Trajectory Drive for both swerve and mecanum drive

[RaphaelMetz]

Hello,

My team is finalizing whether or not we will use a swerve or mecanum drive. I have been researching how one would code to follow a set of parameterized positions -- a trajectory with each drive train, and would really appreciate some guidance.

If you have any comments, questions, or suggestions, I would love to hear them!

Happy building!

[Cothron Theiss]

Have you built, programmed and driven a Swerve in the past several off-seasons with your team? If the answer's no, then you should NOT attempt a Swerve drive for your first time in the build season. This is not a slight against your team's capabilities. This is just an observation that Swerve is one of the most difficult things to pull off in FRC, and it requires several years of designs and iterations and reiterations to get Swerve to the point where it's actually beneficial.

Also, in my not-so-humble opinion, mecanum is a waste of time. But that's for your team to decide.

[RaphaelMetz]

Okay, will definitely keep in mind, thank you for your input.

[Poseidon5817]

Originally Posted by RaphaelMetz

Okay, will definitely keep in mind, thank you for your input.

If you do decide to jump on the swerve train feel free to PM me if you have any questions regarding the math behind how a swerve base moves.

[RaphaelMetz]

Thank you, I will definitely take advantage of your offer

[Fletch1373]

Originally Posted by Cothron Theiss

Also, in my not-so-humble opinion, mecanum is a waste of time. But that's for your team to decide.

Out of curiosity, why do you consider mecanum to be a waste of time?

[samthesnake]

It's so hard to play against defense when you are limited to a mecanum drive. When a team pushes you, you can not side shift over like you can with swerve. Name an Einstein robot that used mecanums in a defense heavy game, because I can't think of one. The majority of Einstein robots (90+ percent) in defense heavy games are swerve or some kind of tank drive like West Coast Drive. Also, if you are a low resource team, you will not be picked to play defense if you have a mecanum drive if there are teams available with better swerve or tank systems. That's just my opinion, though.

[J_B_Wood]

Originally Posted by samthesnake

It's so hard to play against defense when you are limited to a mecanum drive. When a team pushes you, you can not side shift over like you can with swerve. Name an Einstein robot that used mecanums in a defense heavy game, because I can't think of one. The majority of Einstein robots (90+ percent) in defense heavy games are swerve or some kind of tank drive like West Coast Drive. Also, if you are a low resource team, you will not be picked to play defense if you have a mecanum drive if there are teams available with better swerve or tank systems. That's just my opinion, though.

Hey, another member from 1389 here. The idea would be to use the versadrop modules (http://www.vexrobotics.com/vexpro/all/217-4824.html) to switch between mecanum (for lateral alignment with boiler/airship) and tank drive for getting around defense and traversing the field.

[Poseidon5817]

I could have sworn faust1706 made a post about this a while back, but I was unable to find it.

Alternatively, you can check out this thread, which may be what you're looking for.

[Cothron Theiss]

Originally Posted by Fletch1373

Out of curiosity, why do you consider mecanum to be a waste of time?

This thread has a lot of arguments and examples showing why teams should use drop center tank drives over mecanum or H-drive or Butterfly or Octocanum or Butterslide or what have you. If you're still interested, you can shoot me a PM. I don't want to derail this thread.

[ollien]

Originally Posted by Cothron Theiss

This thread has a lot of arguments and examples showing why teams should use drop center tank drives over mecanum or H-drive or Butterfly or Octocanum or Butterslide or what have you. If you're still interested, you can shoot me a PM. I don't want to derail this thread.

Did you intend to link to a thread? There's no link.

[Jpatterson1710]

Originally Posted by ollien

Did you intend to link to a thread? There's no link.

I believe he was referring to this thread:
https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/s...d.php?t=153231

[Cothron Theiss]

Originally Posted by ollien

Did you intend to link to a thread? There's no link.

Originally Posted by Jpatterson1710

I believe he was referring to this thread:
https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/s...d.php?t=153231

Woops, I totally missed that. I meant to go back and hyperlink but never did. And yes, that thread is the one I was referring to. Thank you.

This is what I get for posting at 2 in the morning.

[Foster]

Originally Posted by RaphaelMetz

Hello,

My team is finalizing whether or not we will use a swerve or mecanum drive. I have been researching how one would code to follow a set of parameterized positions -- a trajectory with each drive train, and would really appreciate some guidance.

If you have any comments, questions, or suggestions, I would love to hear them!

Happy building!

Reach out to Sab-bot-age Team 1640. They have run swerve for years in labview and Java. There is a ton of info on their site http://team1640.com

Swerve isn't for the faint of heart, but the results are pretty amazing.

[MARS_James]

I am not a programmer and never claimed to be one but i have previously been on a team that used mecanums for several years and one thing you are going to want is a gyro to help your robot know where it is. Mecanums have a tendency to not drive perfectly straight and for a game with this much precision that slight drift in auto could mean 60 points