Quote:
Originally Posted by efoote868
There are many adjectives I'd use to describe swerve drive trains, but easy is not one of them.
|
Yeah, that'd be a matter of "they're easy provided you build them right" (true) vs "building them right is easy" (false).
Quote:
Originally Posted by efoote868
How is this not a problem with swerve drives?
|
Chassis orientation is controlled independently of translational direction. e.g, Just push in the defender (because they can't push you), spin around them, and then spin around again until you're lined up the way you want. Like
this or
this. Or after a
brief pin. Or
before not being pushed at the unprotected feeder. Or
after rocking an FCS blocker.
Taylor - absolutely agree. It's not a theoretical issue, it's a game play one. For instance, there's no way we'd be putting all the swerve work in at this point (nor will we continue to), if it wasn't providing such a huge in-game advantage. Still, I'd think that after 7 years I'd have seen someone riding mecanum that really embraced this. Is coaching and practice really bringing this to (near? video?) zero? I've seen some really excellent drive teams on them, but they just don't seem to weigh this heavily. I know a lot of the biggest benefits for chassis orientation rely on holding traction, but I'd venture others do not. Is the default (or otherwise reasonably doable) code amenable to it?