Quote:
Originally Posted by magnets
It's also possible to build a competitive robot without any engineering at all. Just put together the kitbot, wire together the control system (both of which have detailed manuals), and download an already written piece of software, no understanding of computers required. Bolt a tray on top of the robot, and drive in a straight line to the low goal, hit it, and the discs fly in. Make a passive ten point climber, and you're already in the top 50% for weeks 1, 2, and 3, all without writing a single piece of code, without adding a single motor, and only doing one thing (hanging) in teleop.
|
You wrote quite a bit that I know other people will disagree with so I'm just going to focus on what I've quoted from you above.
I am frustrated that you feel the above scenario is a detriment to FIRST and how some teams build their robots. There is nothing wrong with teams with very limited resources doing exactly what you described. In fact, there are many many teams that couldn't score the 14-16 points you mentioned in your scenario. And yet you make it seem like if they followed the plan you outlined they are somehow learning less, and not getting a true appreciation for engineering or getting a positive FIRST experience.
The figuring out the kitbot, control system wiring, and some pre-written code is asking a TON for most rookie teams and even rookie team members of veteran teams. The resources in place to help them hit the ground running are fantastic resources to relive that early burden. If these resources were not in place many teams would be so lost and frustrated early on that many would not make it to their events with a functioning robot and may not even bother trying again the next year.
It's terrible that you feel teams that utilize these resources are not getting a full experience.