|
Re: One or Two Drivers??
As someone who's worked with 3 different operators as well as flown solo over my 4 years, I think I can provide some unique insight here.
First of all, I feel that 2 drivers, if done right, is superior. I find that the less mechanisms I have to worry about controlling, the easier it is to avoid and outmaneuver opposing defense bots. This is because operating said mechanisms usually requires a close eye on our robot, which frequently leads to tunnel vision. I experienced this first hand in 2014, where I had control of loading our ball into our catapult after it was inside our robot. Many times after the ball was securely in place, I would look up from our robot and be surprised to see defense right in front of us. Conversely, in 2013, my freshman year, I had NO mechanism control; and even though I was less experienced, I generally knew where each robot on the field was and where they were going at all times, because I was able to dart my eyes around the field while keeping track of our robot in my peripheral vision. I was able to outmaneuver many defensive bots as a result.
There are exceptions, though. In 2015, there was no defense to worry about; additionally, our robot was a simple forklift with just 2 functions. So, that year I controlled everything myself, and it really wasn't an issue. Additionally, this year, we found ourselves with extremely low practice time (read: none at all). I was more confident that I could learn to control everything faster than 2 of us could learn to coordinate (our previous operator had graduated as well). I went ahead and flew solo at our first competition, and minus mechanical issues with our bot itself, we did alright. For our second competition, we used our unbag time to train up another operator, and I can say that I felt more comfortable not having to worry about controlling every little aspect on our robot.
As for doing unpracticed stuff on the fly -- from my own experience, if your 2 drivers are compatible enough, this is just as easy (sometimes easier, even) with 2 as it is with 1.
|