Re: How much planning goes into your robot?
 

I would say we've done a great deal of drawings for arm design concepts. Some have tentative measurements some have none and some are competely to scale.
As for calculations they exist to make us change our arm design.

Our design process has gone something like this:

Draw a concept design of the arm
Redraw it with angle and length measurements
calculate torque etc.
redesign arm
repeat

Re: How much planning goes into your robot?
 

A lot of our planning includes breaking into smaller teams and each creating a different prototype, then all getting together and putting all our ideas together to make one great robot. But we really try hard to do lots of calculations to get it all as accurate as possible.

Re: How much planning goes into your robot?
 

a lot

Re: How much planning goes into your robot?
 

We were supposed to plan a robot???! aw man, we were building a time machne!!!!!! ;-)

Re: How much planning goes into your robot?
 

We work with NASA programmers, engineers, and machinists out at the KSC Prototype Lab, so even though our students do a lot of the calculations and drafting, i'd consider them both to be at the Extreme level.

Roccobot is completely designed from top to bottom and everything inbetween in a program called Pro-Engineering, or Pro-E for short. (its kind of like CADD for those of you who know what that is... essentially, we build a complete three-dimensional model to an extremely accurate scale on this program before we even think of going to the machine shop) We know exactly how the robot looks and pretty much how it will work before we even think of taking a sheet of aluminum to the watercutter.

Just because we arent allowed to use the machinery out at NASA (due to liability issues) does not mean that our mentors build our robots for us. Although techinically they machine each unique part for us, we students are the ones who work on Pro-E and actually design the robot first. Then a mentor will look over what we've done, and together both the students and mentors will work to achieve perfection. If we machine something and it doesnt work, we go back to the drawing board and try again, but our goal is to never have to do something all over again. [Six weeks is not long enough, and we do not want to waste time by having to rework calculations just because something was off by five millimeters. We want to ensure that we conserve as much time as possible, so that our drivers can at least get a little practice time in before we ship the robot.] After each part is made, the members of our pit crew actually assemble to robot themselves, with very little if any aid from mentors, only using the Pro-E blueprints that we've printed out. This way, everyone on the pit crew knows exactly what goes where and how it all works, just in case something stops functioning after a match.

It's a lot of work, but its worth it. :yikes:

Re: How much planning goes into your robot?
 

We're hoping to get electricity run to our build shop before next season starts...

Re: How much planning goes into your robot?
 

Going into the 4th week we are still planning things and trying to cooperate with our one sponsoir that dropped us and wont make parts, and one company that said they could make our parts is not going to be able to. So I think we are about at the standar time we are usually at. Not being able to start working on the robot till the staart of the fourth week.

Re: How much planning goes into your robot?
 

not enough

Re: How much planning goes into your robot?
 

We're 3 weeks in... and still designing! They say we'll finish CADing tonight...

probibly...

hopefully...

maybe?...

Ah screw it, it ain't happening! :D

Re: How much planning goes into your robot?
 

oh, we've drawn up several designs of different parts, debated pros and cons of everything. We have a couple of really good drawings that sprang from thin air at 2:00AM. But so far, all we've done is planning. :ahh: :ahh: :ahh:

Re: How much planning goes into your robot?
 

Well... It all depends on which team I've worked with that we're talking about.

Some of my old teams have sponsors that have their own methods,
that range from a mix of student/sponsor design to students
stating WHAT they want the robot to do, and the sponsors then
fully design a machine for them to manufacture. I'll let them
speak for themselves.

Now as for "my teams" (the few I'm working with the most), I've
provided a "Formal Game Analysis" method to help the *students*
mathematically figure out what designs will work, and what probably
won't. It looks at a game and *suggests* a range of *possible*
tactics and bot designs. (BTW, what it suggested for THIS year
blew even ME away!). I could talk about that method, but that's
a whole separate thread, and not relevant at this point of the season.

Anyway, one way or another we're left with a set of PRIORITIZED GOALS
for the machine, AND the overall machine's concept.

Next, **THE BIG RULE: "Machine Goals will be accomplished in PRIORITY
ORDER". Resources ($$, people, matl's, weight allowance, etc.) shall
be shunted from lower goals to achieve higher, as needed."** No
sense building something that won't accomplish your #1 goal!

Ex: A few years ago, we had: #1 as "Grab Small Balls", and #4 as
"Handle Big Ball".Well, during design the Big Ball Arm got in the
way of the small ball collector, so it was dropped!

We next make the goals CONCRETE, and PRIORITIZE them.
Ex: We don't say "It'll score a lot". Instead, concrete actions,
speeds, and times within the round are all defined. For example:
"In Auto Mode, the machine shall take no longer than <xx> seconds
to <move to this position> <do THAT> (or whatever)."
That's pretty specific! Of course with a 10 sec auto mode
this THEN suggests that "In Auto Mode, the PAYLOAD must
require no longer than (10-xx) sec to <do ITS specific thing>", etc.
We then do this for ALL actions, at ALL points throughout the game.

This yields a VERY specific set of performance specs for the machine,
but does NOT say HOW they should be accomplished.


At this point, my teams diverge again...


Some of my old teams then use "Centralized Design". The entire thing
is worked out in ALL detail. CAD drawings are made, etc. The build
now progresses like a manufacturing plant. Yea, this works well for
some teams, and their sponsor's philosophy. The design is well controlled,
Production management tools can be employed, etc.

But if you have TOO much of that, I've found it hard to get anyone to show
up to BUILD it! If for any reason they haven't felt a part of the decision
process (which often happens if you decide AGAINST their "favorite design")
they may even *abandon* the project because now they are ONLY
"labor for someone else's machine". (Hmmm...)


My current team uses a DIFFERENT philosophy. We let the SUBGROUPS
make ALL the manufacturing decisions for THEIR part of the problem,
DURING the build. After all, they are the ones that have to make it
work, they already have a very specific set of design goals in hand
it MUST accomplish, and a manufacturing timetable to meet.

So let's say for example Drivetrain decides to choose a walker bot
over a tank. Our rule: If it can meet ALL of the design specs we
laid out (including time, weight and size allocated to it) AND it can
be made to work in time, GO FOR IT!

This isn't without its own challenges... We often have some verrrrry
nervous mentors! But we HAVE "local" mentors in each subgroup to
keep an eye on it. You also don't KNOW exactly what you'll end up
with when they start!

But the advantages are many:

1) We get to building sooner. Once the spec is in place, they GO.
2) It challenges the students. All of the problems have NOT been worked
out when they begin. They have to THINK, and there are many
opportunities to teach them about how to solve something.
3) It encourages "creative problem solving" on the fly. Some VERY cool
stuff has come out of groups to cure certain problems encountered.
4) The design isn't "fixed in stone". If one thing won't work, the local
subgroup has the AUTHORITY to change things, whenever needed.
For example: If Drivetrain's "super delux 27 wheel drive" they're
attempting is overweight, won't work, or parts aren't available for it,
AND a basic two wheel two castor drive WILL, Drivetrain group is
FREE to change it in the MIDDLE of the build, as long as it won't
affect the STRATEGY of the bot.
5) We're free to EXPERIMENT. A subgroup that's ahead of schedule
may decide to try another thing, to see if that will work BETTER.
(...and if it DOES work better, use THAT instead!)

But really, HALF the fun of this method is we DON'T know what the bot
it'll LOOK like, until we're done. Yes, we know what it will DO, and
when it'll be READY, but the final form is VERY mutable during the build.
Also, we all often drop and run over to look when someone comes up with
something REALLY cool, which means you don't want to miss ANY build sessions!

But the best part is that when you're done, EVERYONE feels ownership.
You each know that YOUR decisions made during the build contributed
to <this> or <that> ability of the final robot.

Now don't get me wrong... I'm not knocking Super-CAD/CAE driven teams
at all! Testing a design on a CAE system REALLY helps! And if you
have way too large of a student/mentor ratio, having a huge work
plan predefined helps. People can just come back when they need
more work, and grab "Task #27" off the queue. VERY efficient.

But if you don't have a lot of CAD/CAE expertise on hand, giving
everyone the freedom to make LOCAL decisions DURING manufacturing
DOES work, and may even get you off the starting block a bit sooner.

Now IMO, the KEYS for ANY build method are having:
- WELL DEFINED GOALS for the robot to accomplish;
- A good work schedule defined up front that they MUST meet;
- Make sure everyone has the RESOURCES to accomplish (training,
matl, money, mentors, etc.);
- Someone in EACH group responsible for keeping an eye on the
schedule (no getting caught in trivia, we have a schedule to meet!);
- Having the GUTS to drop one line of research for another, if needed;
- GOOD COMMUNICATIONS, so everyone knows the status - between
all subgroups, students/mentors, teams and sponsor's locations,
team and school, etc.

Does that answer your question?

I hope this helps!

- Keith

Re: How much planning goes into your robot?
 

We are a very detailed oreinted team. Partially because we wnat to make sure every aspect of the robot is built right and also to make sure that our kids are involved in the process so they actually learn from the experience instead of just showing up one day and BAM!- there a completed robot sitting in the shop one day after brainstorming.
We communicate with the CAD team and the sub team contribute their design ideas to the CAD team and the robot is constantly weighed.
I can't really see how slapping the robot together really works. Wasn't there a team last year that said they showed up to a cometition at 157 lbs or something like that. Precise planning helps to avoid disaters like that.