Summer Design Competition 2015
 

We are back, and this time with the summer design competition that everyone's been asking for. We've got a new game, a longer design period, and some new awards. A huge thank you to Koko Ed for inspiring this summer's game.

I'll try and keep this one short:

Taken from the last competition thread:
The manual for Quad Quidditch may be found here, and the game documents and CAD models may be found here (Solidworks) and here (STEP file).

Also taken from the last competition thread:
For the above, the written portions can be as short as you want (it's easier for us that way) - they don't need to be professional essays, we just need to be able to read them and understand your thought process / strategic design. Some aspects of the normal FRC game have been changed, so how you adapt to these changes in your strategy will have an affect on how you are scored.

This is a relaxed competition. Like hella relaxed. This means you don't need to be 100% complete with your CAD. Don't leave out subsystems, but nuts/bolts/shafts etc aren't required for judging. As long as your general design gets across and you can explain it in words, you will be able to be less attentive to minor details on design.

Our time frame for the competition has been increased. The competition starts today, June 1st, and ends on the 15th of August. Submissions will be accepted any time up until 11:59 on August 15th.

For submission, if you use Solidworks, Pack and Go your assembly and put the zipped folder in a folder with your documentation. Otherwise simply send a STEP file along with your documentation. Submissions should be emailed to DesignComp2015@gmail.com.

A final note about the rules: We have put a lot of work into developing the game manual, trying to be as thorough as possible while remaining concise. We have gotten as much outside opinion as we could, however there is still a chance that we may have missed something. We're not perfect, we're human, it happens. Ask any questions here, and we shall reply with official answers, and update the manual as needed. To prevent any confusion, we ask that you take the rules for how they are intended, and try to minimize any lawyering of them. There will always be ambiguity with interpretations differing person to person, but we hope that consistent and transparent communication between the community and this GDC will help make that less of an issue.

With that being said, thank you to everyone who has helped in developing this project, and to everyone who takes the time to compete in it. Good luck, and we won't see you at the competitions because this is all theoretical.

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

The snitch is one of the coolest dynamics here.

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

whatever FIRST was planning for next year they should just drop it and do this. The bad taste from the last two games will be easily forgotten.

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

"Hey guys, remember that terrible Recycling-themed stacking game with no defense? Neither do I!"
-Every FIRST-er after Quad Quidditch

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

It would be so cool if you could make flying robots for the game. Who cares about a silly water game when you can see your robot catch air!

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

I have literally been wanting something... anything! like this since I first joined 3 years ago. This is amazing.

Thank you so much for putting the time into making this.

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

Wow, this is fantastic. I'll be using this as part of my team's summer design training.

Thank you so much for this amazing resource.

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

Under rule G10, it states that robots may not blockade the field or partake in an action that halts the flow of the match.

What classifies as "an action that halts the flow of the match"?
For an example, does persistent defense count as an action that halts the flow of the match?

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

If you used your alliance robots to create a continuous blockade that prevented opponents from traveling to the other side of the field. Another example would be if you used your robots to block the opposing alliance's human loading station, as this would prevent the natural flow of a part of the match. These kinds of actions are illegal. Normal defensive play, however, is expected and encouraged.

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

This description of the alliance zone does not appear to match what is depicted in the linked image of the field.

If images of the field are correct in their placement of the alliance zones, it seems like this rule would make it impossible to get the autonomous points for being in your zone.

If the field drawings are not correct, it seems like the flow of the game would not work properly... so it looks as though something is up...

Is there something that I'm missing?

P.S. Super cool game! I love the concept! It reminds me a lot of 2013, but a lot more craziness.

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

This was a mistake on our end in an accidental reversal of the definition of the ALLIANCE ZONE. Both the zone definition and the autonomous points have been fixed and clarified to reflect the intent of the game. The zones will stay as they were in the images, and the points will be awarded for ending autonomous in your opponent's alliance zone. Thank you for reporting this error.

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

Thanks for putting this together! Hopefully I will get the time to make something to submit.

One Question:
Does this mean that it would be allowed for a robot to extend anything with a 16 square inch cross sectional area above 10 feet or that anything extended above 10 feet must fit within a 4" by 4" column?

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

Thank you for addressing it so nicely.

I have a few more questions
Emphasis mine.
Is the bolded section necessary, or a consequence of your example? For instance, if one alliance mate passes the ball to another after it has been cleared, does the receiving bot need to clear it again? Does the quaffle even need to be in the possession of a robot when it is in the alliance zone in order to be considered cleared?

Can a quaffle be scored through the hoops backwards to receive points?

Is it indented that quaffles that are thrown through the hoops, will be kept on the field by some sort of net?

What is the alliance selection order?

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

That would be pretty awesome. This would be a crazy game to referee, and one alliance will likely sequester all the Bludgers to take them out of the game, and building/maintaining the snitches would be troublesome. But overall it would be awesome.

How can we submit this to FIRST?!

-MM

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

Extensions must fit within a 4" by 4" column. The intent of this rule is to prevent someone from making a thin blocking mechanism the width of the goal.

The process of clearing a quaffle does not require a robot to possess it. As long as the quaffle has been within the volume of the ALLIANCE ZONE of the robot that intends on scoring it since it has last been grounded/scored, it will be clear for free use (sorry if that's a bit wordy. tl;dr quaffles don't need robots to be cleared).

Quaffles can be scored through any side of the hoop.

There is a net in the field design behind the alliance walls (more easily seen with a colored background to the field), however all game pieces will be returned to the field should they exit anytime during the match.

Alliance selection will be as follows:
1-8
8-1
1-8

This has been added to the manual under T3.

This game would be a nightmare to ref or score. We decided that because this was a design challenge, we could sacrifice playability in exchange for higher quality design and strategy opportunities.

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

I guessed that, but wasn't sure. Thanks for clarifying!

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

Actually this game reminds me more of last years game except with two more goals on each side. More game pieces and an end game minus the need for assists.

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

I can't tell if you were joking...

But I got a good laugh out of it anyway :p

Although now that I think about it, I can see some resemblance.

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

This is great, thanks for putting it together.

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

I really do love the element of the snitch and I am so excited that our team is taking on the challenge this summer. Looking forward to seeing all of the designs!

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

Koko Ed speaks the truth -
never mind the past -
maybe crowd-source game design?

This game would be fun! Isn't that inspirational!
and clever use of bludgers as a gracious form of defense! and use of snitch.

(not making comment on this year game - just moving forward)

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

Could you imagine how different this years game would be with Bludgers?
Not only could you knock over stacks but you could void six stacks being carried in a robot before they make it on the scoring platform!

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

Our off season event is Rumble in the Roads, which is loosely themed on the battle of the Monitor and the Merrimack in Hampton Roads. When we were throwing around ideas for custom rules, I suggested an end game. Each team would be supplied with three "cannon balls", balls around the size of the foam basketballs with less mass (actual game piece selected to be light enough that only a hard thrown direct hit would affect the stack). During the end game, the human players could throw these at the opposing team's stacks to try to knock them over. But every throw must be accompanied by the human player yelling "Boom!" at the top of their lungs.

My suggestion was not adopted.

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

+1 BOOM!

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

The only problem I can find with the snitch(blue) is when the human players(blue) are driving it, and two robots(red) from the opposing alliance are chasing said snitch, if the human player(blue) drives towards a third robot(red) from the opposing alliance to try to escape, what will be the consequence? Will the robot's(red) alliance be fouled, or will the snitch's(blue)?

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

G6: Don’t make other robots commit fouls/break rules would be if it's intentional. However the definition of PROXIMITY regarding robots near the snitch states:

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

So would a ball attached to a rope (attached to a robot) count as being possessed?
If the ball is being dragged behind the robot, of course it would be possessed. :rolleyes: But what if the rope is loose and not exerting any force on the ball? Would the ball still count as being possessed by the robot?

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

Yes. Said rope would also likely break the frame perimeter rules, and will in fact exert a force on the ball (that's just how physics works).

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

Umm... maybe I missed it in the rules but since there seems to be four stations per side so is this game played with alliances of four robots per alliance?

Edit: Haha, thanks for the response! :)

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

Yes, as the second sentence in the game manual clearly states, alliances are four teams each.

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

The rules state that a bludger launched or ejected from an opposing robot can "ground" the shooter. How do you qualify "ejected or launched?" Is it still considered "ejected or launched" after it bounces on the ground? If not, they could only be thrown with extreme precision. If there's a time limit on when a bludger not in contact with the robot previously carrying it can take out an opposing shooter, do you honestly expect the refs to keep track of that while managing the rest of the match? Yet, since there is no qualification for "ejected or launched", then a bludger ejected from a robot 2 seconds into teleop couldn't be picked up by the oppposing alliance because it made contact with one of the robots. Hold on, a partial chokehold executed in the first seconds of auto that could decide the winner of the match? I think I remember one of those...

That said, bludgers present an extreme danger to robots. What penalties are given for teams that damage opposing robots with bludgers? How do you quantify "unintentional" bludger damage and "strategic" bludger damage? I get this is for fun, but the entire bludger dynamic combines the demolition derby and subjectivity of Aerial Assist, and the predictability of Recycle Rush.

Another thing, what happens when a snitch inevitably dies in the middle of the field? Would the alliance picking up the dead snitch still get points? How will a ref know the exact 6 foot radius around the snitch, cause there would be plenty of teams arguing with refs about it.

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

-Only quaffles can be grounded, and the process of clearing quaffles is detailed in the manual

-Launched bludgers must make contact with a robot before contacting the ground for their effect to take place. This has been clarified in the rules under G16. The game design committee believes that a good design will be able to utilize bludgers successfully without a high level of skill or precision. If you feel your design is incapable of this task, we suggest that you spend more time iterating.

-There are no rules supporting your idea that a bludger "ejected from a robot 2 seconds into teleop couldn't be picked up by the oppposing alliance". Unless this is a product of not reading the rules carefully, we ask that you cite the rules that would cause this statement to be true so that we can fix it.

-The game design committee does not believe that bludgers are any more dangerous to robots than prior years game pieces. Design your robots robustly and you should be fine. Intentional damage will be judged as it always has been. The idea of intentional damage is not a new innovation.

-Each alliance provides their own Golden Snitch (which goes through inspection and is regulated so that all are the same), so each alliance is responsible for their snitch not dying on the field. This is similar to the minibots of 2011.

-The 6 foot radius was chosen as an arbitrary value that the game design committee decided was a large enough space to deter robots not in pursuit of a snitch to stay away from, as well as one large enough that pursuit of the snitch could be clear and relatively easy to follow.

-All of our refs are trained in martial arts, and nobody can fight a ref's decision and win unless their robots are powder coated blue (because that's just how we roll).

I hope these answer your questions. Thank you very much for your interest in our project. In the event you still haveconcerns about the viability of the use of bludgers, we suggest that you train your drivers to dodge wrenches.

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

I apologize if referring to robots whose quaffles have been grounded as "grounded shooters" was ambiguous. Thank you for providing clarification in G16. I would suggest adding field markings corresponding to the proximity around the snitch release point, as defined in G12. If this game were to be played in reality, it would make G12 penalties more objective.

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

Oh yeah, this would be a terrible game to play. ;)

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

Going along with this whole "first-second" thing, I'd like to present:
Robot in 4 Days Since I Saw This Thread
http://imgur.com/bQrxgob
http://imgur.com/rjDBJIM
http://imgur.com/g0jGvPN
Features:
-Ability to hold 5 quaffles in the hopper, up to 7 balls total
-Ground collection compatible with quaffles and bludgers
-Potential for human loading, just need to change the hopper a little
-collector articulates up to allow balls up into the shooter elevator
-6x 4" custom traction wheels driven by 2 2 CIM custom gearboxes geared for 5.5fps and 16fps
-Anodized black for superior performance

Just like RI3D, very unrefined but demonstrates the concept.

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

Given the rules here, and my lack of desire to actually make a CAD model, I'm just going to theorize a couple of different robot archetypes:
The "Fender Shooter"
Given that the maximum robot height outside of starting configuration is 10 ft, I expect quite a few robots to attempt to shoot and/or dump in the hoops. The high goal is just out of reach for a dump, but also only worth 2 points more than the middle goal.
The biggest problem these robots would have is with extended defense, as the area near the hoops is not a safe area, and there is likely to be a defender there, possibly blocking hoops as well.
The "Key Shooter"
These robots are optimized to shoot from the semicircle, as it is a safe zone, however, since the opposing alliance's semicircle is adjacent, you're not entirely safe from defensive action, and smart teams might touch the circle with just the corner of their robot, or an extension to contact the semicircle while shooting.
The Keeper
Generally defensively-oriented robots with "goalie sticks". Unlike in 2014, the goals are small enough that one goal can be blocked by a goalie stick relatively easily. These robots will be very useful during autonomous if teams aren't planning to have multiple options or trick autos. Some of the better robots of this nature will be able to spend their time clearing quaffles and feeding their partners on the other side of the field. Some of the best might even be able to score quaffles during autonomous or even teleop from the keeper zone.
Keepers will also have to deal with anti-defense teams ready to push them out of the keeper zone during both autonomous and teleoperated periods.
Bludger Specialists
Bludgers are the "X Factor" that makes this game so different from any other game in FRC history. Many top-tier robots will focus on scoring goals in the hoops and capturing snitches, ignoring the bludger mechanic other than maybe grabbing some of them so the other alliance can't have them. Bludger Specialists will be able to shut down top-tier machines who are taking a long time to set up to shoot in their semi-circle, and can destroy alliances who aren't smart about how they play the game.
I think one of the most interesting rules regarding this mechanic is this one: "Bludgers will have no effect if POSSESSED by a robot upon contacting another robot." This makes it sound like if the robot in question catches the bludger, their balls do not become grounded. I wonder if the best robots in this game might have some sort of net-style catching mechanism to ensure they do not take grounding effects.

Lastly, the golden snitch. Not every robot will have the ability to capture a golden snitch, as only two robots on any alliance can be chasing down the snitch, and the snitch is worth nothing if the alliance scores no hoop points during the endgame period. Most of the top seeded teams in their divisions will, as that endgame score is the tiebreaker for seeding, and it would be interesting to see what kinds of mechanisms would emerge for this task.
As such, does the keeper stay where he is to lower the opponent's endgame score? Does he go for the snitch? Does the Bludger Specialist save a bludger or two for the endgame to ensure the opponents get no points during this period? How does the endgame strategy differ between qualifications and eliminations?

A couple questions now:

• What defines "attach" in G11: "Robots may not climb the the goalpost that supports the HOOP, nor attach to the goalpost or the HOOP."
• Would a robot with an appendage on either side of the goalpost count as being attached?
• Would having a slot in the robot to surround the goalpost count as attached?
• How about having the robot long enough to brace itself against two goalposts if hit from one side?

This is a really cool game to think about, and it supports a wide variety of robots to play this game. 2012-style shooters, 2014-style goalies, 2009-style power dumpers, and a bunch of crazy styles of play yet to be seen in an FRC game. The wide open field necessitates robot durability, and the bludger mechanic even more so. Good strategy and good robots would be required to win this game, and I appreciate that.
Thank you for posting this game and giving us an exercise in strategic design during this part of the off-season.

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

Thank you very much for the time you put into designating the robot archetypes. This type of analysis is what we love to see over these kinds of games, and we're sure that it will help others with less experience understand how the game would play out, and how to better refine their robot(s).

A note before answering your questions - The rule stating that "Bludgers will have no effect if POSSESSED by a robot upon contacting another robot." was made with an intention of preventing teams from just holding a bludger in front of them and playing tag with the opponent's robots, however we really like your interpretation that would facilitate catching as a means to cancel the bludger's effects. Unfortunately that would change the game mechanics to ones that some others who have already started did not interpret, and it would not be professional for us to change the intention of a rule after releasing the game, so we must leave the catching aspect out for now.

Now for your questions:

Attach is meant in the terms of grapple, or to securely hold on to. In short, the intent was to prevent teams from grabbing / climbing the poles. A good test to see if your design matches the intent of the rule is to ask yourself, "Can another robot push me away?" if not, then you are in violation of the rule. If so, you're perfectly fine (this would make the slot you are referring to, as well as the long robot, perfectly legal). During design we often likened the poles to the bases of the minibot poles from 2011, in regards to attachment rules.

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

All emphases mine. I think I understand what you mean to say, but to clarify, are you missing a negative in here? (Thus the correct interpretation is that if you can be pushed away along some vector, you're legal.)

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

Rule update 3: Forgot a negative in that past post. Has been corrected.

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

As we're getting into our final 20 or so days of the competition, we'd like to post a reminder of how to make your submission:

Submissions may be turned in at any point in time (the earlier the better), but anything received after 11:59pm PST on August 15th will not be accepted.

We look forward to seeing the solutions you have all come up with.

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

Thank you to everyone who submitted. We will be reviewing the entries over the next few days and will announce a winner shortly.

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

Any word on the results?

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

This season, for Quad Quidditch, we decided to have two awards. These awards are the following:

The Design Award : This award is design specific. The design is visually appealing, and contains some sense of practicality in designing. It demonstrates a large variety of techniques used in CADing.

The Strategy Award : This award encompasses both the written component and the design component. The robot displays a well thought out strategy, and proper documentation of the design process further displays this. The strategy is the most ideal/points worthy/useful out of all submissions.

And now, our winners.

The design award goes to 955. Their robot was a work of art, utilizing several mechanisms to cover a large variety of the possible tasks in the game. Their design can be seen as outside of the box, and a very modular robot in the sense of what it can do for their alliance (shooting at different areas, etc.)

The strategy award goes to 3481. Their design encompassed some of the key strategic points the GDC decided were the most important. They included a shooter and a snitch capturing mechanism in a very compact space, maintaining a low center of gravity.Their design can be seen as a sturdy and efficient robot, and demonstrated key strategic principles.

Thanks to those who participated, and congratulations to our winners.

(On an extra note, participants, individual feedback will be sent to your shortly.)

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

Will you (or the winners) share information about the winning submissions?

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

Here's 3481's submission:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...highlight=3481

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

Really cool design!

Love the Bronco shaped cutout. :)

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/at...d=14417774 77
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/at...d=14417795 68

I'll cover a few of our strategy points first off:

• We quickly identified that we would want to be an offensive robot, and that running our match in a series of cycles would net us the most amount of points.

• To aid in the process of clearing the quaffles, our robot would shoot the balls from behind the goals, as the balls would land closer to our alliance zone.

• Shooting while in contact with the goalpost (or near it), would eliminate accuracy issues, and would speed up the process of lining up.

• Dedicated full court shooting was considered, but ultimately dropped due to the limited number of quaffles at the human station, and due to the added complexity.

• The snitch would be a great bonus, but ultimately, basic points need to be put up for the snitch to have any value, so we decided to fill that role.

This was the robot we created to satisfy those design points:

Drivebase:

A simple 6 wheel west coast drive. Single speed, single reduction 6 cim gearbox, geared for ~17 fps (theoretical). With more time, bumpers would have been added due to the physical nature of the game.


Elevator:

The whole point of the elevator was to have the ability to shoot quaffles near the max height (10 ft). This would put our shooter right behind the goals during teleop, and would allow us to blast the quaffles through, hopefully back to the other side of the field. It would also aid our ability to shoot from the keeper zone during auto, as we would likely be able to shoot over defense. It's a single stage elevator, cable driven by a bag motor on a 49:1 reduction on a versa planetary. With more time, we would have used rs775's, and incorporated a mechanical brake in the elevator system, so we wouldn't stall the motors. A simple polycord system fed the quaffles into the shooter.


Intake:

Well, it's pretty obvious, but this intake was heavily inspired by 973's 2012 bot (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0_YOm5fjC8)
We saw this style of intake to be very effective in collecting quaffles, and did not demand accuracy from the driver to use.

Shooter:

We decided on a two wheeled shooter, mainly as we didn't want the backspin of a single wheeled shooter when shooting across the field from behind the goals. The shooter consists of two 6 in wheels powered by two rs775's on 3:1 versa planetary reductions.


Team 955 would like to thank the design committee for releasing this wacky game. We used this as an opportunity to teach cad to incoming students, and to practice strategic analysis for the upcoming season. Due to a larger focus on teaching, many parts of our robot (the shooter, holes/bolts, polish, etc.) weren't as fledged out as we would have hoped. Ya, we know that shouldn't be an excuse ;).

Just curious, but does anyone know how many submissions there were?

Re: Summer Design Competition 2015
 

Very cool. In addition to 973, this reminds me of one of my favorite robots of 2012, 1323.