The Not So-Secret Secret End-Game

[tag_groff]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

And 4 mini-cims.

The motor budget this year is freaking opulent.

Any bets on seeing someone do a 6-cim, 2-minicim drive? Better start work on those 4-motor custom gearboxes.

we have a 4CIM 4Mini-CIM Drive.

[GearsOfFury]

Originally Posted by dcarr

It's curious. Occam's razor says it's probably for durability, appearance, and possible re-use in future fields.

Thought of buying the real stuff to do double duty as pit trussing but at that price, it's not worth it. Smaller trussing is more space and cost efficient.

My opinion on truss strength / durability and people feeling it's unnecessary: I think people are overlooking the fact that there will be 3 pound balls shot at the truss at high velocity, multiple times per game. The GDC is probably just trying to insure the thing doesn't break or fall over when all those shots fail to clear the truss. A rope or simple bar wouldn't do it. Plus as some have pointed out it looks like standard lighting rigging that they have plenty of experience with and access to.

[Johnnybukkel]

Originally Posted by GearsOfFury

My opinion on truss strength / durability and people feeling it's unnecessary: I think people are overlooking the fact that there will be 3 pound balls shot at the truss at high velocity, multiple times per game. The GDC is probably just trying to insure the thing doesn't break or fall over when all those shots fail to clear the truss. A rope or simple bar wouldn't do it. Plus as some have pointed out it looks like standard lighting rigging that they have plenty of experience with and access to.

Oh... There's a small possibility that the truss can fall on to robots... *multiple cringes and nightmares*

[Ido_Wolf]

I hope to god this is true, that would save an otherwise terrible game IMO. Especially considering how awesome Rebound Rumble and Ultimate Ascent were. When we've seen the game for the first time I've had the same thoughts as other people around here stated before:

• The lack of an endgame is weird.
• The game is incredibly underwhelming.
• It seems really hard to explain the game to an outsider.

And the fact there's a giant truss in the middle of the arena, only used as some sort of a height border to mark scores, doesn't do any better for the 3rd bullet up here.

Personally I'd love it if FIRST and the GDC tried to emulate a real-life situation where you as an engineer are forced to replan your design because of a new restriction or requirement. Then again, if I were a student in this situation, the reaction would have probably been a little different

[magnets]

Originally Posted by runneals

I may be half brain dead, but it looks like the human player area is down near the respective alliance's goal (so they still would have to walk that 100ft to/from if they wanted to use their human player area. *See figure 2-15

It looks to me that the human who inbounds the ball can do it anywhere. They throw it in from outside the human player zone in the game animation, and the manual doesn't say they have to. The two human players in the human player zone are for decoration, or for passing to.

[AWB]

Can a robot enter the goalie zone on the side they are scoring on?
also, can parts of the robot enter the low goal?

[Dad1279]

Originally Posted by GearsOfFury

My opinion on truss strength / durability and people feeling it's unnecessary: I think people are overlooking the fact that there will be 3 pound balls shot at the truss at high velocity, multiple times per game. The GDC is probably just trying to insure the thing doesn't break or fall over when all those shots fail to clear the truss. A rope or simple bar wouldn't do it. Plus as some have pointed out it looks like standard lighting rigging that they have plenty of experience with and access to.

And the robots that were blocking, that didn't lower the extension(s).

[crollison]

For questioning if the Truss is too expensive or over-engineered there is another thing to look at. If you are going to span the full distance of the field without sag, you have to use a truss design or a seriously heavy duty steel beam that would require machinery to set into place. An aluminum truss can be set by people and span the distance necessary without sag and provide the durability necessary for robots potentially running into it if they were oversized.

[ToddF]

Also, the cost of one truss assembly made from COTs truss sections is probably way less than two custom fabricated pyramids.

[wilsonmw04]

This thread is an awesome stress reliever. Thanks for the chuckle :-)

[Kevin Sevcik]

Also, Also, there are two options for the Team Element truss. Cheapest option is two strings strung between 2x4s. Which works fine for just making sure you clear it, but you couldn't hang a robot off it.

More expensive option is a truss-like construction of 1/2" plywood all around. Plywood for the sides of the truss and plywood strips for the "angles" of the truss. Which might, maybe, be stiff enough not to sag (much) across a field width span. But you sure aren't hanging any robots off it without turning it into splinters.

But if the GDC is willing to spring an entirely new game on us, they're probably more than willing to make teams waste $100 on wood for a useless game element.

[mrnoble]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

But if the GDC is willing to spring an entirely new game on us, they're probably more than willing to make teams waste $100 on wood for a useless game element.

Agreed.

Honestly, the angriest I've felt towards the GDC was when, in 2012, we got to competition and discovered the mechanism we'd developed for pushing down the bridge we built to spec wouldn't even budge the actual bridges, which as you certainly recall, were so significantly heavier that they were entirely different.

[cbudrecki]

my 2¢ about the truss...

these are standard lighting/rigging trusses that I'm sure FIRST has plenty of easy access to (and they really aren't that expensive). The GDC is not only responsible for creating a game, but also making it look good, and ensure that it can stand up to the rigors of competition. Sure a rope or volleyball net would have done the job but 1)it'd look really cheesy, and 2) when one of these big balls hits it, it would give, lose slack, sag, and have to be re-tensioned between each match. The trusses simply look good, and won't ever change dimensions.::

[dubiousSwain]

Originally Posted by GearsOfFury

My opinion on truss strength / durability and people feeling it's unnecessary: I think people are overlooking the fact that there will be 3 pound balls shot at the truss at high velocity, multiple times per game. The GDC is probably just trying to insure the thing doesn't break or fall over when all those shots fail to clear the truss. A rope or simple bar wouldn't do it. Plus as some have pointed out it looks like standard lighting rigging that they have plenty of experience with and access to.

A volleyball net would absorb the force of a ball perfectly fine...

[yash101]

Originally Posted by aldaeron

Based on this from 3.1.4



I believe that IF (and it is a big if) there was a change it would be between the regular season and championships. I agree with the many previous posts that disrupting the regular season is unlikely, but since the folks headed to championships should be "the best teams" they could handle changes to scoring mentioned in 3.1.4 and possibly an endgame. All they would need to do is amend R18 " At an Event, Teams may have access to a static set of FABRICATED ITEMS that shall not exceed 30 lbs to be used to repair and/or upgrade their ROBOT. ..." to add an additional 30 lbs for a <new cool endgame>


I also agree that there is a shift in the emphasis of this game which I like. Less experienced teams can contribute considerable points by assisting and super-duper-awesome teams can't score 100 points by themselves.

There is also a change in the balance between robot design and actually playing the game. Referencing 2013 - you can't make a full court shooter that can also climb to the 3rd level of the pyramid and just win by yourself. You have to drive well and interact with teams you don't know in advance (maybe they're great at passing, maybe not). I feel this more closely mirrors real engineering tasks - you know some things in advance and can design to accommodate them (i.e. making a high goal scorer) and some things you have to be flexible with (i.e. counting on scoring a 3 ASSIST CYCLE every time depends heavily on your randomly assigned alliance partners). As a real world example - say you are drilling a long tunnel - you can only scan or core a small percentage of the mountain you want to tunnel through (i bet its expensive). You design a path and feed/speed rates for what you can see, but monitor and adjust based on how the tunneler is running, what rocks actually are coming out, etc.

(Note: I am not a tunnel engineer and am making an educated guess here about how it works)

Cool thread - The conspiracy theorists of CD continue to make me chuckle.

-matto-

I strongl diagree with how you mentioned how a full-court shooter could not have a 30 point climber. If we fitted our robot with a more powerful shooter, we would have been able to do both: climb to the third rung and shoot full court. It all is based off how the team designs and prototypes the robot