Robot Idea
 

When first saw 254's Barrage in this video http://www.team254.com/frc2014-reveal/ my first reaction was holy smokes that is really really impressive. My next thought was that this looked very similar to the type of shooters used in the 2012 game "Rebound Rumble". What I was thinking was modifying 254's desigin silightly so a turret like the one featured on 118's 2012 robot (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qWiIx_SzIE). This would allow 360 degree shooting and the ability of angle adjustment. This could make a 3 ball auto scoring all three in the hot goal possible because of the quick re aiming of the shooter. With a good vision processing program for assisted aiming this could be very interesting and will probably be pursued by my team. What do you guys think? I will probably start CAD soon ish.

Re: Robot Idea
 

254 already scores all 3 balls in the hot goal during autonomous. Their reasoning for the wheeled shooter was partly that it could get all 3 shots off within those last five seconds.

Re: Robot Idea
 

Oh I did not know that still would be an interesting idea worth pursuing.

Re: Robot Idea
 

The reason that turrets were very popular in 2012 is probably due to the relatively narrow goal (a standard basketball hoop) that required more precise left/right aim. In games such as 2013 and 2014 where the goal spans the entire width of the field, it's not nearly as advantageous.

Re: Robot Idea
 

Actually, I would argue that it is more advantageous this year, simply because there is so much more defense this year. In 2012, you either straightened yourself on the fender on lined up in the key where you could use your drivetrain to adjust without interference. This year, if you can shoot from various angles reliable, it would be a huge advantage. To start, just think of all the times a team like 254 or 1114 was pinned against the wall in front of the low goal, facing the wrong direction. They had to wait for the opponent to back off from them before they could shoot.

The reason they were way more popular in 2012 than 2014 is because this year it is about 10,000x harder to implement. Just think about the space restraints. And the huge bulky assembly you would have to rotate. And there is no hope of using a lazy Suzan. And to make it worse, you have to be able to feed the ball into the shooter vertically. I'd be very impressed by anyone who makes it happen effectively.

Re: Robot Idea
 

The only turreted robot I saw this year was from 2826: http://youtu.be/KwtabB9_04k

Re: Robot Idea
 

Team 223 Xtreme Heat also use a turret on their shooter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfak...ature=youtu.be
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=127191

Re: Robot Idea
 

The complexity outweighs the benefits. Fixed shooters were still perfect for 2012.

Re: Robot Idea
 

We only went with the turret to help keep us in frame perimeter in starting configuration. Our arms hung over the frame unless it started in a 45 degree offset. After getting two heavy duty turrets demolished, and littering the field with ball bearings, we decided to change our arms for MAR Champs to fit without a turret. (Much better)

Re: Robot Idea
 

Turrets are one of those things that has hypothetical value, but rarely translates into improved performance for a vast majority of teams. While some of the 90-95th percentile of teams can execute them well enough that it can help give them an advantage (without sacrificing robot quality elsewhere) in order to become a 99th percentile team, for the rest of FRC teams, they tend to end up wasting resources and decreasing precision. Like swerve and octocanum drives, turrets are cool, but in terms of on-the-field performance, a majority of teams would be better served by investing their resources elsewhere.

254 would usually just dump the ball out of their rear intake into the low goal in that situation. 67 or 971 would swing their arm around the other way and score into the high goal. Generally speaking, that's a pretty specific scenario, and not worth the added resources to get out of. I'm sure these elite teams would rather focus their focus their programming, debug, and driver practice time on features that will be advantageous the other 99% of the time they're driving around the field.

Re: Robot Idea
 

Yup. Don't add a complicated mechanism to 'fix' a perceived issue which can be mitigated by finishing early and getting driver practice.

Re: Robot Idea
 

True. I never said that they were worth it; in fact I imagine that if any good team did try to turret their shooter they would have been a lot less successful. All I'm saying is that if a team did manage pull one off, it would be a lot more useful this year than in 2012.

Re: Robot Idea
 

Why spin the whole shooter around? Why not just have two shooter wheels and two hoods opposite each other? 254 already had their shooter hood actuated, it's a common feature on that sort of design. Just make the whole robot symmetrical.

Re: Robot Idea
 

Fitting a hood, that must go down enough so it doesn't hit the ball when you're shooting through the other side, and the shooting wheel in the same side would increase the design complexity. Like the turret, the design complexity you'd add would out weight the benefits that it'd bring.

Re: Robot Idea
 

Maybe if 254 could've shot both ways they'd have won champs :rolleyes:

Re: Robot Idea
 

Dont think I made this entirely clear but we were looking at this because it would be difficult and not easy to do. We are just coming out of our rookie year and did not have the best working bot in the world to say the least. This could be a challenging but rewarding experience for the team (I think) to help grow and develop us to make a veteran team style robot. Was not meant to be an improvement to the Cheesy Champs robot but simply a change so we don't just photocopy their robot.

Re: Robot Idea
 

No one is offended or trying to be mean, we're all just joking in good fun. I apologize if you were offended.

Re: Robot Idea
 

Something I would suggest is to make this an offseason project and bring it out to the Fall Classic, Battle at the Border, or another SoCal offseason event.

The other thing I would suggest, if you haven't done this already, would be to figure out what worked and what didn't work and why it did or didn't work this last season. (Example: Intake wasn't up to par. Why? Intake wheels kept falling off. Why? ____ What do we do about it for next year? _______ Just an example from what I saw of you guys at IE, by the way.)

One of the best things to do, when copying/iterating someone else's design, is to figure out WHY X was done in a certain way. It might bring something to light in your own process that is lacking. So... why did so few teams use a turret this year and in 2008 (particularly compared to 2006 and 2012)? Why did 254 opt to have a capability for a 3-ball automode? Why did this, why did that... you get the picture. (Some of those may be publicly available.)

Re: Robot Idea
 

The reason I made my original comment about turrets was to pose the question, "Why didn't 254 build a turret?", or more broadly, "Why did 254 build the robot they did?". IMO, understanding the answer to that question is just as, if not more valuable than the lessons learned from taking their robot and reengineering it with some added complexity (though there are valuable lessons in the latter as well).

As a mentor for a rookie team in a similar situation, what we're doing is running through a full build season without the six week time limit using a past FRC game. This way, we're not only tackling the design and manufacturing part of build season, but the game analysis portion as well.

EDIT: EricH beat me to essentially the same point.

Re: Robot Idea
 

Take a look at succesfull robots in the 2014 season and weigh their strengths and weaknesses. Relate strengths to critical parts of the game and look at weaknesses in relation to strengths. Ask yourself, was this weakness completely inevitable? If not, how could this be improved in order to increase success in the future? Was said weakness a compromise made in order to implement a strength?

That being said, incorporate this into next year's game with prototypes on kickoff and during early build season. As mentioned below, what particular abilities might be a large psychological influence during competition? What abilities might stand out as unnecessary during qualification events, yet blend into the crowd during the World Championship event?

Another point to keep in mind regarding 254's 3-ball is the psychological impact. In the rare case that 254 wasn't doing the choosing during alliance selection, the fact that they have the ability to perform a 3-ball autonomous mode would yield a large influence towards the decision.

Similarly, a 2-ball autonomous mode was a big deal during districts and regionals, even lesser so during district championships, and quite average during the World Championship.