KISS -- More Complicated than it Appears?

[dtengineering]

I'd like to suggest that "simple" is perhaps a poor choice of words for the concept you are conveying, simply because simple isn't simple.

Oooh... sorry about that.

Simple is what we recommend to teams with limited resources. Simple is kitbot. Simple is direct driver control with limited feedback and sensors. Simple is doing one thing right. Simple is an AndyMark order form away.

"Simple" is about staying within boundaries.

I'll suggest "elegant" is perhaps a better word. An elegant design will appear simple, in retrospect (ie 1114 in 2008) but will be darned difficult to achieve working forward.

Aside from semantics (which I think are important) I agree with you 100%. Achieving a successful "simple" is amazingly difficult to do.

Jason

[EricH]

Simple... or, as Woodie so elegantly put it in 2007, "Simplicity on the other side of complexity"?

I think the question could be phrased this way: What is the minimum X device to do Y function effectively, given that Z group can't do anything beyond A complexity? If you go below the minimum X, you fail--Y isn't effective. If you go beyond A, you fail--Z can't do it without risking pain in terms of time, weight, or cost. If you are at the minimum X and at A, you have a simple, and quite possibly elegant, machine. (Going beyond X can result in greater complexity or greater capability, depending on the manner. For example, scissors lift versus linear elevator versus single-joint arm versus multi-joint arm in the 2007 game.)

[Gray Adams]

Originally Posted by EricH

Simple... or, as Woodie so elegantly put it in 2007, "Simplicity on the other side of complexity"?

That's actually a quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., and was repeated by Einstein.

"I would not give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity."

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Gray Adams

That's actually a quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., and was repeated by Einstein.

"I would not give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity."

In 2007, Woodie applied it to FRC robot designs. There were quite a few complex mechanisms that year, and then there were the simple ones that just appeared complex (looking at 1114 and 1717 as good examples). Those found the simplicity on the other side of complexity, I think...

[OZ_341]

I think any discussion of KISS in 2012 must include Team 67.
They had one device to pick up balls, lower the ramp, and assist with balancing. When I finally had a chance to look at this machine up close at IRI, I was floored by its elegance.

[Starke]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

I'd like to suggest that "simple" is perhaps a poor choice of words for the concept you are conveying, simply because simple isn't simple.

Since I began in FIRST in 2003, I have found that it is much more difficult to keep a design simple than making it complicated. In our engineering applications, it is easy to want to make something that "looks cool" and completes the game challenge at hand. There is a natural desire to create a mechanism that is complicated to wow the audience.

Over the years, I have found that some of the "simplest" designs have given me the wow factor. It is amazing to see how affective some robots are when they accomplish a game challenge so easily. That always comes with the thought, "Why didn't I/we think of that?"

Do our minds automatically start to think about the complicated designs instead of the simplest ones?

This is a great conversation to have on CD and I am looking forward to the discussion.

Matt

[tsaksa]

Blaise Pascal once wrote in a letter, "The present letter is a very long one, simply because I had no leisure to make it shorter." Over the years, similar quotes have been attributed to several others including Mark Twain, Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King, etc. But the basic concept is the same. Simplicity is not easy and takes more time than many give it credit. Sometimes simplicity is a lucky coincidence. But most of the time it is born of much hard work and endless revision. When you see it, take time to consider the many failures and experiments that ultimately led to a successful design.

In my own experience I find that if you aspire to simplicity of design then you should seek the broadest skill set possible. Often when a really good mechanical or electrical engineer approaches a problem they only see the solution from the perspective of their own discipline. This is great for a well partitioned problem. But often a better understanding of a variety of disciplines is needed to find a truly efficient solution.