Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexD744
I personally have found "dead reckoning" to be very reliable and must quicker to program. Last year, for example, we were able to score both mid-zones balls every match with "dead reckoning." This year we have already tested scoring on both the top and middle rows with "dead reckoning." It works consistently as long as the robot is lined up the same way every time (It's nice having a programmer on the drive team). Considering the time constraints on testing autonomous, its much faster to get a working auto using this method, at least in my opinion.
|
I wasn't trying to down play dead reckoning, I completely understand why teams use it and I know that it is extremely effective. I was just saying that there are other ways to do it and I like it when teams try to figure it out. This year we were awarded the Innovation in Control award at Alamo for using two Sonar Range finders to position our autonomous mode against the lane divider and driver station wall (the initial plan called for 4 but we never got that fully working). The sonars make autonomous much easier because all we have to do is make sure the robot is strait, it's position behind the line doesn't matter at all. The plan with 4 wouldn't have needed the robot to be strait because it would have corrected it's orientation against the front wall. We also haven't been able to pull off the double ubertube but that is mostly do to lack of testing time with the robot so maybe dead reckoning is a better solution.