Robotics Question of the Day!

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by BJC

What is the most important part of the robot?
A.The drivetrain

What is the second most important part of the robot?
A. Game piece pick-up

No, the second most important part of the robot is also the drivetrain.

So is the third.

Game piece manipulation is no higher than fourth on the list of robot priorities.

[IKE]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

No, the second most important part of the robot is also the drivetrain.

So is the third.

Game piece manipulation is no higher than fourth on the list of robot priorities.

Does that mean that Bumpers on #1? Please tell me bumpers are not #1...

Discussing ranking systems is a really good idea. FIRST likes to switch them up and sometimes this will influence how you design your robot.

A fun hypothetical might be:
Originally matches were 1vs.1vs.1
Then FIRST improved to the 2vs.2 format.
Then FIRST improved (by most folks opinion) to the 3 vs. 3 format.
How would FIRST change if they went to 4vs.4?
What would be the benefits and what would be the disadvantages to 4 vs. 4?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by IKE

Does that mean that Bumpers on #1? Please tell me bumpers are not #1...

Bumpers are #4, I think. The most important parts of the robot, in order:

Drivetrain, Drivetrain, Drivetrain, anything that makes the drivetrain legal (bumpers included), game object manipulation #1, game object manipulation #2, game object manipulation #3.

The difference in the game object manipulators: #1 is acquisition, #2 is delivery, #3 is either anything internal to the robot or working with any stationary field element. The reason they're game object manipulators is that it's quite possible that they may be dealing with stuff other than game pieces, like mobile goals or bridges or hanging bars.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by EricH

Bumpers are #4, I think. The most important parts of the robot, in order:

Drivetrain, Drivetrain, Drivetrain, anything that makes the drivetrain legal (bumpers included), game object manipulation #1, game object manipulation #2, game object manipulation #3.

The difference in the game object manipulators: #1 is acquisition, #2 is delivery, #3 is either anything internal to the robot or working with any stationary field element. The reason they're game object manipulators is that it's quite possible that they may be dealing with stuff other than game pieces, like mobile goals or bridges or hanging bars.

Objection: this puts non-object endgame work no higher than 8, when in several (but certainly not all) years, endgame was arguably more valuable than object (acquisition/delivery) scoring.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Siri

Objection: this puts non-object endgame work no higher than 8, when in several (but certainly not all) years, endgame was arguably more valuable than object (acquisition/delivery) scoring.

Does it? Game objects, as I noted, may include such items as towers and mobile goals. Towers--hmm, like maybe 2010 and 2011?

The reason I specified game object (NOT game piece) is that there are often multiple objects that it is helpful to interact with by using a specialized mechanism. Say, the bridge or the towers mentioned. All game pieces are game objects, but not all game objects are game pieces.

I should also have mentioned that the #1, #2, and #3 designators can be shifted in priority--say, #3 comes first. (Though I don't suggest swapping #1 and #2; it's kind of hard to score a game object if you don't have one.)

In actuality, endgame work could be as high as #1 (iff it's done only with a drivetrain, like the 2006 ramps) or #5 (if it needs a manipulator to do).

[1502]

Lets keep the OP in mind guys..

[BJC]

Apparently I started something here..

Revised list of important robot related functions assuming legality:

1. Drivetrain
2. Drivetrain!
3. Drivetrain!!
4. Picking up the game piece.
5. Drivetrain!!!
6. Processing the game piece..
7. Drivetrain!!!!
8. Delivering the game piece...
9. Drivetrain!!!!!

*4-10 Endgame (depending on game)

Interestingly enough this follows gameplay rather closely.. Drive, pick up piece(s), drive while processing, score, repeat.


Another fun question:

-What are the three tightest constraints on the robot?
(IMHO)
1. Money
2. Time
3. Weight

However, this one is more up for argument.

Regards, Bryan

[daniel_dsouza]

Q: Who should you not instantly blame for errors when they happen?
A: Programmers. It's good to break this stereotype sooner than later.

Q: What must be worn at all times when working on the robot?
A: Safeties, closed toed shoes, etc.

Q: Where is the FIRST aid kit located?
A: "answers will vary"

Q: Where is the largest/smallest gauge wire used on the robot?
A: "answers will vary"

Q: When working with aluminum and nuts/bolts, how much should you tighten them?
A: not too tight

Q: Where is metric crescent wrench?
A: I have no clue what you are talking about...

Q: Should a chain be completely taut?
A: No.

Q: Should the robot frame have a charge?
A: No. This can be prevented by isolating motors, and checking wires.

Q: What is the best type of drivetrain/mechanism?
A: The best one we can build w. our resources.

Q: If the robot does not turn on, what is the first thing to do?
A: Check the battery.

Q: What is called when you lend a team some part at a competition?
A: Gracious Professionalism

[EricH]

What is the large PDF that everyone is supposed to read called?
A: The Manual.

Who needs to read the Manual at least once?
A: Everybody. Twice or thrice is preferred, though.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by daniel_dsouza

Q: Where is metric crescent wrench?
A: I have no clue what you are talking about...

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Vise-Grip-...rench/15720337

Free clue for the still-confused: The "metric" refers to the scale on the jaws that lets you know what size nut or bolt head you're rounding off when you use it.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by EricH

Does it? Game objects, as I noted, may include such items as towers and mobile goals. Towers--hmm, like maybe 2010 and 2011?

The reason I specified game object (NOT game piece) is that there are often multiple objects that it is helpful to interact with by using a specialized mechanism. Say, the bridge or the towers mentioned. All game pieces are game objects, but not all game objects are game pieces.

I should also have mentioned that the #1, #2, and #3 designators can be shifted in priority--say, #3 comes first. (Though I don't suggest swapping #1 and #2; it's kind of hard to score a game object if you don't have one.)

In actuality, endgame work could be as high as #1 (iff it's done only with a drivetrain, like the 2006 ramps) or #5 (if it needs a manipulator to do).

Ok, I get the object vs piece distinction, but how can you indicate that #n is acquisition and #m is delivery? Are you referring to chronological steps in general (how do you deliver a bridge)?

Remember that {endgame} ⊂ #1 IFF endgame is done only with drivetrain functionality ⊂ standard movement. (The endgame may involve only the drivetrain, but well above and beyond standard movement.)

From the perspective of the OP, these questions are important. One of the worst mistakes you can make early in the design strategy process is mis-prioritize or used overly-constrained verbiage (thereby constraining minds). Look at the teams that ignored the minibot or constrained themselves to hanging on the horizontal bar in Breakaway [not that that didn't work for some also]. Given that Ryan's looking for ways to get kids minds going and inspire them to want to try it, such an open-ended "what's a good structure for determining the top priorities of a FIRST robot" question is actually a pretty valuable discussion of the day.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Siri

Ok, I get the object vs piece distinction, but how can you indicate that #n is acquisition and #m is delivery? Are you referring to chronological steps in general (how do you deliver a bridge)?

[...]Given that Ryan's looking for ways to get kids minds going and inspire them to want to try it, such an open-ended "what's a good structure for determining the top priorities of a FIRST robot" question is actually a pretty valuable discussion of the day.

It's chronological in general, or in order of priority. For example, many teams may have thought that the order this year would have been delivery of the basketballs, acquisition of said basketballs, and being able to tip the bridge (because they could go over the barrier, and chances are someone else can tip the bridge). Actually, acquisition and being able to level the bridge took precedence--witness the number of stingers that mysteriously appeared on many robots as the competition season progressed, and the wide variety of over-the-bumper collectors. (Delivery of the basketballs was a pretty close second to acquisition wherever that ended up.)

I would agree that a "what's a good structure for determining priorities of a FRC robot" is a pretty good discussion of the day. I would, in the days and weeks after using that one, go even farther: I would pick a random FRC game (ideally one well before the time of the students on the team), slim it down to be easily understood, and ask the question, "How do we win this game?" The open-ended discussion there will eventually lead to an answer, right or "wrong", but it can be compared to the actual winning robots that year.

[Katie_UPS]

Come up with as many unique ideas as you can in five minutes to do X action (ie picking ball up from the floor and putting them in a hopper). Give them another 5 or so minutes to figure out which idea would be the "best" in competition.