![]() |
Re: Swerve Drivetrain.
Quote:
In past years, rules varied on legality. In future years, the rules may or may not allow them. Hopefully, they will be allowed. But, we can't be certain. |
Re: Swerve Drivetrain.
k that makes sense.
Thanks for the clear up. |
Re: Swerve Drivetrain.
Also another question,
with the wild swerve drive modules http://www.andymark.com/ProductDetai...ctCode=am-0496 do we need to blot both the top and bottom plates down? or would just blotting the top plate be enough? |
Re: Swerve Drivetrain.
Quote:
|
Re: Swerve Drivetrain.
Quote:
|
Re: Swerve Drivetrain.
Quote:
|
Re: Swerve Drivetrain.
Quote:
You can look at a 6wd, tank, etc machine and know pretty well what kind of maneuvers it's going to be able to make (speed aside). You can't make the same assessment of a swerve or meccanum platform without knowing what's in the software. |
Re: Swerve Drivetrain.
Quote:
Including the ride height automation, I have almost as much code in the drivetrain of our robot as I do in the elevator. Ignoring the ride height automation, I still have a lot of code. The driver inputs come in, are run through filters if certain conditions are met (to provide better response and less oversteer), can be flipped if the driver requests invert, and are fed through a special algorithm that handles turning and arcing better (to fix some issues we found where the driver requests a (1,0) but really means (1,coast). We then run the commands to the closed-loop speed control (which in itself has automation of coasting to stops and holding position), and then run the shift scheduler. The simple way of programming a skid steer would be to set the motors to the joysticks. |
Re: Swerve Drivetrain.
Quote:
For example, say you have your modules steered in front/back pairs, and powered in left/right pairs, as many (most?) coaxial swerves do. This setup excels at akerman-style steering. But tank style steering is impossible in any module orientation other than "forward," and in long orientation, with four traction wheels, may even be difficult there. Motor-in-module setups, however, would allow tank-steering in any orientation; forward, sideways, and probably diagonally to some degree. This downside of coaxial is considerably more apparent in a 118 style setup. With all wheels tied to the same motor, there can be no variance in their speed. This makes any kind of tank steering just about impossible, and for this reason, all robots that I know of built this way have been either turreted, or had no real "front" (think 148 in overdrive). Which is something that a team may or may not be able to fit into their design. Admittedly, it's not a huge downside. And you're correct, ignoring the possibility of slip rings, having infinite rotation of the modules is a big plus for coaxial. If you can do a independently powered, independently steered "pivot drive," more power to you, but that's not an easy undertaking. Which system is right? It depends on your robot, what you have experience making, and which set of pros and cons you think is best. |
Re: Swerve Drivetrain.
this year we (Team 79 KRUNCH) went with swerve drive again after a few years away from it. We are using a coaxial system with all 4 wheels driven independently and the front and rear wheels are steered separately (fronts steer together and rear steer together). So far this year, this has proved to be a very versatile drivetrain.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 16:02. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi