Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperNerd256
So why have a totally separate part of the robot that turns independently of your robot when you can turn your robot just as easily in any way it wants?
|
Precision. To make an accurate long distance shot, the yaw angle must be controlled very precisely. During concepting, we knew we could design and fabricate a turret which could mechanically aim very precisely. We suspected that control of the shooter yaw angle via the drivetrain might not be very precise. The software can be written so the vision system can set shooter yaw angle by controlling either the drive train or the turret. We decided to go ahead and built a turret as a reasonable response to reducing technical risk. If it turns out that yaw control of the robot gives us everything we need, we'll keep the turret locked and only use the drive train. On the other hand, if the drive train is unable to position the shooter precisely enough, we have the turret actuator to fall back on, even if it doesn't rotate a full 360 degrees.
If, by some miracle, the computer runs fast enough, and the software is good enough, it is conceivable that we could keep the shooter locked on the target with an accurate "firing solution" such that we just drive around picking up balls and firing them continuously through the hoop, on the move. Can't do that without a turret.
As a mechanical guy, I always want to say, "The robot would be so much cooler if only the software could do ..." I never want to hear, "The robot would be so much cooler of only it was mechanically able to do ..." Of course, both software and mechanical people will always say, "If only the drivers were better, the robot could do ..." and the drivers will say, "If only we had the robot sooner to practice with, we could have done ..." Such is life when asked to do the impossible with too little time and not enough money.