http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYnUDaEi1D8
Irony is epitomized in the fact that at approximately 2:56 into the game animation, it appears that the long-armed blue bot violates <G22> in the same manner 190 does even though the intention for the game animation's movement is different. Sure, GDC trumps rules and rules trump game animation -- but it's sometimes very difficult to find time to sift through every Q&A and rule when coming up with a design the in build season. FRC is indeed hard for a reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtengineering
Very good point. However G22 reads:
"Once a ROBOT has CROSSED a LANE MARKER or FINISH LINE, it shall not
break the plane of the line by moving in the clockwise direction."
Which can be interpreted to mean that breaking the plane in a counter-clockwise direction is not a penalty. After all, breaking the plane and crossing a lane marker are two different activities with seperate definitions.
|
With this exact interpretation any appendages/mechanisms that break the plane backwards should not be penalized. However, with the way penalties are actually handed out, we can see the clear
intent of the rule is that nothing whatsoever breaks that plane. In the match # 45 mentioned above, 190 definitely breaks the plane backwards when you consider every other way <G22> has been interpreted and enforced thus far.
My own personal input to the design is that it's too risky to try to drop it a few inches to hurdle and then pick it right back up (which appears to be the original intention of 190's design). There are too many things that the drivers cannot easily control such as ball kinetics and other bots. Even if <G22> wasn't penalized the way it is, I do not believe 190 would be fully successful with the original design. It's "outside the box" with its own unique merits but to me the risk is too great for consistency's sake. This is just my 0.02 though.
Even so...
With a slightly longer and/or bent horizontal arm, 190 has a very viable strategy as being "that third bot". Take 2 launchers -- one that perhaps runs around with its own ball (L1) + another semi-stationary launcher (L2) + 190. 190 remains in Q3, L2 remains in Q1, and L1 runs around. Basically 190 gets whatever ball comes its way while L1 picks up the other, harder to get ball. 190 feeds their ball across 2 quadrants to L2 who grabs it and launches it towards the center of the field so it bounces into Q2 then off the wall into Q3 where 190 can pick it up again. With practice and repeated hurdles like this, the strategy would push the # of hurdles per match by a single bot well over the current record. Not only that, but they'd be in prime position to place and/or knock off almost any ball placed on the overpass. This whole scenario would be tough, but given veteran teams that know how to coordinate these types of maneuvers I don't doubt its success.
Risky designs are exactly that: risky. They try to leave he realm of intention which is why they're "outside the box" designs. It's hard to think of every scenario and interpretation when designing something that skates on a fence, and thankfully for 190 there are other ways to be successful in this game.