Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Obeying the law and not punching people in the face also isn't part of the acronym, but people generally recognize that this is more important than the elements of the acronym. That said, the FIRST acronym does a nice job of recognizing the mission statement of the organization, and emphasizing the central importance of recognizing and inspiring science and technology.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Although I love reading rants back and forth <insert sarcasm here>, can we get back on topic?

Do teams think that Ri3D should continue exactly as is? Should there be fewer resources published immediately, or should even more information be put out as quickly as possible? What do you think?

Rather than explaining why your team is/isn't modeling off a Ri3D or BB design (and thus being accused as a "cheater" and "ungracious improfessional" <read with sarcasm>), explain how you would change Ri3D and BB for the better? Maybe you'd keep it the exact way it is -- and that's a perfectly reasonable opinion -- but I'm just curious if anyone has thought past the general idea of "I like Ri3D because it helped my team do blank." What would benefit your team -- and all of FRC -- more ,and how could that be done?

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

As with most issues in FIRST how about we all wait until competition season so we can see exactly what the Ri3D/BuildBlitz did or didn't bring to the community. I personally have had mixed feelings over the projects but I won't make my final conclusion until we see how this year pans out. I can come up with countless times the community has had an issue with something that builds up to be a disaster and then this event happens and we hear nothing of how awful it was.

I loved Ri3D last year and saw all the teams who used it and it was great to see so many teams show up to competition with something working who previously struggled. This year I was concerned with the direction it was taking when Vex announced they would be building two robots and I thought it would be cool but still didn't feel too jazzed about the idea. Then I heard of more projects starting up and we hit 6 robots being built in 72 hours and really started to get concerned about the future of FRC.

Anyone arguing on the basis of "copying" should also hold their tongue (unless they already know what everyone is building) but they should also talk to those teams. My team has a single robot feature that I believe everyone will immediately categorize our robot or believe we copied off of an Ri3D or BuildBlitz robot which is FAR from why it is on our robot. In reality this same feature was one we discussed during day one and was sketched out before we started following teams' progress on Sunday/Monday and as soon as I saw it my first reaction was, "crap we are going to be stuck with a label from now on". The fact of the matter is we (our team and members of Ri3D/BuildBlitz) all are drawing inspiration from the same place and the argument can be made that while you might think teams are "copying" Ri3D/BuildBlitz there is nothing saying that those teams are being inspired by previous robots themselves.

Our team looked at all 6 robots and saw some neat features in them but nothing on them we said "Oh we should built that robot" or "Let's put that on our robot".

TL;DR- Is Ri3D/BuildBlitz really reinventing the wheel that teams are copying or is everyone just looking back to similar robots for inspiration and we would see these mechanisms in 2014 regardless of the Ri3D/BuildBlitz robots taking place?

EDIT: I will say anyone considering getting together with a group to do a robot in 72 hours should think twice about why they are doing it. Just as FIRST has a scalibility issue it is tackling with districts, what would happen if in 5 years we had 50 72 hour robots taking place? Could be a crazy number but I'm sure it would be very easy to find 50 groups who'd be willing to do it. Do you think that would have an impact the community?

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

There is nothing wrong with copying to learn. Painters do this all the time. Picasso spent years practicing painting by copying, this developed his talent to create paintings in his blue and rose period. This lead to his genius creation of cubism. Those years of study by copying his influences gave him the knowledge, skill, inspiration and creativity to create his brilliant cubism paintings. to quote (or paraphrase) a Macklemoore song "the greats were great because they painted a lot."

During the 1800's and early 1900's there were many bridge collapses. During this period engineering standards were formed and applied in an effort to prevent disasters. This also created engineering societies, and standard for engineering curriculum. In an effect, standardization forced many design elements to be "copied." This led to the rise standardization of rivets, steel beams and etc. key difference between engineers and artists is that engineers cannot prioritize creativity over public safety and the desired result nor can engineers doom a project by failing to be creative enough to achieve public safety and the desired result.

I think its naive to think no one can learn or become more creative by copying. Many times when I practice CAD, I copy something I like, sometimes something amazing happens, I think of a better idea. I am sure many artists could relate, that getting paint on the canvass often opens doors to creativity. I think a key point that there are many ways to copy, but the one that teaches you the most in recreating from scratch. Tracing won't teach you to paint just as importing a step file won't teach you CAD. You still need a picture of a painting or a step file of an CAD assembly in order recreate.

I am really glad these CAD's are posted, I have been able to import their models next to my team's robot, its given me unique perspectives. This is a great experience, for my team it opened so many doors to so many possible ideas.

To go back to bridges, if an idea that is not ours is better, we have to ask ourselves: why is it? Then, can we copy it? Finally, can we make it better, can we think of something superior? Obviously copying is extremely powerful, so patents were create to create incentives by protecting the idea from copying. I use this phrase a lot, if an idea is stolen, it must be good (well sometimes no, but hey people sometimes steal the wrong thing) To be good at engineering, sometimes you have to copy a lot to become great.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

But Dean Kamen didn't invest all his time and effort to start FIRST just because he wanted to foster Gracious Profesionalism. He founded it because he want to gain recognition and inspiration for STEM. And there is a lot more evidence than just the name. FIRST was founded to address a problem. That problem was a lack in the number of engineers in our country and in the world. His solution was to get more students excited about STEM so that they would go off college and major in STEM related fields. FIRST is designed to facilitate this. It is not designed to teach students, it is designed to get students into college where they can be taught. If FIRST was really about teaching students, than why isn't there a college level competition? There is no doubt in my mind that FIRST would be the most effective at teaching if it was at the college level, yet for some reason it hasn't been implemented there yet. The simple reason is that, when you get to the core, it is about the inspiration and recognition of science and technology, not teaching.

FIRST also happens to be really effective at teaching high school students, and it also happens to be great at building character, and that is absolutely amazing. I am not saying that teams should try to avoid these things, because they are awesome. The problem comes in when you start to prioritize these things over inspiration, and let that drive your decisions.

Relating this back to the original purpose of this thread, the argument that students aren't learning as much doesn't really hold much weight, so long as Ri3D/BB are increasing the inspiration in FIRST. I wouldn't change anything except make the teams and robots somehow better than they already are.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Sure. I have a few thoughts on ways the Ri3D/Blitz programs could be done better in the future. I'm sure that my perspective is very limited, so if/when I say something ignorant, those who were part of the groups/companies who did the builds, please forgive and correct.

I think that FRC as a mini-"industry" has a bizarre and difficult schedule for companies that want to make and sell quality products. The success last year with Ri3D led to many people wanting to take it to the next level. I think that the increased focus on the 3 day build, combined with the craziness of filling orders, might have led to the perfect storm. I think next year, groups affiliated with suppliers might want back off from the builds to focus on their core service to the community, and maybe other groups could take the lead on building.

I still don't think releasing the CAD files is damaging. I will wait and see what happens at competition, but I am skeptical that many teams will be able to implement the same ideas that they see in the files, or that many teams that can will want to. Many will adapt or improve on the ideas, though; for instance, I won't be surprised to see EMT hoop shooters based on Boom: Done's bent rod.

Related to the issue of out-of-stock merchandise, but entirely off topic otherwise, I recently found a supplier near my school (in Denver) that can get Colson 4 x 1 1/2 wheels quickly and cheaply, and can ship. Knowing that these are sold out of all the normal channels, anyone who wants the contact info can PM me.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Not to put too fine a point on it, but when it comes to what's going to happen ongoing, there isn't a reason why anyone should care what you or I or even the majority of FIRST participants think. People are going to do what they're going to do, and enough people love the Ri3D/BuildBlitz phenomenon that it's going to continue, and likely expand.

What people choose to do with their quickbuild projects will likely have nothing whatsoever to do with popular or unpopular opinions on what they're doing. They certainly won't have anything to do with mine, or yours. Or even Karthik's or JVN's or Paul Copioli's or Andy Baker's. Or Dean Kamen's.

People decided they want to do this, and enough people like it that I don't see it fizzling out due to the disapproval of others.

Thus, opinions on how it should or shouldn't change aren't really relevant, because those soldiering forth on these quickbuild projects have enough support (from others and from their own convictions on what they're trying to do) that they're unlikely to listen--and even if they did, somebody else would pick up the mantle.

Pandora's box is open. Our choice is how we respond to it. Personally, I hope to use the positives for the benefit of my team and my students, and to minimize the negatives.

That said, talking about what impacts it can have might or might not be important or useful. What your team chooses to get out of it, or chooses to actively avoid from it, is up to your team. It's worth discussing with other teams what they're doing, in order to inform your own decisions. But discussions of what you think other people should do differently are almost never productive.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

This thread started out as a good discussion, but I feel like it's slowly becoming cancerous and may get a lock soon if we start bringing up dead horses.

Isn't gathering resources and performing research one of the first steps you take when solving a design challenge? When I go and design a circuit for a power amplifier or some other circuit, I look at datasheets and sample circuits for my chips and modify those schematics. The same principle applies here. "Copying" a build blitz or Ri3D is using a public resource that's freely available to everyone, so I don't know why anyone wouldn't want to look at it and perhaps use it. I don't see how this is different from using the Kitbot or anything else in the kit of parts, or any gearbox or COTS item made by AndyMark or VexPro.

I'm willing wager that a team that uses build blitz or Ri3D will learn as much as a team that doesn't use it, but the content which they learn may be different. A team copying the build blitz or Ri3D designs may learn more about how to improve those existing designs and how they work, whereas a team that comes up with its own solution may learn some things about prototyping and mechanical design.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Mods: Please close this thread if it continues down the path it appears to be going down. I was hoping it would be useful for teams to express what they would like Ri3D and BB to do to improve the experience for their team, but it seems to just be a thread of people explaining why someone's opinion is wrong.

So I ask the final time,

What would you like to see Ri3D and BB do to improve the experience for your team?

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

I'd like to see it taper off from this year. I think they went a little too far, because everyone was excited by last year's result and wanted to participate. I think that teams without ties to the companies we rely on should continue, and maybe even step up the detail. Teams that pull resources from AndyMark, VexPro etc. would improve our experience by making sure the supply chain is intact.

No offense intended to either AndyMark or VexPro. The bots were great and we learned from them, and they are definitely doing everything they can to get parts out.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

I completely agree. I think Ri3D and BuildBlitz should serve as inspiration about what can be done. I would like to see a simple completion video demoing the robot and that is it. Last year Ri3D was fantastic. It was great to see a robot that could play the game that early into build season. It was obvious that it wan't a fantastic robot that would win regionals but it was an encouragement of what could be done. I think this years game is so simple mechanically that it made Ri3D and BuildBlitz have a more negative effect than with a normal game. I say simple because there is no end game and mechanically all that has to be done is catching, collecting, and shooting a ball. This year Ri3D and BuildBlitz created robots that could do all 3 of those things. I think this will lead to a good deal of copying but we will have to wait and see. So I think scaling back the resources provided by Ri3D and BuildBlitz would be my suggestion. By no means would I want them to stop. I personally enjoy seeing a working robot so quickly.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

I read these posts suggesting that VexPro/AndyMark should NOT run a 72-hour build team (or 3... :rolleyes:) because it "affects" the supply chain for FIRST teams.

Exactly ZERO of the supply issues we have had so far this season have had anything to do with BuildBlitz/Team AndyMark.

In fact, the only reason we were able to get our FIRST Choice orders from AndyMark in a timely fashion is BECAUSE of Team AndyMark's 72-hour build putting them in the shop instead of spending their weekend at home when the state of emergency was declared in the state of Indiana, preventing all the staff who were supposed to ship our FIRST Choice orders from getting to work.

VexPro is having some teething issues with a few parts because of crazy demand levels that nobody could have predicted. Paul Copioli (president of VexPro and long time 217 mentor -- so he knows what the demands of FIRST teams are like) himself said that in 2013, VexPro sold approximately 850 1/2" Hex VersaHubs. They had ordered in 3,000 to have in stock for the 2014 season, and sold them out in 18 days.

It's not lost on me, and it certainly shouldn't be lost on anyone else, that a 72-hour build run by these companies is self-serving. What better way to advertise your products than by showing exactly how they can be used to solve the current year's design challenge, 72 hours after kickoff?

I think what may have happened, though, is that this advertising effort worked a little TOO well on some products, and created so much demand that nobody could have predicted it.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

I'll agree with you on this one. There is no direct relationship between the BuildBlitz and the current VexPro out of stock issues. I think to someone who isn't too knowledgeable as to exactly why VexPro products are out of stock is glancing at the situation saying, "What was more important to them: all of the marketing/prep work that went into BuildBlitz or putting all available efforts into getting the parts on the shelves for teams." I don't think anyone can argue that Vex doesn't keep their customers as their priority.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

This is a little unfair for you to state. You came into this thread looking for people to agree with you, and are unwilling to reconsider your viewpoint.

Many people believe what they (ri3d, buildblitz) did was great, and that tapering it down or doing less would not be good for their team (and other teams).

I'm in that camp. Build Blitz, etc. won't make good teams better, but it will improve the overall level of competition.

Many teams still show up with just drives, if just a handful of these teams per event blatantly copy a ri3d without learning anything, but in turn have a great season and are inspired, that's great. Next season they will likely be more motivated to do better, learn more, etc... Missing elims and going 2-7 after being asked to play defense every match certainly isn't likely to inspire them to learn and grow.

Start with copying, move on to innovating.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

This. This is precisely why Ri3D and BuildBlitz can only be seen as a good thing.

Building a robot that can't compete is not very inspiring. Many teams (especially rookies) come with a near-useless robot, are uninspired by their robot's failure in competition, and don't come back.

If a rookie or weak team can have greater success via wholesale copying of a 72-hour robot, and is more inspired to return and continue their learning as a result? I see that as a good thing. Get them inspired to come back. They will eventually learn more and be able to be more successful of their own accord in the future, but we have to keep them around the program long enough for that to happen, and 72 hour robots help to achieve that.