Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KenWittlief
the engineering design cycle doesnt always work?!
...
but you are right in one aspect - DDA only tells you WHAT your robot needs to do to win - it doesnt tell you how
|
Ok, I made my comment before figuring out all of my own points. The point I wanted to stress but didn't is the Time factor for using DDA. 6 weeks isn't enough time to use "Educated guess based on data" and check. You may have been able to stack in 2 seconds, and it seem like perfection, but it can come down just as easily.
My point is DDA and the Engineering Cycle takes Raw data and makes a path for a first draft of an idea. Then Real data is taken from the performance of the idea. Then the bell-curve is shifted from "Maximum" towards "Feasible" and a second draft is made. From this draft, new Real data is taken and compared to the first and the decision must be made for a 3rd draft. The 3rd draft is usually tweaking the second for better effiency and looks far different from the first.
How many drafts are made depends on a few things,
1) Time
2) Budget
3) Profit Margin
4) Manufacturability
With FIRST, most teams have a small budget where building two robots is unlikely or impossible. Also, we only have 6 weeks, which is usually time for tweaking a first draft. "Profit Margin" in this case would be chance to win matches, i.e. would it be worth it to try and build a whole new bot and maybe win 5 more matches through the season. Manufacturability is the "can it be done". Amazing designs can be thought of, but having to use a "screwdriver as a hammer" won't always work. (Using wrong tool for the job).
Next year, almost any team could make the "perfect" robot for the 2003 competition because there were 700+ "drafts" which real data can be pulled from.
Ken- can we start a new thread should this need to be discussed more? It's Off-topic, but worthwhile.