View Single Post
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-05-2006, 20:53
skimoose's Avatar
skimoose skimoose is offline
Parent/Mentor/Engineer
AKA: Arthur Dutra
FRC #0228 (GUS)
Team Role: Electrical
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Meriden, Connecticut
Posts: 568
skimoose has a reputation beyond reputeskimoose has a reputation beyond reputeskimoose has a reputation beyond reputeskimoose has a reputation beyond reputeskimoose has a reputation beyond reputeskimoose has a reputation beyond reputeskimoose has a reputation beyond reputeskimoose has a reputation beyond reputeskimoose has a reputation beyond reputeskimoose has a reputation beyond reputeskimoose has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] Autonomy And Other Technology Discussions

Quote:
Originally Posted by dlavery
Uhhh, says who?

I am poking at this one intentionally to see if people have really thought through the implications of limiting the construction of the robot to just students, or engineers, or both, and what that really means in terms of the technologies that can be introduced into the game/KitOfParts. I will attempt to keep this discussion on topic by pointing out that based on who you think will be building the robot, the technologies most needed/interesting/challenging will be different.

Put yourself in the position of the people on your team that build your robot, and ask yourself "what technologies can they handle?" Then try and take the viewpoint of a team that does it exactly the opposite way from your team, and ask the same question. What would be most helpful to either group? What capabilities did you really wish you had last year? What technologies would be particularly challenging (and I note that "challenging" is often a very good thing)?

-dave

(by the way, FIRST has been quite clear about the role of engineers and mentors in the development of the robot - read the transcripts of some of Dean's speeches at the early kick-off meetings)
Don't get me wrong Dave. If mentors didn't get directly involved with building the robot, there wouldn't be nearly as many engineers volunteering to help teams. We have fun building too, and I'm all for being challenged. That's what keeps me coming back each year. I just like to see the students do as much as they possibly can, and then push them for just a little more.

You made a valid point. Teams with a high level of technological resources will certainly want or need different items in the KOP, than teams with a lower level of technological resources. My point was that there has been a lot of effort on the mechanical side to make rookie teams, or teams with low machining capabilities, competitive. Some of that needs to translate to the software/sensor side. I would rather see teams have the choice of grabbing a KOP sensor package, using a KOTS sensor, or custom solution. Each choice has its pros and cons, and each can get the job done. It just becomes another FIRST lesson in allocating limited resources. We used the KOP transmissions last year, but we chose to go with semi-custom trannys this year, but it was our choice to make, thanks to FIRST .

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got a Vex robot and some KOP sensors to play with!
__________________

2009 CT Regional Motorola Quality Award
2010 VRC Connecticut Championship Winners & Amaze Award
2010 VRC Championship Divisional Energy Award
2010 WPI Regional Winner
2010 WPI Regional Engineering Inspiration Award
2011 WPI Regional Chairman's Award
2012 WPI Regional Finalists