|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Announcing the 2013 December Design Competition
Quote:
![]() |
|
#62
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Announcing the 2013 December Design Competition
Quote:
http://i.imgur.com/3hOVhkz.png Notice the red 2pt path is shorter than the blue 2pt path? And how the red 1pt path is shorter than the blue 1pt path? And both by a good 5ish feet. |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Announcing the 2013 December Design Competition
Quote:
|
|
#64
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Announcing the 2013 December Design Competition
Because to go under the overpass, the robot needs to be under 30 inches (29 to be safe) and the 2pt goal is 60 inches high which is not a lot of space to create something to lift the block up (and the 14 inch extension rule doesn't help). That doesn't mean that it can't be done, but I would say only the extremely competitive teams could do that successfully. The rest will just make a taller 2pt scorer robot forcing them to drive around the tank. So if the majority of teams have to go around the tank, then the blue alliance will have an advantage.
|
|
#65
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Announcing the 2013 December Design Competition
Quote:
For stacking its 3 * (6-2) = 12 because there are 4 more crates stacked over two. For the 2pt goal 2 * 6 = 12 So you have to stack higher than 6 for it to be more worth it than just dropping them in the 2pt goal. |
|
#66
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Announcing the 2013 December Design Competition
Where does the -2 come from? It says "3 * (number of crates stacked above 2). Any stack under 3 crates tall will count as 0 points." Therefore, 3 crates would count as 9 points because 3 is above 2.
|
|
#67
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Announcing the 2013 December Design Competition
Quote:
If this is the case, I would take back saying that stacking is a non-factor and amend the statement to say stacking is not the most effective way to score. |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Announcing the 2013 December Design Competition
Quote:
And I've already seen designs of teams who can successfully dump into the high tank and fit under 29 inches tall. Just gotta think outside the box (or in this case, the crate). ![]() |
|
#69
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Announcing the 2013 December Design Competition
Quote:
And besides, having a playing field which is non symmetrical is going to cause one alliance to have advantages over the other. |
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Announcing the 2013 December Design Competition
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#71
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Announcing the 2013 December Design Competition
The non symetrical playing field isn't great, but it isn't that bad. I agree the game could be better if it was symetrical.
I also agree that the shelf is a bit high. Dense game pieces + small robot sizes makes me question whether it would actually be possible to build a good shelf robot. That said, if you can't think of a method(not including shooting) to build a 36" tall robot that can dump in the high goal, you aren't thinking hard enough. We have a design to dump in the shelf while still staying under 36". |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Announcing the 2013 December Design Competition
Quote:
As for the symmetrical part, that's just how the game goes. I think the difference is negligible enough not to make a difference. Besides, as the manual always says "The best teams will always design around these small differences". |
|
#73
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Announcing the 2013 December Design Competition
To everyone saying that the non-symmetrical field is unfair or biased. Please remember this is a design competition, not an actual game that you would be building a robot to play. Whether one alliance has an unfair advantage or not doesn't matter because your designed robot will never have to be placed into one of those alliances.
|
|
#74
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Announcing the 2013 December Design Competition
Quote:
And I would go even farther to say that all designs (for the same strategy) are equal in FRC. The only difference is how well a team executes a design. A team who does a simple task very well will do much better than a team who does a complicated task not too well. So I would say that aimlessly designing robots is a useless task if you do not account for how your design accomplishes your strategy. |
|
#75
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Announcing the 2013 December Design Competition
I don't find this competition to be all about developing strategy. I think it will also help our CAD team work better together and faster.
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|