![]() |
Re: Drive Train Choices
Quote:
|
Re: Drive Train Choices
Quote:
|
Re: Drive Train Choices
Quote:
|
Re: Drive Train Choices
Quote:
I've never driven an omidirectional robot, but have talked to and observed many of their drivers. The best ones (1640, 1717, etc.) all highly prioritize driver practice, and through this extra work can bring out the advantages associated with the extra maneuverability. However, the worst ones just drive their mecanum or kiwi drive as if it was a glorified tank drive with huge wheels and rollers. I have driven both Cheesy Drive (arcade) and regular tank, and can say that even Cheesy was more difficult to learn than tank. With tank, pretty much any old kid can walk up to the driver station and start driving, while with Cheesy drive, you have to take a few moments to figure it all out. There just appears to be something extremely intuitive about one joystick controlling one side of the drivetrain. However, I will admit that Cheesy Drive and other non-tank driver setups have higher ceilings than tank. Drivers (with practice) can do things with those systems that are amazing. But just like in drive trains, to take advantage of fancy driver setups, you need experienced and practiced drivers. |
Re: Drive Train Choices
Quote:
|
Re: Drive Train Choices
Even with a skid-steer vehicle (6WD for example) it is straightforward to program a driver interface wherein the vehicle will turn in an arc so as to go in the direction of the joystick angle with a speed proportional to the joystick radius. For example: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2438 With an omnidirectional drive (like mecanum or omni or swerve), it can be programmed to immediately go in the direction of the joystick angle while simultaneously rotating to align itself with the direction of travel. Or, with the push of a button, instead go in the direction of the joystick angle without aligning. |
Re: Drive Train Choices
Quote:
What I witnessed in 2010 was that once field-centric drive was demonstrated (this robot doesn't know it has a "front" side), people with no driving experience had the robot moving around the room much faster than I witnessed others with driving experience during 2008, all without accidentally banging into desks, chairs, or freshmen. From what I've seen and what I've read on CD, there are many teams that have poor experiences with holonomic drive trains because they don't use field-centric drives; field-centric makes a world of difference. Quote:
|
Re: Drive Train Choices
Quote:
I guess I need to sit down and make a vex kiwi drive and put field centric drive on it. |
Re: Drive Train Choices
I dunno about you guys, but several of our Vex robots ran non-field-centric slide drives and at least one of the drivers was able to master it fairly quickly and drive it well without too much practice.
The hardest part for me about omnidirectional test chassies is usually that I can't figure out which side is the front, because it's just a chassis :) |
Re: Drive Train Choices
Quote:
|
Re: Drive Train Choices
Quote:
As a team that likes swerve and has done swerve for the past four years, I would strongly recommend building your base competencies with 6wd first. 6wd is pretty darned good. Master this first. After you've got 6wd nailed, expand to other options. We use off-season (summer-fall) projects to experiment with new concepts, both drive-train and in other areas. This allows us to build institutional knowledge outside the frantic pace of build season. |
Re: Drive Train Choices
Quote:
As a rule for drive, I promote the following: During build season, you should never consider a drive system which you have any doubt about your ability to execute. Any sufficiently complicated drive system should not even be on the table for build-season unless you have successfully executed it within the working memory of the team. The best way to build up your catalog of usable drive designs is thus to devote time in the off-season to experimentation with new designs. Keep in mind that it is human nature to be overly-optimistic (often to silly extents), and that you must make a conscious effort to place your judgment of what you are able to do significantly below your initial feeling. This holds true for all design goals, but is especially pertinent for drive. For a drive, reliability trumps every single other concern, no exception. If your robot is unable to move, you are not able to play the game. |
Re: Drive Train Choices
Quote:
|
Re: Drive Train Choices
What oblarg said about reliability is very true. Unless you are one of those teams who has really mastered swerve (111, 1640, 1717) you won't see any benefits. Swerve is just so hard to do right. You don't get drive practice time until the season is almost over, and unless your swerve modules are 100% perfect in every way possible, you'll have one fail at competition, and you'll drive in circles for a match! For 95% of teams, the kitbot drive setup (or at least a simple 4/6wd) is the way to go.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:18. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi