|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
If the question was, "Since the ball ramp is considered part of the bridge assembly, will a robot sitting under the bridge on the ball ramp count as balanced?" The obvious answer is "No, stop lawyering the rules." |
|
#77
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
If the GDC had known that teams were thinking about driving under the bridge (which I don't think they were, this only came out a few days ago), they would have given a different answer. They made a mistake, but they also can't see into the future. They had no idea what kind of ramifications their answer had. They can't anticipate every single possibility.
|
|
#78
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
|
|
#79
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
How can anyone blame a team for taking two Q&A answers and using that as design criteria? "Obvious" is an imprecise term. |
|
#80
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
In real would engineering relying strictly on customer specifications and not listening to their desired intent will get you in to big trouble every time. |
|
#81
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Try designing a robot that can effectively play the game and be 7 inches tall. Its not easy.
|
|
#82
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
Couldn't agree more. The intent was to have 2-3 robots cramming themselves on the top of the bridge, not under it. The answer they gave is consistent with the GDC's vision for the season. Last edited by cgmv123 : 14-02-2012 at 23:06. Reason: clarity |
|
#83
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
If the GDC cannot write a rule set that is comprehensive and clear and if figuring out ways to circumvent, break or otherwise take advantage of edge cases is not part of reviewing the rule set, they should be willing to accept the ramifications of their oversight and learn to do a better job in the future. Anyone that pretends to have ANY insight into what the GDC intended is deluding themselves and, frankly, I don't care at all what they intended for me to do. They gave me rules and I'm going to follow them. I am not, however, going to make up arbitrary new restrictions so everyone else can feel better about failing to achieve a unique, viable strategy. FRC rules have become increasingly focused on dictating how things should be done on the field instead of defining a solid set of criteria and letting teams flex their muscle. |
|
#84
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
Perhaps the GDC is trying to do the latter, but in the process, team(s) find ways of doing certain things they could not forsee, and in the end making a change which in reality achieves the former. I would hate to be on the GDC if given the chance for the following reason: Seeing THE most frustrating part for teams building towards one solution and having to do a 360, because of updates whether its good/bad. |
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
No, in real world engineering the customer specifications are either their intent or you don't agree to the project until you get them to be their intent because otherwise you can't tell them how much it costs. Developing off spec is a terrible idea, engineers aren't mind readers and most customers are unclear about what they want. If you let them keep changing their mind as you build you will end up over budget REAL quick. |
|
#86
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
Also the GDC should retract the answer making this strategy illegal. It is to late for the teams that have designed to this option to change. |
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
Quote:
Would the both of you also say the same things to 469 (2010) or 71 (2002)? Last edited by Akash Rastogi : 15-02-2012 at 02:43. |
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
"I don't see anything stopping a team from building a troll-bot, other than common sense."
Quote:
Also, I'm not sure what that type of robot has to offer a team, especially if the bridge values are tweaked. |
|
#89
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
The GDC intended robots to be balanced on top of the bridge. Sitting on a piece of structure that is solely designed to help prevent problem with the balls getting stuck is obviously not what they wanted. This update could have been seen coming from miles away. |
|
#90
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
Identifying and mitigating technical risk is a classic engineering exercise. The older (and hopefully wiser) one gets, the more careful one gets (hopefully). I love to undertake risky novel design approaches but I NEVER do so w/o crystal clear guidance from my customer (which usually comes after a informed, precise query) and a contractual promise (more money and time) my efforts will not doom the project. The goal (professionally) is to deliver on time, under budget AND to get the customer to come back with more work. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|