View Single Post
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-01-2007, 23:01
Lil' Lavery Lil' Lavery is offline
TSIMFD
AKA: Sean Lavery
FRC #1712 (DAWGMA)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,640
Lil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Lil' Lavery
Re: RACK & ROLL Reaction

Quote:
Originally Posted by T. Hoffman View Post
Non-functional = No broadcasting video to drivers to give them a "functional" advantage of an improved view on the far side of the rack.

This rule has been around for several years. While teams can't broadcast video direct to their operator stations, if approved, teams have had wireless camera feeds shown on the big viewscreen during matches (48 did this a few times in 2004) or have recorded the feed in their pits for future use.
That view on the big screen can certainly help a driver

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kims Robot
So I read through the whole thread and I keep seeing people going back on forth on "its torroid terror" or "its not torroid terror".

Now perhaps I'm not in the ranks of the great strategists of Wildstang or Simbotics, but I think part of the issue with this game is that the robots really could be exactly the same as old robots. For me, at this point, I like to be excited about designing something new, after we ship, I want to be excited about more detailed strategy. Yes I know there is more in it, but our first step is always to come up with the basic ways to do the game challenges...

You could take designs from a robot that could lift big balls, or from a torroid terror robot, and use it, exactly as it was. Therefor the challenge only lies in the strategy.... and the whole reason I love FIRST is for the engineering, not for the game (then I would have been a football coach)... as a systems engineer, we look at something a customer wants and if there is already something to do it, then we just buy it off the shelf (COTS). If there isnt, then we have to engineer something new. Its the smartest thing to do... if you know something works well, use it, don't reinvent the wheel.

That said, obviously FIRST is really about the students, so this will be a challenge for all my students. I look forward to seeing their ideas, but personally, this game doesn't excite me that much because I know I could just research old robots or use our torroid terror design, combined with our camera from 2005, and have a robot that easily scores.
Kim, I'm going to have to disagree. I've already mentioned how a majority of teams relied heavily on their human play in 97, and how that will dramatically alter robot manipulator designs, so I'll demonstrate how other features will change it this year. The primary physical differences are the spiders, specifically their ability to move. In 1997 the tower could freely rotate in place, but in 2007 the spiders have the ability for slight rotation, rocking, shaking, and elevation changes. At the top level, the effect is not terribly dramatic, but in the middle, and specifically in the lowest spider, it can be problematic. Additionally, the fact that the "Chute" is vertical is going to cause all sorts of issues with the acquisition of inner tubes (at least when acquiring them directly from the HP), something that I don't think ANY 1997 robot could have done. In 1997, teams could place tubes horizontally on the top of the tower (provided space remained), which allowed for manipulators that could only control tubes horizontally, but in this game, all the tubes must be manipulated vertically (or close to it).
There are also additional engineering challenges presented by the other aspects of the game. No game have essentially forced this much interaction between alliance partners since 2001. The bonus points will be a very interesting and dramatic ending to the matches this year, requiring a great deal of engineering though and cooperation and collaboration between alliance partners to figure out how to go about it. There are limitless options as to how a team may attempt to try and elevate robots.
If you're still not satisfied, you can always pioneer in the other aspects of the robot, namely the drive and control aspects. FIRST is providing us with more power and chances to pioneer in robot design than they ever have before. Two more pneumatic tanks, more motors, more KoP features, more sensors etc. will all allow for more development in the robot.
And finally, strategy is important in Systems Engineering. As a Systems Engineer, you would have to try and find the BEST solution to a problem, not just a solution. While adopting a 1997 design may be a solution, finding the best would be investigating the game strategy and coming up with an ideal design to fit the solution that 1511 (or any team) feels best fits the 2007 game.
__________________
Being correct doesn't mean you don't have to explain yourself.

Last edited by Lil' Lavery : 06-01-2007 at 23:20.
Reply With Quote