Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeland1126
Apologies, I'm being quite unclear about these things right now.
By "Standard swerve", I'm not referring to anything particular about the Swerve itself. I'm referring more to a Swerve from a team who hasn't really mastered the Swerve yet (i.e. 16, 111, 118, etc.). Those teams have worked up good implementations to Swerve, and have made steps in overcoming the common short comings that go with it.
Again, I apologies. I'm being very unclear.
|
No need for apologies, I was just wondering what people consider a standard swerve to entail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefro526
Also, it's worth mentioning that a team could build a 'fast' (Relative term), 'powerful' (Relative term), swerve using proven COTS components from AM and Team221 LLC - they've done the hard mechanical work for a team looking for swerve performance without swerve machining resources.
|
Just an anecdote of caution:
Using the 221 modules in 2010 was pretty cool; we learned a lot about the mechanics of a swerve. But with only a week to figure out how to program the swerve - our team just made an idiotic decision to go with this drive over our 8wd design, even after we were told we wouldn't get our modules until after week 3. This stupid decision was made because students and mentors got entranced by the "coolness factor" of swerve. It had no place in the 2010 game. Even with a full practice swerve to play with and program, we had only just started to figure out the best controls for the swerve WHILE in Atlanta that year. It is a HUGE learning curve for even the best programmers. (we had students and programming mentors working on it). All I'm trying to say is that even with the mechanics pretty much figured out for us through COTS parts, the programming and sensory involved took a long long time to figure out. It is hard to express my abhorrence for the decision making that went on that year.