Quote:
Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery
I remember both of those games plenty well. Please watch your tone.
The exact specifics of the rules in 2013 vs 2016 differ (obviously), but the intent is largely the same. The margin for error for many teams was rather small, especially when it came to aligning their intake devices. The specific example I had in mind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j9ov03mOyA (987)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9fHnHGvM8s (987, gets hit, corrects, still makes shots) |
I apologize that you found offense in my statement, however, I hope you understand that giving two factually incorrect statements in a row gives off a particularly negative impression on one's memory, so I wouldn't say my statement was particularly out of line.
I will reiterate my point once again:
In 2013, the margin of error would be defined by the construction and design of your intake, and the teams that were good enough to go for the mid-line Frisbees also had intakes that would successfully capture Frisbees over their entirety. This left such teams with enough clearance that localization via encoders and IMU would yield error that would not affect intake effectiveness.
In addition, the margin of error for getting a foul was that of your entire robot, which would be several feet, meaning if a team WAS to miss the frisbees, they would not accrue a foul. In 2016, crossing the midline in any way is a foul.
While I would hope Q&A would change this rule to lower the potential risk of going after a second boulder, the rules as they are give a margin of error that is nearly an order of magnitude lower than that of previous years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrForbes
the auto line is pretty close to the midline, if you can detect it with an optical sensor, and slowly advance the robot the necessary amount, you could get right where you need to be.
|
Good point, this would give a team a point to relocalize. While I still don't see teams risking a foul for an extra 10 points, I could see teams getting their robot to do this so that it would work often enough to demonstrate.