View Single Post
  #90   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-03-2008, 19:08
s_forbes's Avatar
s_forbes s_forbes is offline
anonymous internet person
FRC #0842 (Falcon Robotics)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,131
s_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Shooters vs Arms

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricH View Post
Are you also aware that 1625 and 1114 could both fit into either the arm category or the shooter category?

I think the robots that dominate will be a combination of arm and shooter. Call it an "arm-mounted shooter", if you will. Varying angle for different shots, quick pickup and raising to fire, and higher shooter distinguish this class of robots.

They also effectively end the "arm vs. shooter" debate by having both.
I think it depends on your definition of an arm bot and a shooter bot. To me it seems that any robot that is able to 'toss' the ball into the air without reaching higher than the overpass qualifies as a shooter robot. The debates revolving around arm/shooter robots were mostly based on the fact that 'arm robots' can reach above the overpass to remove/place balls.

So, in my opinion, 1114 and 1625 were not arm bots, just shooter robots. Their intake systems are what made them perform so well.