Go to Post If you don't have a hairtie, use a ziptie instead. It works, it's cute, and way geeky. :p - Katie Reynolds [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > General Forum
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 27-10-2012, 01:20
Joe G.'s Avatar
Joe G. Joe G. is offline
Taking a few years (mostly) off
AKA: Josepher
no team (Formerly 1687, 5400)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Worcester, MA
Posts: 1,441
Joe G. has a reputation beyond reputeJoe G. has a reputation beyond reputeJoe G. has a reputation beyond reputeJoe G. has a reputation beyond reputeJoe G. has a reputation beyond reputeJoe G. has a reputation beyond reputeJoe G. has a reputation beyond reputeJoe G. has a reputation beyond reputeJoe G. has a reputation beyond reputeJoe G. has a reputation beyond reputeJoe G. has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Joe G.
KISS -- More Complicated than it Appears?

I wanted to start a discussion about the deeper meaning of design simplicity, and its use as a design quality metric. Everyone knows, loves, and follows KISS. Good engineering practice, right? Simple is better. And everyone can point to a few shining examples in FIRST of simplicity that paid off. 4334 in 2012. 1503's single joint, no floor pickup 2011 robot. And I know that teams and engineers around the world, as they should, use simplicity to measure the quality of a design, especially in the earlier steps of the design process. A robot that accomplishes the task with 2 degrees of freedom is inherently simpler than one that does the same with 3. Tank drive is simpler than any type of omnidirectional drive. And so on.

These types of comparisons are easy to make when considering a subsystem's design as a standalone element, and comparing alternative concepts designed to fulfill the same task. But it is my experience that using a quantified value, or even a qualitative representation of "simplicity" becomes much more difficult when you consider multiple parts of the greater system, or even multiple domains (ie, mechanical vs. software) of the same system. We can all agree that unnecessarily complex systems, systems whose exact functionality can be replicated with fewer parts, should be simplified. But what about systems which could be simplified if considered as standalone devices, but at the expense of simplicity in another area?


As an example of this which lead me to think more about these things and create this thread, here's a project I helped complete recently for a college robotics course. Two features of this robot immediately jump out at people: The X-style holonomic drive, and the nine bar linkage lift. At first glance, the absolute embodiment of complexity and design for "cool factor." But that wasn't the rationale. We chose the design to minimize software complexity and required testing time, identifying the limitation that our team had a primarily mechanical background. We chose the holonomic drive to enable us to translate while line following, and execute "square to line" functionality to start each line follow parallel to and centered on the line. This in turn made the algorithms for our actual follow line function dead simple, and tuning the function was done in under 15 minutes, compared to weeks of testing and iteration by teams with "simpler" drive systems.

Likewise, the linkage was carefully synthesized to accomplish the desired objective (straight line vertical lift to specified height, then 90 degree pivot to horizontal). This was chosen over alternative mechanisms because the linkage only needed to rely on it's own kinematics and mechanical hard stops, 3 limit switches, and a single motor input to accomplish a very complex motion (If there's interest, I'll post a detailed writeup on this linkage, I'm pretty darn proud of it. ). At first glance, a nine bar linkage is WAY more complex than an elevator with wrist joint. But it reduced code size and development time, motor count (which we needed), and its precision allowed us to employ a simple passive gripping mechanism.

Because of the robot's intricate physical appearance, nearly everyone whose seen it has suggested that, while impressive, the task could have been accomplished in a simpler way. Mechanically simpler? Certainty. Overall? I'm not so sure. Looking back, I don't have any major regrets about the design we chose; sure there are a few incremental improvements that could be made, but I doubt I'd make any major concept changes if we did it over again. The linkage and drive did take a lot of time to design, but they paid off, not through the small performance gains often used to justify complexity, but by making other parts of the robot, the ones you don't see, simpler, and easier to develop.


The same could certainty happen in FIRST. Is a two position pneumatic arm simpler than a motor powered one, if it requires you perform dozens of gripper iterations to make the most of the limited range? What about a two degree of freedom arm, which allows the use of a pinch claw, vs. a single degree of freedom arm that would require a roller claw for tube rotation. Can a mecanum, or even a swerve drive be simpler than a tank drive in the grand scheme of things, if they dramatically reduce the number of steps required in an autonomous mode, or allow the robot to square against objects it couldn't before? Is a turret worth it if it simplifies aiming code? Separate actuator for feeding balls to your shooter, or lots of time perfecting an incredibly finicky ball path that would theoretically allow you to do it with one? On the flip side, is a wheeled shooter with complex control algorithms for velocity control worth it, if the alternative is a mechanically complicated catapult?

Thoughts? How do you compare apples to oranges when it comes to simplicity, and lack thereof? How would you answer some of the questions above if they came up in your design process, and what other factors need to be considered to answer them? Do we tend to over-consider mechanical complexity in FIRST, because it is more visible, and for most teams, represents the bulk of the build effort? How do you explore the more subtle effects choosing to simplify one mechanism may have? Is the very idea of trying to quantify simplicity flawed? Should the essence of design simplicity instead be considered through other means? Am I just really overthinking all this?

In particular, I'd love to hear any stories you have about things "done in the name of simplicity" that didn't pay off because they created complexity elsewhere, or systems which appear complex at first glance which actually serve to dramatically simplify things. Or fantastic examples of getting the balance right, and the thought process in regard to some of these issues that went into some of the most successful simple/elegant robots in FIRST.
__________________
FIRST is not about doing what you can with what you know. It is about doing what you thought impossible, with what you were inspired to become.

2007-2010: Student, FRC 1687, Highlander Robotics
2012-2014: Technical Mentor, FRC 1687, Highlander Robotics
2015-2016: Lead Mentor, FRC 5400, Team WARP
2016-???: Volunteer and freelance mentor-for-hire

Last edited by Joe G. : 27-10-2012 at 02:16.
Reply With Quote
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 27-10-2012, 01:29
coalhot's Avatar
coalhot coalhot is offline
Assistant to the regional manager
AKA: Phil
FRC #4454 (Artisan Rockets)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 393
coalhot has a brilliant futurecoalhot has a brilliant futurecoalhot has a brilliant futurecoalhot has a brilliant futurecoalhot has a brilliant futurecoalhot has a brilliant futurecoalhot has a brilliant futurecoalhot has a brilliant futurecoalhot has a brilliant futurecoalhot has a brilliant futurecoalhot has a brilliant future
Send a message via AIM to coalhot
Re: KISS -- More Complicated than it Appears?

I have to say, before reading your whole post, that 341's 2012 design should probably be on top of the list for the KISS award. The most stupidly simple machine/design that worked incredibly well.
__________________
Current home, 4454 (Glowa's ghetto Philly FRC team). Check us out!

My posts represent my personal views only, and do not represent the views of my team, its school, sponsors, or FIRST.
Reply With Quote
  #3   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 27-10-2012, 02:24
dcarr's Avatar
dcarr dcarr is offline
#HoldStrong
AKA: David Carr
FRC #3309 (Friarbots)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Anaheim
Posts: 954
dcarr has a reputation beyond reputedcarr has a reputation beyond reputedcarr has a reputation beyond reputedcarr has a reputation beyond reputedcarr has a reputation beyond reputedcarr has a reputation beyond reputedcarr has a reputation beyond reputedcarr has a reputation beyond reputedcarr has a reputation beyond reputedcarr has a reputation beyond reputedcarr has a reputation beyond repute
Re: KISS -- More Complicated than it Appears?

It's a really good point that complexity in one area can allow for simplicity in another.

Take 1717's swerve for example - incredibly complex, but made maneuvering, and therefore ball pickup, extremely simple to execute.

It's one of the reasons why we're investing time and energy in swerve - after a few iterations, a complex drive base can be made reliable enough that its complexity isn't a crutch, and allow for a lot more flexibility in designing other mechanisms.
__________________
Team 3309
2016 Los Angeles Chairman's Award Winner
2016 Orange County Regional Winner with 3476 & 6220
Team3309.org
Orange County Robotics Alliance
Reply With Quote
  #4   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 27-10-2012, 02:24
dtengineering's Avatar
dtengineering dtengineering is offline
Teaching Teachers to Teach Tech
AKA: Jason Brett
no team (British Columbia FRC teams)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,827
dtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond repute
Re: KISS -- More Complicated than it Appears?

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
Reply With Quote
  #5   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 27-10-2012, 02:47
EricH's Avatar
EricH EricH is offline
New year, new team
FRC #1197 (Torbots)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 19,726
EricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond repute
Re: KISS -- More Complicated than it Appears?

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.)
__________________
Past teams:
2003-2007: FRC0330 BeachBots
2008: FRC1135 Shmoebotics
2012: FRC4046 Schroedinger's Dragons

"Rockets are tricky..."--Elon Musk

Reply With Quote
  #6   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 27-10-2012, 04:51
Gray Adams's Avatar
Gray Adams Gray Adams is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: none
Posts: 282
Gray Adams is a splendid one to beholdGray Adams is a splendid one to beholdGray Adams is a splendid one to beholdGray Adams is a splendid one to beholdGray Adams is a splendid one to beholdGray Adams is a splendid one to beholdGray Adams is a splendid one to behold
Re: KISS -- More Complicated than it Appears?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricH View Post
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."
Reply With Quote
  #7   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 28-10-2012, 00:31
EricH's Avatar
EricH EricH is offline
New year, new team
FRC #1197 (Torbots)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 19,726
EricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond repute
Re: KISS -- More Complicated than it Appears?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Adams View Post
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...
__________________
Past teams:
2003-2007: FRC0330 BeachBots
2008: FRC1135 Shmoebotics
2012: FRC4046 Schroedinger's Dragons

"Rockets are tricky..."--Elon Musk

Reply With Quote
  #8   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 28-10-2012, 09:46
OZ_341's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero
OZ_341 OZ_341 is offline
Registered User
#0341 (Wissahickon)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Ambler, PA
Posts: 1,477
OZ_341 has a reputation beyond reputeOZ_341 has a reputation beyond reputeOZ_341 has a reputation beyond reputeOZ_341 has a reputation beyond reputeOZ_341 has a reputation beyond reputeOZ_341 has a reputation beyond reputeOZ_341 has a reputation beyond reputeOZ_341 has a reputation beyond reputeOZ_341 has a reputation beyond reputeOZ_341 has a reputation beyond reputeOZ_341 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: KISS -- More Complicated than it Appears?

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.
__________________
2010 Championship Chairman's Award
2016 MAR District Champion (thank you 225 & 1257)
2016 Galileo Division, #6 Seed, 9 W - 1 L
2016 MAR District Innovation in Controls Award
2016 Westtown District Finalist (thank you 4954 & 484)
2016 Westtown District Imagery Award (It took 17 yrs)
2016 Hatboro District Judge's Award
Overall Record 49 W - 21 L
Reply With Quote
  #9   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 28-10-2012, 11:00
SarahBeth's Avatar
SarahBeth SarahBeth is offline
Drank the KoolAid
FRC #0157 (Aztechs)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Rookie Year: 2012
Location: MA
Posts: 145
SarahBeth has a spectacular aura aboutSarahBeth has a spectacular aura about
Re: KISS -- More Complicated than it Appears?

Quote:
Originally Posted by coalhot View Post
I have to say, before reading your whole post, that 341's 2012 design should probably be on top of the list for the KISS award. The most stupidly simple machine/design that worked incredibly well.
I second this.
__________________
The world has never seen a group of people who have taken such interest and delight in being rickrolled.
-StevenB
Reply With Quote
  #10   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 28-10-2012, 12:18
Starke Starke is offline
Producer at The RoboSportsNetwork
AKA: Matt Starke
FRC #0174 (Arctic Warriors); (Alumni: 340 (GRR), 1126 (SparX))
Team Role: Leadership
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 688
Starke has a reputation beyond reputeStarke has a reputation beyond reputeStarke has a reputation beyond reputeStarke has a reputation beyond reputeStarke has a reputation beyond reputeStarke has a reputation beyond reputeStarke has a reputation beyond reputeStarke has a reputation beyond reputeStarke has a reputation beyond reputeStarke has a reputation beyond reputeStarke has a reputation beyond repute
Re: KISS -- More Complicated than it Appears?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtengineering View Post
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
__________________


Team 340 | G.R.R. | Alumni/Mentor | 2003-2007, 2010
Team 1126 | SparX | Engineer | 2008-2009
FRCDesigns.com | Engineer | 2011 - Present
Team 174 | Arctic Warriors | Advisor | 2012 - Present
Reply With Quote
  #11   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 28-10-2012, 13:44
tsaksa's Avatar
tsaksa tsaksa is offline
Registered User
FRC #0997 (CHS Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Rookie Year: 2011
Location: Corvallis Oregon
Posts: 203
tsaksa has a reputation beyond reputetsaksa has a reputation beyond reputetsaksa has a reputation beyond reputetsaksa has a reputation beyond reputetsaksa has a reputation beyond reputetsaksa has a reputation beyond reputetsaksa has a reputation beyond reputetsaksa has a reputation beyond reputetsaksa has a reputation beyond reputetsaksa has a reputation beyond reputetsaksa has a reputation beyond repute
Re: KISS -- More Complicated than it Appears?

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.
__________________
This is the zeroth day of the rest of your life.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 13:21.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi