post 1168774)
Also who accounts for that in the 30lbs, or did you bag them or build them at the competition?
See [R03] in the Manual -- emphasis added
"The Robot weight may not exceed 120 lbs. When determining weight, the basic Robot structure and all elements of all additional Mechanisms that might be used in different configurations of the Robot shall be weighed together."

As I read the rule, a robot that uses the "dump box" in some matches, but not in others, must be under the weight limit when the "dump box" is added to all of the mechanisms used in other matches. Of course a permanent (for that event) change to remove another mechanism and add the "dump box" would be OK, provided the robot passes a re-inspection; however, changing back and forth between the robot's original configuration and the "dump box" configuration would violate the intent of [R03], unless the combined weight of the robot and all mechanisms is less than 120 lb.

Gray Adams 11-05-2012 20:39
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard (Post 1168786)
See [R03] in the Manual -- emphasis added
"The Robot weight may not exceed 120 lbs. When determining weight, the basic Robot structure and all elements of all additional Mechanisms that might be used in different configurations of the Robot shall be weighed together."

As I read the rule, a robot that uses the "dump box" in some matches, but not in others, must be under the weight limit when the "dump box" is added to all of the mechanisms used in other matches. Of course a permanent (for that event) change to remove another mechanism and add the "dump box" would be OK, provided the robot passes a re-inspection; however, changing back and forth between the robot's original configuration and the "dump box" configuration would violate the intent of [R03], unless the combined weight of the robot and all mechanisms is less than 120 lb.
Well, given that both teams made sure the user of the box wouldn't be overweight when using it, they more than likely wouldn't have taken anything off to use it in the first place. So the "all configurations" rule doesn't make a difference if they never have to take anything off to use it, and they don't exceed the weight limit when they use it.

Bob Steele 11-05-2012 22:13
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard (Post 1168786)
See [R03] in the Manual -- emphasis added
"The Robot weight may not exceed 120 lbs. When determining weight, the basic Robot structure and all elements of all additional Mechanisms that might be used in different configurations of the Robot shall be weighed together."

As I read the rule, a robot that uses the "dump box" in some matches, but not in others, must be under the weight limit when the "dump box" is added to all of the mechanisms used in other matches. Of course a permanent (for that event) change to remove another mechanism and add the "dump box" would be OK, provided the robot passes a re-inspection; however, changing back and forth between the robot's original configuration and the "dump box" configuration would violate the intent of [R03], unless the combined weight of the robot and all mechanisms is less than 120 lb.
In the search for a team to use the bump box. Weight was a primary consideration. The bump box was designed to fit on a kit bot frame. 4082's robot weighed less than 60 lbs. They were an ideal partner for 2122 (and our team, 1983). They are a great story. 4 students. 1 mentor. It was a privilege working with them on our alliance in Spokane.

gerberduffy 12-05-2012 15:36
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
For motor testing on prototypes, we have some little 12 volt black and decker drills that we modified with a lead and anderson connecters. They work quite well and are small and portable. Since it is a drill, you can change the polarity easily too by using the direction control.
Ditto on awesome1730. Power drills are probably the quickest way to prototype for us.

Michael DiRamio 15-05-2012 09:43
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by slijin (Post 1168687)
What exactly do you mean by one image?

It sounds like they take one image at the start of the match, then use that for reference for the rest of the match, which I have a hard time believing was ever implemented (although if it's 1114...)
We acquire one image when the operator starts aiming with the camera and use this to calculate how far the turret needs to turn. We found this to be more effective and accurate than acquiring multiple images as the turret swung around.

We have posted an overview of what we did this year for our Programming and Controls here.

pfreivald 15-05-2012 09:58
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael DiRamio (Post 1169473)
We acquire one image when the operator starts aiming with the camera and use this to calculate how far the turret needs to turn. We found this to be more effective and accurate than acquiring multiple images as the turret swung around.

We have posted an overview of what we did this year for our Programming and Controls here.
Our protocode was essentially this:
Acquire image, calculate center of the square location (in pixels)
Subtract number of pixels from the center of the image, convert to degrees
If degrees <1 go to shooting; else feed degrees to gyro
Rotate robot that number of degrees
Repeat until shooting is initiated -- generally unneeded, every once in a while it would have to repeat the cycle.

It worked GREAT at home, less so on the field. We haven't parsed out why, yet.

Michael DiRamio 15-05-2012 10:28
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfreivald (Post 1169477)
It worked GREAT at home, less so on the field. We haven't parsed out why, yet.
We put a lot of work into identifying the proper target on the field by rating each particle based on height, aspect ratio, size, and fill percentage. The five largest particles were scored and the highest ranked was assumed to be the actual target.

We also look at the lowest target, which means less interference from other light sources.

who716 15-05-2012 11:51
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
I liked 1114's Ball picker-upper It was an apendage wich allowed the team to pick up balls that are stuck in the corners of the arena.

dsherb5261 16-05-2012 21:46
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
I personaly like 1319's elevator and brake pads they had at worlds....now not being involved but sourt of a onlooker i thought they had the right idea but got stuck with some rookies and that messed them up

Ether 21-07-2012 12:09
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 


For teams on a tight budget: If you have an old junker Pentium laptop or desktop computer with a serial port, you can easily use that to generate a PWM signal to control a Victor or Jaguar. Details here.

Alex2614 21-07-2012 22:28
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
When I got to championships, I was thoroughly impressed with the systems that lowered the bridge and picked up balls at at the same time (i.e. 67 HOT). It seemed to me that an arm that picked up balls and "dropped" them into another hopper would be too unreliable and "flimsy." That is, that balls would fall out easily and it seemed like too much work to have an actuated arm to pick up balls when we could just do it with a roller. This came up in our original design discussions a couple times, and was eventually shot down every time for many of those ver reasons. However, I think that especially 67's system worked incredibly well for them. The fact that they could go to the bridge and pick up balls at the same time very easily proved to be very beneficial to them. It also worked very well on the floor.

nitsua60 23-07-2012 12:12
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
(Sorry, I'm not good with team numbers.)
There was a team at both Suffield Shakedown and the CT regional with a tube-and-fan assembly that collected balls over the bumper, shot, and was strong enough to manipulate the bridge in either direction. It was perhaps 4' long, pivoted at about 1/3 of the way along the tube, and mounted on a turret. (Think of a telescope mount.) A beautiful sight to behold.

jwfoss 23-07-2012 12:20
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nitsua60 (Post 1178850)
(Sorry, I'm not good with team numbers.)
There was a team at both Suffield Shakedown and the CT regional with a tube-and-fan assembly that collected balls over the bumper, shot, and was strong enough to manipulate the bridge in either direction. It was perhaps 4' long, pivoted at about 1/3 of the way along the tube, and mounted on a turret. (Think of a telescope mount.) A beautiful sight to behold.
The team you are referring to is the return of team 23 to FRC. Here is a picture of their 2012 robot.

RedLeader342 14-08-2012 11:40
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
team 16, bomb squads, ball hopper, collector, and bridge mechanism. the only thing it didnt do was drive the robot and fire the balls

Jefferson 14-08-2012 17:06
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedLeader342 (Post 1181650)
team 16, bomb squads, ball hopper, collector, and bridge mechanism. the only thing it didnt do was drive the robot and fire the balls
It also helped us traverse the bump. ;)

Thanks for the recognition. It's been a fun year.

nuggetsyl 15-08-2012 16:34
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Easy in 2002 team 88 rolled up a piece of lexan that allowed it to touch the home zone to get bonus points. It was light and simple. Any one from 2002 knows what i am talking about. After NJ almost everyone copied it. In fact it was copied in that event.

nuggetsyl 15-08-2012 16:55
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Just though of another one which i am sorry i do not know the team but in 07 a robot driving on a ramp (for end of game bonus) and to get the ramp 12 inches high they had a half a circle which lifted the ramp when you drove the robot forward. If someone has a pic please post it.

Akash Rastogi 15-08-2012 16:56
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuggetsyl (Post 1181827)
Just though of another one which i am sorry i do not know the team but in 07 a robot driving on a ramp (for end of game bonus) and to get the ramp 12 inches high they had a half a circle which lifted the ramp when you drove the robot forward. If someone has a pic please post it.
Know what event you saw it at?

Chris is me 15-08-2012 17:23
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuggetsyl (Post 1181827)
Just though of another one which i am sorry i do not know the team but in 07 a robot driving on a ramp (for end of game bonus) and to get the ramp 12 inches high they had a half a circle which lifted the ramp when you drove the robot forward. If someone has a pic please post it.
That would be 245. I swear I've seen a video of them somewhere but can't seem to find it.

Alpha Beta 15-08-2012 18:58
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris is me (Post 1181838)
That would be 245. I swear I've seen a video of them somewhere but can't seem to find it.
Reminds me of the Digital Goats as well. They had the design working at the week 1 regional in St. Louis. Definitely a factor in winning the regional. Can't find a great picture, but you can make out the cams here in the undeployed state.

http://chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/27151

Peyton Yeung 15-08-2012 21:51
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
829 used it in 2007. Here is a link to the video The action starts at 1:55

IndySam 15-08-2012 22:53
Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 
2007

TBA the final match at St. Louis


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:40.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi