Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz

[KeeganP]

Before you read this, please know that my opinion might not be shared among the majority of ChiefDelphi users, and I accept that. I just think I should share my opinion and thoughts, and hopefully help to improve FRC.

First, I do want to say that I truly appreciate how much effort and time went in to Ri3D and BuildBlitz this year. The participants were an incredible example of what is possible to do, and I thank them for their time. The robots they designed were and are incredible. That said...

The Problem

I feel like although Ri3D and BuildBlitz are incredibly inspirational as to what a team could theoretically accomplish in just 72 hours, they are helping teams a little too much.

When they release videos of how ever part on their robot works, CAD drawings down to the last nut bolt and rivet and number of links they used in their chain, they kill the ingenuity and originality of many frc teams. Why reinvent the wheel when you have 6 fully-functional rule-abiding choices complete with parts lists and design videos that you can copy?

I agree that many teams are not going to directly copy a robot from these 6 teams, however I personally know 3-4 that have chosen to. I know our team is borrowing ideas from many of the robots, and that the moment the reveal videos, CAD drawings and other marketing materials came out, the ingenuity and originality on our team went down, and it was disappointing to me.

Some of us wanted to directly copy parts of their robots and others of us wanted to steer as far away from any of the designs as possible, just because we felt copying their designs wasn't right.

What I Suggest

Have the Ri3D and BuildBlitz teams continue to inspire teams. But don't release CAD drawings and parts lists and complete specs -- leave something to the imagination until after build season is over, or at least after it's ⅔ done.

Only release a reveal video after the 72 hours, and make it be just the robot driving/shooting/climbing/miniboting/swimming, with no human narrating it's abilities. Again, I think this would cause the teams to be inspired by what is possible, without making them decide to build a copy of one of their robots.


Again, I know this probably isn't a popular opinion, but I feel I needed to share it. Have any other teams felt this way at all? Did Ri3D or BuildBlitz curb your ingenuity or originality of design?

[Starke]

Originally Posted by KeeganP

Before you read this, please know that my opinion might not be shared among the majority of ChiefDelphi users, and I accept that. I just think I should share my opinion and thoughts, and hopefully help to improve FRC.

I think that it is great to have these conversations. There have been a lot of discussions on CD about these 3 day builds. Here is one thread of a few.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=123152

Matt

[Jay O'Donnell]

I agree with the thoughts you shared here. While my team isn't really using anything from Ri3D or Build Blitz, I know that many teams will. Just look at last year. With only one robot in 3 days, there were many teams who were carbon copies of that design, and many who followed their suggestions. Not that this is entirely a bad thing, because some teams do need some inspiration right off the bat in build season. I liked having 5 (almost 6) different robots this year because teams could be inspired by many different robots. What you stated about CAD drawings and parts lists is exactly correct, because teams shouldn't need these unless they plan on building the same robots. So in conclusion I completely agree with you. Robot in 3 days is inspirational and helpful, but giving teams ways to just copy a robot design is not.

[cadandcookies]

I stand by my original opinion on this.

If you don't like Ri3D or Buildblitz, your team and your team alone has the right to decide not to pay attention to BuildBlitz/Ri3D and all resulting designs and CAD models and videos.

Just because there's a bunch of violence on television does not mean that I have to watch it. Similarly, if a team decides that it is preferable to design in a vacuum, that is their right.

Personally, I don't see where the obsession with creating unique designs comes from. FIRST robots have always been a combination (in various degrees) of previously existing technologies and game mechanisms. Build Blitz/Ri3D just happen to be introducing more relevant mechanisms (none of which, by the way, are really anything new-- winches and catapults have a had a large deal of previous use in FRC). The only mechanism that I saw that I don't think is relatively common knowledge (other than Boom Done's awesome use of sensors) was the choo-choo mechanism of Team JVN. Roller intakes are classic, catapults were used in 2008 and a little bit in 2012, winches have been used in 2008, 2010, 2013, at least, and motor-powered flingers (like Boom Done), while not exactly common, are really just an extension of a classic arm/lever design.

Individual mechanisms very rarely in themselves grant teams advantages. It's integrating, effectively implementing, and quickly building mechanisms that is the real difference.

Borrowing designs is not a bad thing. There are no patents in FIRST robot design (at least by teams).

[magnets]

I agree with a previous poster that the three day robots have the right to do what they're doing. However, I'm still unsure if I like the Ri3D teams or not

PROS-
We end up with competitive teams that are fun to watch
Week 1 regionals in 2012 were pretty darn awful to watch because teams were so bad
Experienced teams who know that certain things will work really well don't have a massive advantage any more.

CONS-
There are tons of clones of robots out there.
A moderately competitive team now doesn't stand out as much from a Ri3D copy.
(this could be seen as a pro for some teams)
Less fun to design and prototype your robot.

[magnets]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

I stand by my original opinion on this.

Roller intakes are classic, catapults were used in 2008 and a little bit in 2012, winches have been used in 2008, 2010, 2013, at least, and motor-powered flingers (like Boom Done), while not exactly common, are really just an extension of a classic arm/lever design.

It's still really different.
I agree that roller intakes aren't anything revolutionary, and in the past, I could look at years of roller intake pictures on CD, but now, I can get the exact angle, position, speed, location, width, gearing, motor, and bearing setup that works. I guarantee that if you asked 1114 if they spent a while to get their roller intake in 2008 to work the way they wanted to, they would tell you they tried different wheels, widths, speeds, motors, torques, angles... Now, I can just grab my CAD file from the internet, buy a versa frame kit, and suddenly I have a competitive intake.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by magnets

It's still really different.
I agree that roller intakes aren't anything revolutionary, and in the past, I could look at years of roller intake pictures on CD, but now, I can get the exact angle, position, speed, location, width, gearing, motor, and bearing setup that works. I guarantee that if you asked 1114 if they spent a while to get their roller intake in 2008 to work the way they wanted to, they would tell you they tried different wheels, widths, speeds, motors, torques, angles... Now, I can just grab my CAD file from the internet, buy a versa frame kit, and suddenly I have a competitive intake.

Arguably if everyone does this, it's no longer a competitive intake.

Raising the bar and all.

[magnets]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

Arguably if everyone does this, it's no longer a competitive intake.

Raising the bar and all.

True, but there will be a good portion of teams who will compete with an intake that is inferior to the Ri3D intake. IMO, with the new defense rule, your intake will be the most important part of the robot.

[mikemat]

I understand some people's fear of a loss of originality because of the 3 day robots. But I wouldn't say 2013 had any less original designs than before. Sure the 'Ri3D robot' was popular, but in 2012 the 'polycord elevator to hooded single wheel shooter' was just as common. As was the '4-bar with roller claw' in 2011.

[tkell274]

I agree that having robots being built in three days and having all the cad files and part numbers readily available is an issue and allows teams to be lazy, but I feel that is not that big of an issue.

My thought being that yes some teams will take these ideas and do better than they have in the past but for the most part teams will continue to only build upon the basic ideas or use their own totally original ideas that will get them the win on Einstein. And using ideas from other teams or past years is not always a bad thing. I don't see anyone on here complaining about that fact that pretty much half of FIRST uses or has used at sometime 1114's kitbot on steroids and that's because it's a good and well tested design that makes a better robot.

I feel that robot in three days has actually made FIRST a lot more competitive now because although it does now allow teams to just take some cad and part files and build a totally solid and competition ready robot, it also forces teams to figure out ways to defeat these ideas and make even more effective and well designed robots. Because in the end the Ri3D and BuildBlitz bots might be able to make it to district or regional eliminations, but they will all be beat out by better designed robots that came from a teams original idea.

[BJC]

I cannot speak for VEX on this matter. I just want to bring another factor to your attention.

This year's game is very easy compared to the last two years. There isn't much getting around it.

This year's game challenges are effectively:
-score in the high goal (also means you can truss toss.)
-intake ball (also means you can score in the low goal and assist by spitting out)
-catch a ball/pass ball

You can argue the finer details but the best robots in the world basically just be doing these three things really well. You could say this game has a low ceiling -- meaning the robot that does everything really doesn't have to do as much as other years.

2013, by comparison, was much more challenging. There was not a single robot in 2013 that could do every part of the game -- meaning the ceiling was very high, perhaps the highest in FRC history.

2012 is much more similar to 2014 in that there are fewer things to do. However, shooting into a basket (IMHO) was and still is the most technically challenging thing an FRC robot has ever had to do. The 27' wide 2014 high goal is child's play by comparison.

The thing I'm trying to get at here is because this game has a lower ceiling than most, the 5 robots built in three days this year were all able to accomplish more of the game tasks than they would have been able to do in harder years like 2012 and 2013. This makes them more attractive to directly copy rather than use for inspiration like they are intended.

Food for thought
Regards, Bryan

[TheMadCADer]

Originally Posted by BJC

I cannot speak for VEX on this matter. I just want to bring another factor to your attention.

This year's game is very easy compared to the last two years. There isn't much getting around it.

This year's game challenges are effectively:
-score in the high goal (also means you can truss toss.)
-intake ball (also means you can score in the low goal and assist by spitting out)
-catch a ball/pass ball

Still, none of the 3-day robots this year are catchers (because it was impractical to design for as a robot intended to stand alone). Last year the 3-day robot team didn't even touch 30-point climbing.

The ceiling may be low, but it's still above what the 3-day teams are hitting.

This year, our team had a full robot design after the first day. It just so happened that we came to most of the same conclusions as Team JVN. This is convenient, because now we have a ton of prototyping done for us so we can modify it until it works. I don't think it's a problem because teams can come up with their own ideas just as fast as these groups do. They can build faster, but they can't talk much faster.

[KeeganP]

Hey everyone. I am in no way suggesting that we discontinue/disregard that the Ri3D and Build Blitz teams did an incredible job and should be thanked for their amazing effort, skill and time commitment to making FIRST better.

All I'm suggesting is that next year they limit their production of exact resources until after build season is closer to a conclusion. I agree that teams could theoretically just turn a blind eye to all of this, but can you really control an entire FRC team's internet access? What happens when one student comes in and says "look at this robot!" or claims to have a great idea the he/she *knows* will work because they saw it already.

I think that perhaps if the teams had just waited until later to release their CAD drawings I would personally be happier -- teams couldn't just copy the robots. I understand that no robot (hopefully) will be a direct copy of it, however I think that being able to look up the exact dimensions, part numbers, etc. for building an obviously successful robot becomes degrading to a team that can no longer call their robot design original and student led. After all, what's FIRST's mission? To inspire a generation of technology leaders. Are they going to learn to think outside the box when they can download 5 different robot CAD files and combine them? Or are they just learning how to assemble a box set?

Let's keep this discussion going and how we can improve upon the Ri3D and Build Blitz ideas, rather than attacking each other's views on what "inspiration" and "cheating" are.

[mrnoble]

I have the privilege of coaching/mentoring two teams from different schools, one much younger and less experienced (and less supported) than the other.

The more mature team was able to come up with many possible designs through brainstorming (which is mostly a shared pot of knowledge based on experience), then did research and evaluated designs from previous years, as well as the Ri3D/Blitz designs, once they were available. The design they eventually settled on (after multiple prototypes and proofs) was not one shown in any of the builds, though it was inspired by other teams as well as past successes. They have appreciated the Ri3D/Blitz input, but didn't end up implementing much from those robots.

The younger team has struggled with research, prototyping, designing, you name it. Having struggled through the learning experience, they finally realized that some of the mechanisms and ideas they saw in the videos were beyond their capability, but that others were things they understood and had done in a different context with success. They are "copying" one or two elements of a couple of the Ri3D/Blitz bots, as best they can, based on what they know how to do. They are pushing themselves and are finding joy in the learning process. For them, making a kit base and changing one or two elements is in itself a challenge, and having ideas presented in ways that they can understand has been the very definition of "inspiring".

I am in agreement with those who look at Ri3D/Blitz as an evolution of the FRC experience. This organization and idea has been around for more than 20 years, and has gone through huge changes. The games are more streamlined and subtle, and are more friendly to spectators. The COTS and kit parts are way better than they used to be. The drive bases have been iterated to near-perfection. And now, even rookie teams don't have to come away proud of their duct-taped drive base that barely moves; most of the teams that would have had that experience in the past now can put their efforts (still Herculean) into a robot that can drive and compete. That is progress.

Addressing a concern of the original poster: the BOM for team Boom: Done helped my younger team as they worked to figure out torque/speed ratios today. That in itself made me appreciate them even more, and I support the sharing of anything they are willing and able to share.

[dradel]

I actually got into an argument with my son about this sort of thing. I became a mentor to help these kids who little to no mechanical experience learn how to put stuff together. One of the things I personally try to get across is this program is suppose to be about thinking outside the box and using some imagination. We all want to make it to Einstein and win, but to me it is more about the learning experience, and learning how to things work and move rather than having an uber competitive bot.
Just my two cents.