pic: Dragonfly CAD file
 

Re: pic: Dragonfly CAD file
 

Download link for those who want it: http://db.tt/VaoyVJL

Re: pic: Dragonfly CAD file
 

I'll definitely take a look at the CAD. It's a cool concept for a defensive bot, especially in a game were the field is effectively more narrow because of the lanes.

Thanks for sharing.

Re: pic: Dragonfly CAD file
 

What a task that must have been done in Catia! I've had the pleasure of using 3 different CAD softwares and I must say Catia was the most difficult to learn and use. However after learning it the other 2 programs were so easy.

As for that model I love the concept for a strong defense bot. Is it legal to put bumpers on those drop downs? I don't think there's anything against it but I'm not sure

Re: pic: Dragonfly CAD file
 

As I understand it, the outer surface of the wings that deployed act as bumpers but are not BUMPERS (in the upper-case-FRC-manual definition). In theory, they could've been left off--these guys were being nice.

Re: pic: Dragonfly CAD file
 

Billfred is correct :)

Re: pic: Dragonfly CAD file
 

two questions:
how much did the robot weigh? (without battery)
Are the "legs" gravity dropped (with some kind of latch) or driven by motors?

Re: pic: Dragonfly CAD file
 

the robot weighed in at 119.5 with the trolling addition. (minus Battery)
trolling addition - http://www.phillyrambots.com/wp-cont...a/image20.jpeg

The arms were pneumatic controlled in both directions. They worked like a charm. I am still pretty sure that if we had been picked at nationals we would have gotten our team to Einstein. Our blocking ability cut our opponents scores in half on average. And that was against all skill levels.

Here is some footage of us in action. http://www.atomicrobotics.com/2011/05/videos-weekend/

PS the kids were ecstatic at getting to go to St Louis, but bummed we were not picked for Curie eliminations.

Re: pic: Dragonfly CAD file
 

That's quite a statement.

Re: pic: Dragonfly CAD file
 

I'm going to have to agree with staplemonx on this for the most part

Re: pic: Dragonfly CAD file
 

It is a bold statement, but hey we like to think big. :) But a more realistic statement is that we would have been an asset if we had been functioning the way we had hoped.

Our chances would have been higher of getting picked if it weren't for our own inexperience and lack of consistency with minibot deployment. This lack of consistency left us with only the option of playing defense, and this year, IMO, you needed 3 offensive robots to do well at better events.

Just as an fyi, we will no longer be mentoring the South Philly high school team, but will be coming back with a newly formed, larger, and better supported program.

Re: pic: Dragonfly CAD file
 

You know, except Einstein, where every alliance had only two scorers...

I think 3553 would have been an asset had they had EITHER a consistent Ubertube or Minibot to contribute.

Re: pic: Dragonfly CAD file
 

Every Alliance actually had three scorers, but all seemed to choose to play the 3rd on defense.

Re: pic: Dragonfly CAD file
 

The crappy thing is the team shut down and didn't want to do any off season events where we could have proved it, So it will always be a statement full of a lot of hot air.

We will get there next year.

Re: pic: Dragonfly CAD file
 

And how exactly were they supposed to score an ubertube?
Correct if im wrong, but i dont believe they had a scoring mechanism (right?....)
Or are you just pointing out the importance in an ubertube or minibot