|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#46
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Looks like we found a relatively simple solution to fix our climbing for this update. However, this could have easily been a complete disaster for us since we are integrating all of our functions into one mechanism this year. I feel for all the other teams who will not have as easy of a time making their designs legal if they will even be able to use it at all.
|
|
#47
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Note that in the real world, engineering specifications are agreed to and contracted. When the client comes in later trying to change them drastically and invalidate the current design, there's usually deadline extensions, bills for the engineering change, etc.
|
|
#48
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
I'm surprised by this change since they already answered it in the opposite way previously. Better now than later, I guess, but this is a question that could have reasonably been anticipated and clarified before the game was released.
This didn't blow our climbing concept out of the water, but I'll be watching closely for a bumper clarification that has the potential to cause us trouble. |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Quote:
|
|
#50
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Quote:
I agree with the others who call this a bad move and bad form on the part of the GDC especially when this was discussed completely in a mentor call and it directly contradicts an earlier answer in the formal Q&A (which is also hosted by the GDC). ![]() |
|
#51
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Has FIRST ever made such a big change like this before?
|
|
#52
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Quote:
As others have pointed out this is probably the optimal (fewest illegal robots) solution, even if causes rework. And I know that rework is annoying. |
|
#53
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Quote:
I think calling the rework annoying is an understatement... Full design and CAD just having some of the details added, and now we have to change it completely. I'm still reeling that this drastic a change has been made this long after kickoff. Do you suppose the GDC will reconsider given the backlash and how clear the Q and A seemed to make the rules before? ![]() |
|
#54
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Quote:
|
|
#55
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
When the seeding algorithm was changed in 2010 is probably the biggest change ever during the season. I think it was a good change (gave incentive to win) but that is a huge change to have mid-season.
They've changed size dimensions before as well, I don't know if it's always been so critical to a task like this though. |
|
#56
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Quote:
I agree with your 5% comment; however, manufacturing and resources aside, time is still the most valuable asset in an FRC season. There will definitely be other solutions, I just have a hard time believing that this rule will result in more successful 30 point climbs (which is my interpretation of the purpose of the change). |
|
#57
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
The basic reason I can see them doing this is for enforability. It's already difficult to determine if the robot will fit within the 54" cylinder when on flat ground. Robots breaking the cylinder when transitioning between levels while climbing (especially unintentional) is basically impossible for the refrees to be certain of. In close matches no one wants the deciding call to be made by a ref who from 15 feet away may have seen a robot momentarily break an invisible cylinder...
|
|
#58
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Is it possible this rule change was more in response to concerns that robots that fall over would be in continuous violation, rather than concerns about complex climbing mechanisms? I know that was discussed as a concern at the beginning of the season.
Still stinks though, especially for cool ideas like some that have been spoiled now. Very sorry indeed, folks. ![]() |
|
#59
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Yes.
2002: Rules and rulings associated devices that look like motorized tape measures were reinterpreted at the events. (Affected parts usage and entanglement.) 2003: Rules for reacting against field elements were changed in March, after the build season. (Ruined 68's strategy.) 2011: A rule against strategically blockading the field was inserted in week 5. 2012: Changed the definition of bridges in week 6. (Ruined 3928's strategy.) Edit: For clarity, week numbers identified above were during the build season. Last edited by Tristan Lall : 16-01-2013 at 00:45. Reason: Clarification. |
|
#60
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Quote:
![]() |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|