Turning Quality Metrics

[JVN]

Originally Posted by JamesTerm

IKE, I'll be curious to see how what you say unfolds... my goal is to make *any* driver look good by making the controls very intruitive for anyone to drive. I'd argue less experienced drivers need any intuitive help they can (e.g. just as Jake has mentioned with the field centric drive for team 1717), and should be able to drive any kind of well defined drive with a virtually identical feel to them.

I cannot completely back up this arguement... just yet, > ; )
but I believe this enough to take a leap of faith and do it.

Oh yes... do you want to share how driving with PID closed loop encoders help with turning performance and latency?

James,
This activity seems like it would be very "high effort, low reward" compared to other developments an FRC team could be doing.

I'm going to assume you're going to do some driver drills... if your team isn't the type of team that does driver drills, you're probably not capable of doing what you're describing anyways.

Training drivers isn't that hard. If you're going to run some driver drills you're going to quickly move past the part of the learning curve where this software would matter anyways.

Maybe I'm under-estimating the reward, and over-estimating the effort required for meaningful result.

-John

[James Tonthat]

Originally Posted by JVN

Training drivers isn't that hard. If you're going to run some driver drills you're going to quickly move past the part of the learning curve where this software would matter anyways.

I remember a saying that goes something like

Good robots with bad drivers can lose.
Bad robots with good drivers can win.
Good robots with good drivers can dominate.

That being said, we usually get software to around 80-90% then let the drivers learn to drive the thing. The last 20% takes 80% of the time. (Pareto principle)

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by James Tonthat

I remember a saying that goes something like

Good robots with bad drivers can lose.
Bad robots with good drivers can win.
Good robots with good drivers can dominate.

One that our mentor likes is "a 100% robot with 50% drivers is a 50% robot."

[JamesTerm]

Originally Posted by JVN

James,
This activity seems like it would be very "high effort, low reward" compared to other developments an FRC team could be doing.

I'm going to assume you're going to do some driver drills... if your team isn't the type of team that does driver drills, you're probably not capable of doing what you're describing anyways.

Training drivers isn't that hard. If you're going to run some driver drills you're going to quickly move past the part of the learning curve where this software would matter anyways.

Maybe I'm under-estimating the reward, and over-estimating the effort required for meaningful result.

-John

It was high effort, but now it is a well-defined solution... so it's really an inherited benefit... with no time invested here... but my time invested now is in learning about interfacing with the basics robotics drive itself... gears torque etc... stuff I need to learn no matter what solution we choose. I have gone over your spreadsheet with a fine tooth comb and use this as a simulation. (More on that in the other post on cof tomorrow).

We do driver drills... I listen to the driver's needs and I've talked with Jim Z as I'm very inspired by Team 33's method of drive control. I am not afraid of new innovation. We have to continuously challenge old paradigms and believe and continue to try new things.

For me the reward is that great feeling I saw when we continued to successfully balance the ramp for Rebound Rumble... to make the driver feel like he is at one with how the robot performs. I remember the moment I hesitated when I crashed my car because it was not intuitive to me (I did not know how to quickly react to slow down a standard stick drive). The reward is for a user to not need to worry about what to do when he panics because it is intuitive.