View Single Post
  #54   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-03-2008, 01:48
Qbranch Qbranch is offline
wow college goes fast.
AKA: Alex
FRC #1024 (Kil-A-Bytes)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 1,174
Qbranch has a reputation beyond reputeQbranch has a reputation beyond reputeQbranch has a reputation beyond reputeQbranch has a reputation beyond reputeQbranch has a reputation beyond reputeQbranch has a reputation beyond reputeQbranch has a reputation beyond reputeQbranch has a reputation beyond reputeQbranch has a reputation beyond reputeQbranch has a reputation beyond reputeQbranch has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Impeding in Hybrid

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt H. View Post
I am of the firm belief that if impeding is allowed then high speed (autonomous) ramming should also be allowed. The IR is simply to flakey to ensure consistent commands and it would take an amazing team to program a robot which reliably avoids other robots. If impeding is allowed and ramming is not allowed autonomous will be limited to two line crosses and one trackball down for fear of penalties. The two rules go hand in hand--either both should be allowed or neither should be allowed.
Perhaps instead a required distance of movement in autonomous? Maybe something like "robot must be touching rear wall or must move outside of it's alliance's homestretch starting box (make a tape line box going from the end of the lane divider to the wall of the field)"

Really, even though it doesn't make me happy when i see our robot defensive autonomoused (it's so much fun to watch when it isn't!) by the way the rules lie right now, it can happen. So, instead of begging for a rule change, we'll hope for one, but as with most things in engineering, there's almost always another way to solve a problem. (i.e. what I mentioned above).

-q
__________________
Electrical Engineer Illini
1024 | Programmer '06, '07, '08 | Driver '08
Reply With Quote