Pitfalls to avoid when brainstorming the 2011 game and robot

[Jay TenBrink]

The first several days after the kickoff are when most crucial robot design directions and game strategy are determined.

What are some of the painful pitfalls your team has fallen into when brainstorming the game/robot that you know to avoid now that you're older and wiser? What will you do to avoid these pitfalls in the future?

Here a big one we’ve suffered from multiple times and what we’ll do to avoid a repeat:

Falling back on a familiar and comfortable robot design from the past and adapting it to the new game.

We did this in 2009 when we basically cloned our 2006 robot. We never let ourselves get beyond the idea that we needed to shoot the balls one at a time instead of considering the possibility of handling them in bulk and dumping them. We also did this in 2005 when we could actually play the 2005 game with our 2004 robot with almost no changes. In both examples we could have done much better if we had forced ourselves to conceptualize new ideas, role-play the game, and develop alternatives before making the final decision on our direction. Instead we got tunnel vision.

It's good to learn from experience. It's better to learn from somebody else's experience.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Jay TenBrink

The first several days after the kickoff are when most crucial robot design directions and game strategy are determined.

What are some of the painful pitfalls your team has fallen into when brainstorming the game/robot that you know to avoid now that you're older and wiser? What will you do to avoid these pitfalls in the future?

Here a big one we’ve suffered from multiple times and what we’ll do to avoid a repeat:

Falling back on a familiar and comfortable robot design from the past and adapting it to the new game.

We did this in 2009 when we basically cloned our 2006 robot. We never let ourselves get beyond the idea that we needed to shoot the balls one at a time instead of considering the possibility of handling them in bulk and dumping them. We also did this in 2005 when we could actually play the 2005 game with our 2004 robot with almost no changes. In both examples we could have done much better if we had forced ourselves to conceptualize new ideas, role-play the game, and develop alternatives before making the final decision on our direction. Instead we got tunnel vision.

It's good to learn from experience. It's better to learn from somebody else's experience.

Make sure you THOROUGHLY understand the rules of the game before you actually start designing the robot.
It completely stuns me when I see a team show up at an event with a misdesgined robot that is not prepared to compete in this game due to lack of understanding of how to properly pay the game that could have easily been solved by simply taking a day or so to understand how to play the game instead of rushing in with a vague idea of what to do due to the animation.

[Basel A]

One issue we've had is jumping into design before strategy is decided. There's usually several ways to implement a strategy, so limiting yourself to a single design generally isn't the way to go. Less hurtful, but often similarly wasteful, is designing for a strategy that will he decided against. Why design if you'll leave need any designs for such a strategy at all? The only answer is practice, which, while not bad, is inefficient during a build season and during that crucial period right after kickoff.

[FIRSTgirl675]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

Make sure you THOROUGHLY understand the rules of the game before you actually start designing the robot.
It completely stuns me when I see a team show up at an event with a misdesgined robot that is not prepared to compete in this game due to lack of understanding of how to properly pay the game that could have easily been solved by simply taking a day or so to understand how to play the game instead of rushing in with a vague idea of what to do due to the animation.

Agreed. Once the game is released we spend a good three hours or so focusing on learning all the rules and quizzing each other on them before brainstorming starts. It makes it a lot easier in the long run.

[Cyberphil]

The Cybersonics team has had many pitfalls, but here are some of the most significant ones:

The biggest thing we have looked over in the past 3 or so years is the importance of picking up the game pieces efficiently, fast, and for sure. We always go right to how we are going to score and overlook the importance of picking up the game pieces.

But the one thing I feel our team has done extremely well (an aspect in which I feel many teams have huge pitfalls) is our drive train. We have used just about the same drive train for the past 3 years (including Lunacy), and it has served us extremely well! I see so many teams changing their DT's when in past years, they have worked great!

Another key idea: Simplicity is key, or as it is more well known, "KISS." When you make something simple and effective, it makes your life infinitely times easier!

Just my $.02

[davidthefat]

Originally Posted by Cyberphil

The Cybersonics team has had many pitfalls, but here are some of the most significant ones:

The biggest thing we have looked over in the past 3 or so years is the importance of picking up the game pieces efficiently, fast, and for sure. We always go right to how we are going to score and overlook the importance of picking up the game pieces.

But the one thing I feel our team has done extremely well (an aspect in which I feel many teams have huge pitfalls) is our drive train. We have used just about the same drive train for the past 3 years (including Lunacy), and it has served us extremely well! I see so many teams changing their DT's when in past years, they have worked great!

Another key idea: Simplicity is key, or as it is more well known, "KISS." When you make something simple and effective, it makes your life infinitely times easier!

Just my $.02

Our team took the KISS route last year, I can't say from experience because that was my first year, but looking at archives, our team did better when we went more complex. Like the omnidirectional drive a few years ago, they got an award, we didn't get one last year. The KISS method brought a very generic robot. Sure its robust and "reliable" (Not really, our robot broke down and stuff) but how is that innovative? Sounds more like imitation to me.

With that in mind, that is one reason for having such ambitious goals this year: Not to be ordinary. "Innovate not imitate" is one phrase that really stuck with me from the whole FIRST experience; I am taking that to heart.

I guess my advice is not to be satisfied with competence but to aim for the stars; go above and beyond of what is expected.

[maverickfan138]

573 has had two main pitfalls:

1. We usually end up designing a complex robot, and with our resources, the final product usually doesn't work how we intended it to. In addition to FIRST, we compete in OCCRA, and the past two OCCRA seasons and this past FIRST season, we have built extremely simple robots. Our last three robots have had a minimum of moving parts, yet were extremely offensive.

Our Breakaway robot was simple, yet innovative. The kicker was basically a rotating paddle, and it worked extremely well. Throughout the season, we had plenty of teams compliment us on our simple, effective design and a few even asked if they could use our design(especially after Ann Arbor).

2. We also tend to have a habit of falling behind schedule and cramming to complete our robot even when it is a simple design. To prevent falling behind, we just need to make sure that everybody stays on task and completes the 15 minute jobs in 15 minutes instead of an hour and a half.


tl;dr version: Basically, 573 needs to keep the design simple and stay on task and we will have another outstanding season.

[big1boom]

Don't try too many new things at once.

Last year we were trying out a new material (PVC), as well as trying out a 4 wheel coaxial swerve, CAN, and window motors. Lets just say that we had too many unknown variables, and the system failed... miserably. If we had done some preseason testing we would have been able to see that the PVC bends under the pressures of the bevel gears.

Experimenting during build season is beneficial, but only do a few things at a time.

Good news is that we were able to build a completely new bot for 10,000 lakes, where we placed 7th out of 63 after seeding. (That was an awesome spring break, 5 day build)

[EricH]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

With that in mind, that is one reason for having such ambitious goals this year: Not to be ordinary. "Innovate not imitate" is one phrase that really stuck with me from the whole FIRST experience; I am taking that to heart.

I guess my advice is not to be satisfied with competence but to aim for the stars; go above and beyond of what is expected.

Innovation just because you can innovate is not a good reason to have innovation.

Innovation because the game strategy calls for innovation is an extremely good reason to innovate.

Let's take 1625 this year. 6WD swerve. Probably the #1 most complex drive to attempt, but their strategy called for the capabilities that it could provide, and they did very well. Same for 1501's triangular robot.

OTOH, see 1114 in 2008, 330 in 2005 and 2008, 148 almost any year, and quite a few rookies (the highest rookie seeds, typically), as well as some of 1625's other robots. They build simple robots that are engineered to perform well. Innovation (or, in 1625's case, WINnovation) on these robots assists a simple design. It does not replace it.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

With that in mind, that is one reason for having such ambitious goals this year: Not to be ordinary. "Innovate not imitate" is one phrase that really stuck with me from the whole FIRST experience; I am taking that to heart.

Your simple robots didn't do well because they broke, you said it in your post. So obviously they weren't simple and robust enough. To be completely blunt, if your simple robot wasn't successful enough, what makes you think a complex robot will be more robust and successful? Because you'll get a trophy for a gimmick?

Innovating for the sake of innovating, reinventing the wheel is probably the second biggest pitfall you can fall into when designing an FRC robot, if the wheel is already a very optimized, good solution.

During the initial brainstorming, say anything you think of. Don't limit yourself at the VERY beginning, but be practical. Make sure it is something you can do.

---

By far the biggest pitfall I've seen is doing more than a team is capable of. It takes far less than you think to be competitive in an FRC game, especially considering the alliance structure, but you have to do that task well. It doesn't even matter if it's the RIGHT task; if you do it well you'll be successful. If your team was a turreted shooter in 2009, or your team tried to hang before you finished your ball possession, you probably know what I'm talking about. For 2791 this year, we're going to figure out the best successful strategy that involved our robot doing as little as possible, and we're going to perfect that.

There is always a way to score a number of points relatively easily that is simpler than perhaps the most obvious method. In 2009, anyone who dumped beat 75% of shooters. In 2010, shockingly few teams were adept at scoring from the front zone, which was literally just pushing a soccer ball up a ramp. Sure it's "easy", but what if your robot was like 910, 971, 359, or many of the other great front robots this year? They took the "easy" objective and dominated it.

--------

The other big catch I see is not focusing on the right parts of the game. How many people designed their robots to "kick and hang" this year? When you really look at the problem, you learn that before you can kick, you need ball control. In order to score a lot of points, you'll probably need to change zones. When you identify the problem, make sure you identify the WHOLE problem.

[Wayne TenBrink]

Here are some of the pitfalls we experienced (in no particular order):

1) We took pride in our ability to figure out the game and come up with the basic layout of the robot really fast - like Saturday afternoon - so we would have plenty of time to prototype and build the ill-conceived fruit of our haste. Faster isn't always better.

2) We built parts and subassemblies (gearboxes, etc.) when we could have used kit parts or bought suitable COTS parts. Its tough to admit that our home-grown ideas aren't always the best way to go.

3) We built the "low cost team field elements" and didn't consider how they differed from the "real" ones. For example, in 2010 we only looked at the steel crossbar on the tower when thinking about our lift concept. The wooden 4x4 support posts didn't inspire any thoughts about a curling lifter.

4) During brainstorming, we restricted our technical approach to concepts that were "possible". "Possible" was defined as something we already knew how to do. This is where the rookies really help. Reality hasn't beaten the creativity out of them yet .

5) We tried to be too sophisticated, and built machines with too many potential weak links. They were pretty useless unless everything was working perfectly - which was rare. KISS!

6) Our robots were hard to drive and operate. They made unrealistic demands on operator skills and cooperation in a match situation. KISS again.

Hopefully, we learned something from our past mistakes. However, its still hard to tell the difference between "great", "good enough", and "fail" during build season. We can study rules, develop a strategy, list desirable capabilities of the robot, and build prototypes. Like most teams we go through this process in a mild vacuum and we won't know if the machine we decided to build was the right one for the game until we get to the competition.

In general, the best robots do the essential tasks quickly, reliably, under difficult circumstances, and are easy to operate. KISS (done properly) is one common thread that ties these all together. Ingenuity is another, but we haven't figured out how to impose that one on ourselves yet.

[DonRotolo]

I'd have to quote the whole thread, it contains so much excellent wisdom. Thanks!

Originally Posted by maverickfan138

Our last three robots have had a minimum of moving parts, yet were extremely offensive.

I can attest to this, I for one was extremely offended when I saw their 'bot(s). ;-)

[rcmolloy]

Originally Posted by Cyberphil

The Cybersonics team has had many pitfalls, but here are some of the most significant ones:

The biggest thing we have looked over in the past 3 or so years is the importance of picking up the game pieces efficiently, fast, and for sure. We always go right to how we are going to score and overlook the importance of picking up the game pieces.

But the one thing I feel our team has done extremely well (an aspect in which I feel many teams have huge pitfalls) is our drive train. We have used just about the same drive train for the past 3 years (including Lunacy), and it has served us extremely well! I see so many teams changing their DT's when in past years, they have worked great!

Another key idea: Simplicity is key, or as it is more well known, "KISS." When you make something simple and effective, it makes your life infinitely times easier!

Just my $.02

I agree to exactly what Phil stated about manipulating game pieces. If you're trying to win the competition, the best robot out there that can score quick and efficiently will do so. If there is anything you need to worry about it is how long you spend debating about the actual robot. I remember in 2009 people were bringing in new ideas during Week 4 and I was freaking out. We didn't have the time or money to deal with them. The best thing to avoid pitfalls is to understand the game quick and make sure you point out everything that is possible. Then, develop a machine that will achieve the game's objective.

[IndySam]

"You can't do that" syndrome or "no way that will work."

On more than a few occasions I have heard a rookie or newer team member come up with a good idea only to be shot down by more experienced members with the above phrases. Then that very idea shows up on another robot at competition (and works great.)

Don't fall into that trap. All ideas can have merit and many good ones come from unexpected places.

[Cyberphil]

Originally Posted by IndySam

"You can't do that" syndrome or "no way that will work."

On more than a few occasions I have heard a rookie or newer team member come up with a good idea only to be shot down by more experienced members with the above phrases. Then that very idea shows up on another robot at competition (and works great.)

Don't fall into that trap. All ideas can have merit and many good ones come from unexpected places.

Some of our best ideas come from rookies, simply because their mind has no limit as what you can and cannot do. Some kids knock their ideas down right away, but some others think about it. They give it a day or two and 15 or so drawings on napkins, and it ends up being the winning design! Its truly amazing.