![]() |
Re: Shooter vs Dumper Trade Study
Quote:
|
Re: Shooter vs Dumper Trade Study
Thanks for making that rule clear for me
|
Re: Shooter vs Dumper Trade Study
Regarding the PAYLOAD SPECIALIST retrieving balls....the tongs must be used to get balls from the AIRLOCK to the FUELING PORT....so even though you can dump balls into the AIRLOCK as fast as you want, the PS probably can't put them into play very quickly.
|
Re: Shooter vs Dumper Trade Study
my question is, anyone here ever heard of a shotgun?
|
Re: Shooter vs Dumper Trade Study
i think making a dump bot is sticking to good old K.I.S.S:cool: , because if you think about it you have 3 "shooters" already (payload specialist).:D
|
Re: Shooter vs Dumper Trade Study
We have been debating on how to score since kick off but have decided to go with a shooter. When you are a dumper you are relying on getting close to the opponents trailer. Though you can can score more balls at once you will be sitting still while dumping. I am in no way saying that there will not be a team that will pin a bot and dump their load in about 5 seconds, but it will be kind of sad to see for example a load of 7 moon rocks get "dumped" as a super cell lands in the dumping robots trailer resulting in -1 points for the load of seven you just worked hard to get rid of. A shooter can be run at low speeds and if the balls are delivered to the shooter fast can be just as, if not more effective than a dumper.
Just my .02 |
Re: Shooter vs Dumper Trade Study
Quote:
A robot capable of scoring on its own (if built correctly) almost completely negates the possibility of scoring on itself (although it could still hit a team mate). |
Re: Shooter vs Dumper Trade Study
Quote:
:D |
Re: Shooter vs Dumper Trade Study
I think the dumpers will do better, because a shooter has to deal with broken orbit balls, the dumper just uses gravity.
|
Re: Shooter vs Dumper Trade Study
Quote:
|
Re: Shooter vs Dumper Trade Study
Quote:
|
Re: Shooter vs Dumper Trade Study
Have there been any videos posted of dumpers? I'm curious to see if there is any cloggage or missing because the balls are interacting with each other as they come out...
We're probably going with a short range shooter; tests show it's very accurate, and at a rate of ~3-4 balls per second, we should be able to unload just a little slower than a dumper... just with the added benefit of being to start earlier ;) Not that dumpers aren't a viable strategy. I predict we might see one on Einstein this year. |
Re: Shooter vs Dumper Trade Study
In this thread, what is the definition of dumper ?
a - a low dumper, over the wall in the corner b - higher up, into a trailer c - higher up, into the trailer and the corner b and c are shooting dumpers a could be an active or passive shooting or other type of dumper |
Re: Shooter vs Dumper Trade Study
Quote:
But as a team we decided on a shooter, and we're not looking back this far into it. |
Re: Shooter vs Dumper Trade Study
After the no descoring rule change (design #1 scrapped), we went to a full up turret style shooter design, basically done and we all loved it. But ditched the idea after seeing all the easily broken balls (design #2 scrapped). If you think about it, each regional only has so many, and over 120 are in play each match, as the matches go on and on these balls will start coming apart and by late saturday you may be dealing with a lot of jamming. I know they won't be inspecting 120 balls between matches. It just takes 1 to jam up and end your match. Also its true a dumper needs to handle the balls also, but not nearly in such a precise way. A shooter seems risky to me, but I'm sure many will do very well with it. I can see how a shooter has the advantage if done top notch, but only within a few feet of a moving goal. I don't think pinning a trailer for a couple seconds will be that hard with a good drive system.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 19:07. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi