Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz

[AquaMorph]

I feel like inspiration and building a better robot should not be placed above learning to solve a design challenge. From personal experience I learn more if I figure out solutions on my own rather than copying an answer. I understand that teams don't have to copy or even look at Ri3D but from talking to people on several teams I have discovered that their motivation to try and come up with original solutions has been dampened. I know of one team in particular that is planing to build one of the Ri3D robots part for part. Will that team learn as much as they would have if they had to create a robot without Ri3D?

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by AquaMorph

I know of one team in particular that is planing to build one of the Ri3D robots part for part.

I fail to see how that would at all even kind of be the fault of the Ri3D/BuildBlitz teams.

[AquaMorph]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I fail to see how that would at all even kind of be the fault of the Ri3D/BuildBlitz teams.

Because this year they released CAD models. I feel like the discussion has gone a bit off topic. If your go back to the original post it asks for ideas to improve some of the problems Ri3D creates. I feel like sugarcoating the problems and not trying to find solutions to them is foolish. Looking at the robots for ideas and proof of concept is great but having the CAD files and being able to assemble the robot like it is a kit is too far in my opinion.

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by AquaMorph

Because this year they released CAD models. I feel like the discussion has gone a bit off topic. If your go back to the original post it asks for ideas to improve some of the problems Ri3D creates. I feel like sugarcoating the problems and not trying to find solutions to them is foolish. Looking at the robots for ideas and proof of concept is great but having the CAD files and being able to assemble the robot like it is a kit is too far in my opinion.

By that logic, should teams release any CAD of their robots ever? 2011, in essence, had a basically identical task to 2007; if another tube hanging game comes up should all CAD from 2011 be released? Same thing for 2006/09/12 and even this year and 2014, with very similar tasks

The only ones being hurt by a team "directly copying part for part" Ri3D/Build Blitz is that team themselves for not testing their personal design abilities. To everyone else, CAD being released is just a cool, fun thing to look at, or to just closer view a certain mechanism.

[AquaMorph]

Originally Posted by DevenStonow

By that logic, should teams release any CAD of their robots ever? 2011, in essence, had a basically identical task to 2007; if another tube hanging game comes up should all CAD from 2011 be released? Same thing for 2006/09/12 and even this year and 2014, with very similar tasks

The only ones being hurt by a team "directly copying part for part" Ri3D/Build Blitz is that team themselves for not testing their personal design abilities. To everyone else, CAD being released is just a cool, fun thing to look at, or to just closer view a certain mechanism.

Sure it is bad logic if you assume time doesn't matter. With CAD models from teams they are either too late in build season to be effectively copied or are released without any idea of how the final robot will actually perform. With CAD models from previous games the game objects are different enough that designs would have to be changed and there is still end game to think about. If the CAD files are really released just to be cool and fun as you said, is it worth harming the learning experience of other teams for your fun? Yes, it is the teams choice to copy but it is also Ri3D to allow teams to copy. I think how much copying they allow should be evaluated.

[magnets]

Well, here's one of my friends opinions he asked me to post for him.

I've been a part of FRC since 1995, which is longer than most drivers have been alive for. I'll probably be attending my 100th competition this year (or maybe only 99th). During my four years as a student, I was a member of a really competitive team that won a world championship, and has gone on to win others. When the small parts restriction was lifted, we as a team (in a very "un-GP" way), complained that we would no longer have the massive competitive advantage we used to have. While many people's memories of 90's and early 2000's robotics remember teams like 71, chief delphi, wings of fire and wildstang building extremely great fantastic swerve driven, fancy articulated drives (111 in 04 is the coolest robot, ever...), what you don't remember is that many teams were, to be honest, really quite horrible. Look at the 2003 finals that were just posted. The robots really aren't doing any stacking. They're just running into each other. All you needed was a working drive system to be competitive. Yet, as many successful teams found, most teams at that time were bad at driving in straight lines at a reasonable speed. Teams had just two (or sometimes one) driven wheel, powered by poorly set up gearboxes with as few as two window motors.

With the small parts restriction gone, we knew that we wouldn't have an advantage of being able to CNC our own nylon sprockets, and that other teams would (gasp!) be able to have as many moving parts as us. Looking a few years in the future, there were still teams that were just better (HOT suddenly became very competitive). Next was the kitbot, which people claimed would make custom drive systems useless. Team 118 still managed to do great with their swerve they ran from 05-08. Then, out came the new control system, off the shelf shifting gearboxes, off the shelf robonauts swerve, off the shelf 111 swerve, and the affordable vex product line. There are still teams now (1114, 254, 118...) that manage to stay super competitive, except now, a new rookie team might not be easily able to win regionals single handedly, but they'll at least be able to play well, and trust me, that really means a lot.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that significantly better teams will always exist, and the playing field (yes even in 09) was never, and will never be totally level, so why should we complain if the previously uncompetitive teams are now competitive?

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by AquaMorph

Sure it is bad logic if you assume time doesn't matter. With CAD models from teams they are either too late in build season to be effectively copied or are released without any idea of how the final robot will actually perform. With CAD models from previous games the game objects are different enough that designs would have to be changed and there is still end game to think about. If the CAD files are really released just to be cool and fun as you said, is it worth harming the learning experience of other teams for your fun? Yes, it is the teams choice to copy but it is also Ri3D to allow teams to copy. I think how much copying they allow should be evaluated.

Why is it okay to rob teams of the experience of designing and manufacturing custom gearboxes for all of their rotary needs? Why can we copy (or worse, purchase!) gearboxes from Andymark and Vex without harming our learning experiences?

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, George hit the nail on the head. There have been the same arguments repeated for the past 10 years, but I think most people will agree that FIRST is better with the current architecture than it was back then.

Originally Posted by George1902

It was the same argument that was presented when the kit bot was introduced. It was the same argument when teams first started collaborating to build identical robots. It was the same argument when FIRST lifted the "must be bought from Small Parts" restriction or when they allowed COTS items. It's been the same argument over and over and over.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by AquaMorph

I feel like inspiration and building a better robot should not be placed above learning to solve a design challenge.

Funny enough, "Inspiration" is in FIRST and "Design Challenge" isn't.

You are free to run your team how you choose, just as the copycat team is free to run theirs. Your team has every right to decide to not use Ri3D designs. You have exactly no right to tell any other team to do the same.

What happens in their house is their business (presuming it's legal).

[Carl C]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

Funny enough, "Inspiration" is in FIRST and "Design Challenge" isn't.

Neither is business, marketing, outreach, and a plethora of other things that FIRST teams do, but would you say those things are less important things for a team to do than science and technology just because it isn't in the acronym?

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by Carl C

Neither is business, marketing, outreach, and a plethora of other things that FIRST teams do, but would you say those things are less important things for a team to do than science and technology just because it isn't in the acronym?

"Inspiration" is a goal-- business, marketing, outreach are how we get there. They are different classes of activity. You inspire by doing outreach. I don't inspire so I can do outreach.

Solving a design challenge is part of inspiring, but it is by no means central. It shares the pedestal with outreach and business and the other "activities" of a FIRST team.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Carl C

Neither is business, marketing, outreach, and a plethora of other things that FIRST teams do, but would you say those things are less important things for a team to do than science and technology just because it isn't in the acronym?

Yes.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by AquaMorph

Looking at the robots for ideas and proof of concept is great but having the CAD files and being able to assemble the robot like it is a kit is too far in my opinion.

But if every team who otherwise wouldn't have been competitive now have identical Ri3D clones (and they won't--many teams who seek to ape those designs, even with the CAD right in front of them, won't pull it off), then that's the new baseline, and the teams that don't do that will still be that much better, and will still rise to the top.

I'll admit, our robot looks rather Ri3Dish. That's coincidence, but it won't stop people from making the comparison (regardless of whether or not we do well at competition). I also admit that we used the Ri3D CAD to inform our prototyping--but we didn't just build their catapult, we used it as a starting point from which to iterate (while we also worked on a variety of other designs).

Teams that post everything they do online aren't robbing teams of creativity unless those teams choose to rob themselves of creativity; and every single team that uses those ideas (and even possibly that CAD) to rise up from the BLTs to be competitive is a win all day and all season long--because the next year, they'll be looking to go further still.

[Carl C]

Originally Posted by Karthik

Yes.

Then, if that is the case, would demonstrating gracious professionalism be less important than having a good robot? This is one of the plethora of other things that teams do that are not in the FIRST acronym.

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by Carl C

Then, if that is the case, would demonstrating gracious professionalism be less important than having a good robot? This is one of the plethora of other things that teams do that are not in the FIRST acronym.

What part of taking concepts/designs publicly released for the education and inspiration in FRC violates GP principles?

[Carl C]

Originally Posted by DevenStonow

What part of taking concepts/designs publicly released for the education and inspiration in FRC violates GP principles?

I never said or even implied that these things violated GP principles. I simply stated that not all things should be discounted as less important simply because they are not included in the FIRST acronym and used GP as an example.