Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Rules/Strategy (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Why the low Gear love (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153800)

Fields 17-01-2017 11:25

Why the low Gear love
 
I'm seeing a lot of discussions on fuel delivery and scoring.
Some discussion on climbing
Very little on delivering gears quickly.

More worryingly, I keep seeing a misconception on the VALUE of gears.
Given that one gear is given to you, in teleop only, the wrong values are:
1st rotor = 40pts/gear
2nd rotor = 20pts/gear
3rd rotor = 10pts/gear
4th rotor = 6.7pts/gear

Many people are forgetting that the 4th rotor is actually:
6.7pts + 1/6 RP in qualifying, also remember that in the high goal 6.7pts take 20fuel
In playoffs these gears are 23.3pts each. 40+100pt bonus. That's 70 fuel in the high goal for each gear or 420 fuel just for the 4th rotor.

Time in two minutes:
worst case (one robot) = 10s/gear
best case (three robots) = 40s/gear

For all the emphasis everyone puts on fuel as the tiebreaker, not many alliances will get 4 rotors going, even in playoffs.

Brian Maher 17-01-2017 11:44

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Fields (Post 1632343)
I'm seeing a lot of discussions on fuel delivery and scoring.
Some discussion on climbing
Very little on delivering gears quickly.

More worryingly, I keep seeing a misconception on the VALUE of gears.
Given that one gear is given to you, in teleop only, the wrong values are:
1st rotor = 40pts/gear
2nd rotor = 20pts/gear
3rd rotor = 10pts/gear
4th rotor = 6.7pts/gear

Many people are forgetting that the 4th rotor is actually:
6.7pts + 1/6 RP in qualifying, also remember that in the high goal 6.7pts take 20fuel
In playoffs these gears are 23.3pts each. 40+100pt bonus. That's 70 fuel in the high goal for each gear or 420 fuel just for the 4th rotor.

Time in two minutes:
worst case (one robot) = 10s/gear
best case (three robots) = 40s/gear

For all the emphasis everyone puts on fuel as the tiebreaker, not many alliances will get 4 rotors going, even in playoffs.

These are also not correct point values for gears. You are stating the average value of gears for each rotor assuming the gear set is completed. The following are the exact values for each gear:
  • First gear: 40 points
  • Second gear: 0 points
  • Third gear: 40 points
  • Fourth, fifth, and sixth gears: 0 points
  • Seventh gear: 40 points
  • Eighth through twelfth gears: 0 points
  • Thirteenth gear: (40 points + 1 RP) or 140 points

I think fuel will become a particularly attractive scoring option if an alliance can score more than seven gears but fewer than thirteen gears (or who can accomplish the feat of scoring all 13 of their gears). It doesn't make sense to sink time into a scoring objective that won't yield any points*.

*edit: assuming that the primary objective is to win the match

MrForbes 17-01-2017 11:48

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
I doubt we can do 5 or 6 or 7 gears on our own (and in qualifying, on our own is how we figure matches will go). So, the first three gears are worth 80 points in teleop.

Fuel....high goal....that's equivalent to 240 fuel, eh?

I love the gears.

Rangel 17-01-2017 11:56

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
One thing I think a lot of people overlook is how much the first rotor doesn't matter unless it is done in autonomous. If everyone gets the first rotor free, that means no one really got it free. It artificially raises everyone's score by 40 points. That being said, getting all four rotors will be critical in playoffs because of the huge point swing bonus. If at least two alliances can do that though, it's going to come down to everything else.

GeeTwo 17-01-2017 12:07

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Maher (Post 1632362)
  • First gear: 40 points
  • Second gear: 0 points
  • Third gear: 40 points
  • Fourth, fifth, and sixth gears: 0 points
  • Seventh gear: 40 points
  • Eighth through twelfth gears: 0 points
  • Thirteenth gear: (40 points + 1 RP) or 140 points

If you're talking about teleop, reduce those by one, to account for the reserve gear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrForbes (Post 1632370)
I love the gears.

We've known that about you for years.;)

Fields 17-01-2017 12:11

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Maher (Post 1632362)
These are also not correct point values for gears. You are stating the average value of gears for each rotor assuming the gear set is completed.

I agree with what you said but I was using the comparison a lot of other people were using to keep the perspective the same when giving points to those last gears. If you're running low on time, you shouldn't go for them. If you can make it then the average for each of those 6 gears is quite high.

Overall this does not negate the original post.

Even the first 6 gears won't be achieved each time, but I feel mostly because of the low priority given to them in the robot design. Most teams so far seem content with just the mail slot approach, and leave the lining up to the driver.

Given some focus, gears can be gathered and placed faster than people expect.

Ginger Power 17-01-2017 12:21

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
I think the lack of Gear love comes from the fact that you can literally build a static box and score the Gear. Many teams believe that this box (I like to say Gearage) will be suitably effective when compared with an active mechanism.

I think I might agree... if you build a Gearage and you have 4 plus weeks to practice with it, aren't you going to be better off than a team with a complex active mechanism when they get less time to practice with it? There are techniques and drive maneuvers that we've already experimented with that makes a Gearage much more effective.

While I agree that Gears are crazy important, and they're being overlooked by pretty much every low to mid tier team that's attempting Fuel, I disagree that you need an active mechanism to score Gears. I think a simple mechanism plus drive practice trumps a complicated mechanism with less drive practice. That goes for pretty much any aspect of FRC.

Mr V 17-01-2017 12:44

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Maher (Post 1632362)
These are also not correct point values for gears. You are stating the average value of gears for each rotor assuming the gear set is completed. The following are the exact values for each gear:
  • First gear: 40 points
  • Second gear: 0 points
  • Third gear: 40 points
  • Fourth, fifth, and sixth gears: 0 points
  • Seventh gear: 40 points
  • Eighth through twelfth gears: 0 points
  • Thirteenth gear: (40 points + 1 RP) or 140 points

I think fuel will become a particularly attractive scoring option if an alliance can score more than seven gears but fewer than thirteen gears (or who can accomplish the feat of scoring all 13 of their gears). It doesn't make sense to sink time into a scoring objective that won't yield any points.


The 3rd and 4th rotor have pre-populated gears, at least until DCMP and CMP events. So you only need 1 gear for the 1st rotor, 2 gears for the second rotor, 3 for 3rd and 4 for 4th. Since there is the reserve gear that means that you only need to place 9 gears to start all of the rotors spinning and earn the ranking point.

If you assume that at least one gear is placed in auto, and the reserve is used as soon as teleop begins the points are as follows.

1st 60
reserve 0
2nd 40
3rd & 4th 0
5th 40
6th-8th 0
9th 40 plus 1 RP

Place 2 in auto and it becomes

1st 60
2nd 0
reserve 40
and then it follows the above schedule

Place 3 in auto and it becomes

1st 60
2nd 0
3rd 60
reserve 0
4th 0
5th 40
and then it follows the 1st schedule.

Which does point out why the gear conumdrum and why placing the 6th may be a waste of time if it is not done early enough to allow for 7th-9th to be placed and rotated before t=1

Siri 17-01-2017 12:50

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Fields (Post 1632343)
For all the emphasis everyone puts on fuel as the tiebreaker, not many alliances will get 4 rotors going, even in playoffs.

To clarify, fuel doesn't become more meaningful (a "tiebreaker" if you wish) after you finish all 4 rotors. Fuel becomes more meaningful after you've finished as many rotors as you're going to finish. The 4th rotor doesn't get you 6.667 points every gear; it gets you zero points every gear until the last one. Most elim alliances at most events are not going to finish 4 rotors, and--far more importantly--most prevailing ones are not even going to try.


Separately, I think Ginger is right. It's not often we have a direct scoring facet that is critically important but minimally mechanized. It's not that people won't be running gears. I expect to spend most of my time most matches running gears, but the investment is in practice rather than complexity unless you're at the level when you want one of the best gear pickups in the world (we're not).

Think of gear scoring more like drivetrains. Everyone (almost) needs them, they're critically important, but we don't talk about them much. We could make the same arguments about endgames basically every year: "one climb is 50 points, and yet everyone keeps talking about fuel". Or, "climbing is only a couple dozen seconds, and yet everyone talks about it as much as gears".

Importance =/= Match Time =/= Mechanization =/= Scoring Potential

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr V (Post 1632413)
The 3rd and 4th rotor have pre-populated gears, at least until DCMP and CMP events. So you only need 1 gear for the 1st rotor, 2 gears for the second rotor, 3 for 3rd and 4 for 4th. Since there is the reserve gear that means that you only need to place 9 gears to start all of the rotors spinning and earn the ranking point.

Please reread Table 3-1 in the manual. EDIT: Or rearticulate--it is 9 gears, but only after subtracting the 3 preloads. Total is 12; the 9 is: (1+2+4+6) - 3 preloads - 1 reserve = 9 from the retrieval station after the preloads.

JesseK 17-01-2017 12:50

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
As for value, it's all about how people envision the competition season will play out. Here is what I imagine are going through the minds of do-it-all teams based upon what I've read and heard*:
  • Running gears will be like breaching was last year, where every team can do it.
  • Due to the large leap of effort between rotors 3 & 4, a robot that gets more points per cycle, and fewer cycles, is likely to contribute more points than a gears specialist.
  • We'll prioritize climbing over the 4th rotor.
  • What do you mean there may be more gears to place at the highest levels of play?
  • Gears that fall on the floor aren't worth the SWAP or time effort to anyone on the field in a match.
  • We'll definitely participate in at least one match where getting the 4th rotor is a guarantee.
  • Points for fuel matters more than defense against gears. We don't like playing defense anyways.
  • This is a pivotal year for us, and we believe we can make it work for the first time in our history.
  • I really wish my team didn't prioritize gears, shooter and THEN climb.
  • Kids will LOVE this bot as a demo bot!

*I don't mean to imply any team who thinks these things is right, wrong and/or will have a bad season. Every team has to decide what's best for their team based upon the info they have and their team vision. These are simply a collection of what I've read & heard. I know that no matter what, my team will likely make a shooter for demos. These balls are really fun for kids.

Kevin Sevcik 17-01-2017 13:19

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrForbes (Post 1632370)
I doubt we can do 5 or 6 or 7 gears on our own (and in qualifying, on our own is how we figure matches will go). So, the first three gears are worth 80 points in teleop.

Fuel....high goal....that's equivalent to 240 fuel, eh?

I love the gears.

Given that the reserve gear means every team gets that first 40 point free, if your alliance can't score 6 or more gears in a match, you're spending the ENTIRE MATCH to score +40 points. +60 if you auto the first gear. If you don't have a fuel mechanism and you're figuring you're on your own and can't hit 6 gears, your effective contribution is 2 gears for an entire match.

Which means a fuel bot with the the simplest gear mechanism that scores 2 gears and 9 low fuel beats you. Auto gear gives you a +20 cushion so a fuelbot has to score 2 gears and 63 high fuel to beat you, but still.

A robot with a passive gear mechanism, a successful "drive straight into the lift in front of you" auto and a fuel dumper is probably going to win a surprising amount of quals matches. Even more with a climber, which is looking rather easy.

Unless you expect to be a quite efficient gear bot, you ignore fuel at your peril.

MrForbes 17-01-2017 13:24

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
There does seem to be a lot of peril in this game.

JamesBrown 17-01-2017 13:36

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr V (Post 1632413)
The 3rd and 4th rotor have pre-populated gears, at least until DCMP and CMP events. So you only need 1 gear for the 1st rotor, 2 gears for the second rotor, 3 for 3rd and 4 for 4th. Since there is the reserve gear that means that you only need to place 9 gears to start all of the rotors spinning and earn the ranking point.

The pre populated gears are in addition to the 13 required. See the image above the table in the manual.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fields (Post 1632343)
For all the emphasis everyone puts on fuel as the tiebreaker, not many alliances will get 4 rotors going, even in playoffs.

I am not too worried about scoring more points in matches where all four rotors are spinning, but shooting high is going to be a differentiator often.

If your two alliance partners can score a single gear each, then you have to score 4 gears to contribute at all, and 10 gears to contribute more than 40 points.

If your alliance partners score 3 gears each (on average) then you need to be able to score 6 gears to contribute at all.

I believe that on average, the other two robots on our alliance will be capable of contributing between 1 and 5 gears combined. In matches where they can score no gears, a loss is likely anyway, if they can score 6 or more gears then a win is likely anyway.

If we score a single gear in Autonomous, assuming the above is true (1-5 gears from others) then scoring anywhere from 0-7 gears is worth 0 or 40 points.

if you can score 7 gears in Teleop then there is a decent chance you are only adding 40 points to your alliance score. If you could add those same points via the high goal then you would have the same odds of winning, but win or lose you would add a ranking point.

This is the most interesting game since 2004 when it comes to specializing and team strategy.

Kevin Sevcik 17-01-2017 13:42

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrForbes (Post 1632447)
There does seem to be a lot of peril in this game.

Well we're dealing with unguarded open gearing operating right next to pilots and pressure vessels constructed out of HPDE. Peril is probably to be expected.

mrnoble 17-01-2017 13:47

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
One way to attempt to overcome the point values that Kevin rightly pointed out is to design a very efficient gears-only bot. A team that can consistently cycle rapidly and get three rotors turning on their own would do alright. This would require a ton of automation and driver practice, but I don't think that the only top-level bots we see will be ball shooters. Someone, somewhere is going to break gears.

JamesBrown 17-01-2017 14:28

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mrnoble (Post 1632464)
A team that can consistently cycle rapidly and get three rotors turning on their own would do alright. This would require a ton of automation and driver practice, but I don't think that the only top-level bots we see will be ball shooters. Someone, somewhere is going to break gears.

If your alliance partners average even 1 gear each, then 6 gears (enough for 3 rotors) is worth 40 points in qualifications regardless of how many gears the team scores in total. It becomes more valuable in eliminations, if your partners can combine for 6 gears between them.

I think that teams that can average 6 gears a match are probably used to winning competitions. 6 gears seems feasible to me in the drivers station nearest the loading stations as you have a clean view of the loading stations and the peg. In the center and Boiler side drivers stations, you have an obstructed, or partially obstructed view of the loading station. Averaging 6 gears per match will be extremely difficult.

mrnoble 17-01-2017 14:45

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
Anyone consider a three-gear auto? That would be fun

Cory 17-01-2017 15:14

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesBrown (Post 1632486)
If your alliance partners average even 1 gear each, then 6 gears (enough for 3 rotors) is worth 40 points in qualifications regardless of how many gears the team scores in total. It becomes more valuable in eliminations, if your partners can combine for 6 gears between them.

I think that teams that can average 6 gears a match are probably used to winning competitions. 6 gears seems feasible to me in the drivers station nearest the loading stations as you have a clean view of the loading stations and the peg. In the center and Boiler side drivers stations, you have an obstructed, or partially obstructed view of the loading station. Averaging 6 gears per match will be extremely difficult.

Averaging 6 gears per match would make you one of the top 5-10 robots in the world. Top robots in 2011 were hanging ~6 tubes on average in teleop. topping out at probably 8. And that was with a more open field, a protected scoring zone, and the ability to sit in the protected zone and grab tubes that were thrown cross field to you.

RoboChair 17-01-2017 15:20

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Maher (Post 1632362)
It doesn't make sense to sink time into a scoring objective that won't yield any points.

Unless you are being scouted by a powerhouse team during your match to prove how fast you can cycle during the entire match.

Fields 17-01-2017 15:30

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mrnoble (Post 1632496)
Anyone consider a three-gear auto? That would be fun

Unfortunately, this is not possible solely on one robot. Only the gears robots start with are on the field.

Would be cool if they allowed human player to still feed a robot though.

RoboChair 17-01-2017 15:43

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Fields (Post 1632521)
Unfortunately, this is not possible solely on one robot. Only the gears robots start with are on the field.

Would be cool if they allowed human player to still feed a robot though.

It is totally possible with a single robot! Probable this year, no. There is nothing in the rules that prevent a single robot from doing 3 gears in auto other than time.

Chris is me 17-01-2017 15:49

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by RoboChair (Post 1632526)
It is totally possible with a single robot! Probable this year, no. There is nothing in the rules that prevent a single robot from doing 3 gears in auto other than time.

You also need partners to actively cooperate, supporting a gear with their robot that drops to the floor in some way in a predictable position. Gears can't touch the floor as preloads, right?

Gaurav27 17-01-2017 15:54

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesBrown (Post 1632486)
If your alliance partners average even 1 gear each, then 6 gears (enough for 3 rotors) is worth 40 points in qualifications regardless of how many gears the team scores in total. It becomes more valuable in eliminations, if your partners can combine for 6 gears between them.

I think that teams that can average 6 gears a match are probably used to winning competitions. 6 gears seems feasible to me in the drivers station nearest the loading stations as you have a clean view of the loading stations and the peg. In the center and Boiler side drivers stations, you have an obstructed, or partially obstructed view of the loading station. Averaging 6 gears per match will be extremely difficult.

I think only some of the best robots would be capable of scoring 6 gears in 2 minutes or at a rate of a gear every 20 seconds. In addition, considering the sight lines and the way pegs react to gears not properly placed, under defence this cycle time may increase even further.

JohnFogarty 17-01-2017 16:01

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris is me (Post 1632528)
You also need partners to actively cooperate, supporting a gear with their robot that drops to the floor in some way in a predictable position. Gears can't touch the floor as preloads, right?

So basically a 3 tube auto from 2011...just with gears.

JesseK 17-01-2017 16:08

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris is me (Post 1632528)
You also need partners to actively cooperate, supporting a gear with their robot that drops to the floor in some way in a predictable position. Gears can't touch the floor as preloads, right?

You just need 900's game piece vision tracking. Then 2-gear and 3-gear autos are totally doable :rolleyes: .

More likely, I expect the gear specialists are going to get their partners' unused dropped gears in the opening seconds of teleop. If 2 gear specialists are on an alliance I fully expect at least one of them to have crossed far into the neutral zone during autonomous, so one is down field while the other picks up a gear. If autonomous collisions are avoided, the alliance could easily be half way through the 3rd rotor in the opening 10-20 seconds of teleop, and that's just with 2 robots executing it.

On that note, this is the first year since 2009 where opposing alliances may legally collide during autonomous. The true coopertition will be coordinating with opponents to make sure robots miss each other :ahh: .

Chris is me 17-01-2017 16:17

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnFogarty (Post 1632538)
So basically a 3 tube auto from 2011...just with gears.

Tubes could touch the floor in 2011, and didn't require partner robots to move at all to work. A 3 tube auton was far, far easier than a 3 gear auton this year - which isn't to say it was easy.

mrnoble 17-01-2017 16:50

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
Three gears is theoretically possible, given two partners with precariously placed gears on their chassis who move forward in auto. Not likely to happen, but wouldn't it be lovely.

Andrew_L 17-01-2017 17:00

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cory (Post 1632513)
Top robots in 2011 were hanging ~6 tubes on average in teleop. topping out at probably 8.

Remember though, in Logomotion most teams stopped what they were doing around the 25 second mark for the minibot races. With climbing happening right next to the gear scoring area and no race to climb to the top first, I think the absence of a break in the scoring momentum will increase that average a little.

Cory 17-01-2017 17:02

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew_L (Post 1632582)
Remember though, in Logomotion most teams stopped what they were doing around the 25 second mark for the minibot races. With climbing happening right next to the gear scoring area and no race to climb to the top first, I think the absence of a break in the scoring momentum will increase that average a little.

Adding 10s isn't going to increase the average throughput by an additional gear.

Joe G. 17-01-2017 17:14

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew_L (Post 1632582)
Remember though, in Logomotion most teams stopped what they were doing around the 25 second mark for the minibot races. With climbing happening right next to the gear scoring area and no race to climb to the top first, I think the absence of a break in the scoring momentum will increase that average a little.

There's also the fact that teleop is 15 seconds longer in Steamworks than it was in Logomotion.

Rangel 17-01-2017 17:21

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cory (Post 1632513)
Averaging 6 gears per match would make you one of the top 5-10 robots in the world. Top robots in 2011 were hanging ~6 tubes on average in teleop. topping out at probably 8. And that was with a more open field, a protected scoring zone, and the ability to sit in the protected zone and grab tubes that were thrown cross field to you.

Others brought up good points but one huge factor is that making an effective gear scorer is arguably a lot easier to make than making something that scores tubes at tall various heights(and sometimes over another already placed tube). I think the shear reduction in the barrier of entry will make 6 gear averages a lot more common. Maybe I'm wrong and most regionals will be decided on gears alone but I hope that I'm not.

pmattin5459 18-01-2017 00:57

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mrnoble (Post 1632464)
One way to attempt to overcome the point values that Kevin rightly pointed out is to design a very efficient gears-only bot. A team that can consistently cycle rapidly and get three rotors turning on their own would do alright. This would require a ton of automation and driver practice, but I don't think that the only top-level bots we see will be ball shooters. Someone, somewhere is going to break gears.

I think that there should be more focus on designing these sorts of bots. I also feel that vision tracking is a must on a top gearbot, as otherwise lining up will probably be challenging (I know from experience it's a lot harder to do these sorts of things than it looks, especially with a drivetrain that can't strafe). Two such bots would be nearly unstoppable, especially with the potential addition of defense, climbs, or a fuel bot.

For example (in elims):

2 bots, 6 gears each: 180 + another 20 pts if another auton bot + additional 100 pts for 4 rotor bonus.

Add another 90 pts (40 pts + 50 bonus for 40kpa) for an ideal fuel bot.

We end up with 390 pts. Up to 540 with three climbs. Good gearbots that can score 6 gears each + climb make up the majority of the points with this strategy, with the fuel bot bringing the cherry on top.

This is an ideal scenario, but it illustrates what a championship alliance may be able to accomplish with good gearing.

Michael Hill 18-01-2017 06:16

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
I'm predicting a lot of teams are putting too much faith in the little hook on the end of the spring. In our testing with the "official" spring (with team stand), if the gear was placed less than half way on the spring, the pilot would have to pull up rather slowly because the spring can deflect a large enough amount to make the gear want to slip off.

Gdeaver 18-01-2017 07:43

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
I have to agree with Hill. We received our McMaster spring last nigh and it is not as stiff as I thought it would be. An active mech that pushes the gear in should have no problem. A passive mech that only stets the gear at frame perimeter is very touchy. Pilots, pull smoothly. Placing any further back is risky. If a gear is dropped will doing this makes that station unusable. A team can take the penalty and move it. If they move a second dropped gear is that a yellow card? A third a red card? Gears are not easy. Balls are not easy. This is going to be a wild dynamic game.

Raysaran 18-01-2017 07:53

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
I think one of the things that people overlook is the defense capabilities on the gear. It's only 5 points for a typical foul and 140 points for the last gear. There's going to be incredibly aggressive defense against that last gear, and if you don't manage to place that last gear you have just wasted time on the other 5.

mman1506 18-01-2017 08:28

As teams start the integration process I think many will realize the true difficulty of fuel. These balls aren't small relative to the robot and holding a large amount while still being able to properly index and feed them consistently to a shooter at a high rate of fire is going to be difficult.

I'd bet many teams at this point have prototyped shooters capable of firing 5+ balls per second but haven't spent nearly as much time feeding the balls at that rate. With limited space this year stacking just 10 balls for auton is difficult to package in a "do everything robot"

A case study we often looked at on my team was 254's 2013 robot. It was by all accounts a great "do everything" robot, good shooter, good intake and a sweet climber but it's indexing mechanism held it back severely in the upper levels of competition due to its relatively low rate of fire. This was probably a result of limited options in the packaging/integration stage of design. In the end much simpler robots were able to be more competitive.

My prediction is a lot of upper middle tier robots will shoot at a high rate of fire with low consistency due to poor feeding which may be fine for teleop but will struggle in auton or shoot 3-8 indexed balls at a high rate of fire and then significantly slow down as un indexed balls feed into the indexing system. Although there will definitely be teams who are all able to overcome this.

Kevin Sevcik 18-01-2017 09:24

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Raysaran (Post 1632814)
I think one of the things that people overlook is the defense capabilities on the gear. It's only 5 points for a typical foul and 140 points for the last gear. There's going to be incredibly aggressive defense against that last gear, and if you don't manage to place that last gear you have just wasted time on the other 5.

You're waiting till the last gear? You must be very confident in your defender(s). If I'm otherwise ahead (because I gave up on gears and fueled at 3 rotors), I'd throw 2-3 robots into defense with 3 gears left. If you can lock them down to 3 gears left with 15-20 on the clock, you can pull off and climb with reasonable confidence that they're doomed.

Unless 4 rotors becomes utterly mundane and easily achievable, gear heavy alliances are going to have to get creative to keep opponents in the dark about just how many gears they have remaining.

Ginger Power 18-01-2017 09:38

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mman1506 (Post 1632826)
My prediction is a lot of upper middle tier robots will shoot at a high rate fire with low consistency which may be fine for teleop but will struggle in auton or shoot 3-8 indexed balls at a high rate of fire and then significantly slow down as un indexed balls feed into the indexing system. There will definitely be teams who are all able to overcome all this though.

Completely agree with your analysis. Teams that haven't been using CAD to integrate systems from the beginning are going to find themselves with small hoppers, poor indexing systems, and most will be better off just avoiding Fuel when it comes time for their events.

On the other hand, if you've been planning your systems from the beginning, and have utilized CAD effectively, then it isn't terribly difficult to maintain a large hopper, and set up an effective indexing system. My question becomes, how big of an indexing system will separate great Fuel robots from good and poor Fuel robots. Will the top teams be able to empty their 120 ball hoppers in 12 seconds? Or will they choose to go with shorter bursts of rapid fire shooting (say 20 Fuel in 2 seconds) and just mix Fuel scoring into their typical Gear cycles.

pmattin5459 18-01-2017 09:41

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
Not sure how possible a 120 fuel hopper is. I'd say around 40-50 would be about the max you could store. Inevitably someone will prove me wrong, however.

JesseK 18-01-2017 10:32

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by pmattin5459 (Post 1632786)
For example (in elims):

2 bots, 6 gears each: 180 + another 20 pts if another auton bot + additional 100 pts for 4 rotor bonus.

Add another 90 pts (40 pts + 50 bonus for 40kpa) for an ideal fuel bot.

We end up with 390 pts. Up to 540 with three climbs. Good gearbots that can score 6 gears each + climb make up the majority of the points with this strategy, with the fuel bot bringing the cherry on top.

This is an ideal scenario, but it illustrates what a championship alliance may be able to accomplish with good gearing.

Going to throw this out there just in case you mis-read point values (like I've done in the past). The 40kpa threshold gives a 20 point bonus, not 50, according to table 4-1 in the manual. As far as I can tell, it is the only place in the manual which states the point value of the threshold.

Ginger Power 18-01-2017 10:36

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by pmattin5459 (Post 1632867)
Not sure how possible a 120 fuel hopper is. I'd say around 40-50 would be about the max you could store. Inevitably someone will prove me wrong, however.

CAD + math says it's very possible. I don't think we'll keep our 120 Fuel hopper though in favor of a slightly smaller hopper with a faster indexing system. I will say that in order to have a large hopper size, you're giving yourself less room for your gear mechanism, and your climber. Teams have to determine if these tradeoffs are worth it.

Raysaran 18-01-2017 10:41

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by pmattin5459 (Post 1632867)
Not sure how possible a 120 fuel hopper is. I'd say around 40-50 would be about the max you could store. Inevitably someone will prove me wrong, however.

No you're pretty right, I don't think you can get more than 50-60 unless you are only a shooter bot. We've tried many ways to improve storage capacity as well.

Raysaran 18-01-2017 10:53

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik (Post 1632853)
You're waiting till the last gear? You must be very confident in your defender(s). If I'm otherwise ahead (because I gave up on gears and fueled at 3 rotors), I'd throw 2-3 robots into defense with 3 gears left. If you can lock them down to 3 gears left with 15-20 on the clock, you can pull off and climb with reasonable confidence that they're doomed.

Unless 4 rotors becomes utterly mundane and easily achievable, gear heavy alliances are going to have to get creative to keep opponents in the dark about just how many gears they have remaining.

My intention wasn't on waiting till the last gear, but rather making sure that last gear does not get scored as a primary game objective against a gear focused alliance. I was trying to emphasis the problem with having a gear only alliance, is that it is incredibly difficult to get 12 gears even with mediocre defense. Assuming your drivetrain operates at a 10ft/s when traversing the field, not accounting for defense, each robot will take around 20ish seconds to place a gear. Capping the best gear robots at 5-6 gears. Playing defense around the feeder station, where you have significant vision advantage, is incredibly easy, you could easily knock out 2-3 gears from the opposing alliance even if you have mediocre unpracticed drivers just by getting in their way. Obvious this speculation is alliance dependent and is incredibly situational based on the pick/strategy situation. As a fundamental rule having a good flywheel shooter is essential in high level matches based on how the gear points scale. It will be the difference maker, assuming climbing capabilities on both alliances are similar. It's an interesting prospect because for once, diversifying your interests in FIRST is actually a good thing, something that was not the case for previous years. There is a high-risk high reward element coming from hitting that 4 rotor threshold, and a very intense game of cat and mouse is going to come from either the defending alliance or the offensive alliance. Regardless, my money is on the cat.

KJaget 18-01-2017 17:24

Re: Why the low Gear love
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JesseK (Post 1632545)
You just need 900's game piece vision tracking. Then 2-gear and 3-gear autos are totally doable :rolleyes: .

Or just street number, uh, robot number/bumper detection https://static.googleusercontent.com...hive/42241.pdf

Yep, totally practical :)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 20:36.

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