How Far Can Your Robot Shoot?

[Jibri Wright]

Originally Posted by Ginger Power

This poll turned out to be very interesting! There is a very well defined bell curve centered around 11-20 feet. There is an outlier at 50+ feet. I wonder if there is a strategic reason for this or if it is just a coincidence. Can those who can shoot 50+ feet speak to why they wanted to throw the ball that far? Also can those who can't shoot at all speak to why they chose not to shoot? ( I'm assuming it was to focus on being a great assister)

We have a linear shooter this year and in prototyping, we didn't know how strong it would be, so we made it as powerful as possible. Turned out it was too powerful We have however 'nerfed' it. As stated before, we don't need to be that powerful.

[dellagd]

Yeah, with the essentially "no full-court shooting" rule, there's not much reason to shoot that far.

Also, I think its a nice indicator about how the GDC felt about full-court shooting last year

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by dellagd

...
Also, I think its a nice indicator about how the GDC felt about full-court shooting last year

I don't think this is a sound argument.

Does the lack of safe zones this year indicate how the GDC felt about safe zones?
Does the lack of an end game this year indicate how the GDC felt about the end game last year?
Does the lack of frisbees this year indicate how the GDC felt about frisbees?

How can you say that this rule, for this game, for this year, tells you anything about how the GDC felt about last year. Other rules have been made because of specific games/robots that do give us insight into the mind of the GDC. For example, there were quite a few robots that intentionally flipped other robots in 2003, and since 2004, there has been a rule prohibiting this behavior. The difference here is that flipping robots does not inspire anybody, so it was nixed because it was not helping FIRST's mission. Successful full-court shooting was (at least for me) one of the most inspiring things about last year's game, so I would be both surprised and disappointed if the GDC eliminated that from every future game.

Each game is unique, each game has its own game flow. The GDC wants this game to encourage assisting your teammates. Full court shooting does not fit with that game flow, so it is not allowed for this game.

I'd be willing to bet that we haven't seen the last of full court shooting.

[dellagd]

Originally Posted by inkling16

I don't think this is a sound argument.

Does the lack of safe zones this year indicate how the GDC felt about safe zones?
Does the lack of an end game this year indicate how the GDC felt about the end game last year?
Does the lack of frisbees this year indicate how the GDC felt about frisbees?

How can you say that this rule, for this game, for this year, tells you anything about how the GDC felt about last year. Other rules have been made because of specific games/robots that do give us insight into the mind of the GDC. For example, there were quite a few robots that intentionally flipped other robots in 2003, and since 2004, there has been a rule prohibiting this behavior. The difference here is that flipping robots does not inspire anybody, so it was nixed because it was not helping FIRST's mission. Successful full-court shooting was (at least for me) one of the most inspiring things about last year's game, so I would be both surprised and disappointed if the GDC eliminated that from every future game.

Each game is unique, each game has its own game flow. The GDC wants this game to encourage assisting your teammates. Full court shooting does not fit with that game flow, so it is not allowed for this game.

I'd be willing to bet that we haven't seen the last of full court shooting.

Woah, I wasn't even that serious! Thats why I lowered the font size and put the smiley face after it.

I was simply saying that by moving to a game that is so cooperatively focused, which I really do think is something that FIRST is big on, that the whole idea of holeing up at the other end of the field to shoot full-court might not have been something that the GDC wanted in their games. I personally think its much more exciting to have robots actually driving during their main strategy of the match as well, but thats just me. Does that mean they never-ever want to see it again? Maybe, how should I know?

[Caleb Sykes]

I apologize, it seems that I somewhat misunderstood your intent. My posts often get very long and drawn out since I don't like flippant answers. The lengths of my posts do not necessarily correlate to how passionate I am about something. I am not righteously upset about your choice of words, I was just trying to correct faulty logic, and felt that I needed that much space to do so.

[Bryce Paputa]

Originally Posted by inkling16

Full court shooting does not fit with that game flow, so it is not allowed for this game.

Not to mention that a full court shot would require an absurd amount of energy, For a simple 1 ft linear punch with linear springs, it would require at least 1250lbs of force to pull back. I doubt the GDC wants to see that.

[mrnoble]

Originally Posted by Bryce Paputa

Not to mention that a full court shot would require an absurd amount of energy, For a simple 1 ft linear punch with linear springs, it would require at least 1250lbs of force to pull back. I doubt the GDC wants to see that.

There are lots of other ways to get a full court shot. We nearly had one by accident in our early testing, but dialed it way down; not for safety, but because it's not necessary or even desirable this year. Personally, though I can't say this with certainty, I feel that the close shot (5 ft) is probably going to be the most useful.

[Bryce Paputa]

Originally Posted by mrnoble

There are lots of other ways to get a full court shot.

Of course there are, however I don't think the GDC would want anyone to attempt to use stored energy to do it. Of course at least 1 out of 2800 teams would attempt to do it if given the opportunity.

[mrnoble]

Originally Posted by Bryce Paputa

Of course there are, however I don't think the GDC would want anyone to attempt to use stored energy to do it. Of course at least 1 out of 2800 teams would attempt to do it if given the opportunity.

Agreed, on both points. Wow, that would be something, to see that brought to competition, wouldn't it? Not that it would ever be fired; just the reaction from the inspectors would be interesting to watch.

[dellagd]

Originally Posted by mrnoble

Agreed, on both points. Wow, that would be something, to see that brought to competition, wouldn't it? Not that it would ever be fired; just the reaction from the inspectors would be interesting to watch.

Could an inspector fail you for sheer "this is way do potentially dangerous to be loaded"? Because, theoretically, pulling back over a thousand pounds of force on surgical tubing is not out of the realm of possibility for FRC teams.

[loyal]

If it has a strong potential to be dangerous I would think it would be the inspectors responsibility to fail it.

[Ginger Power]

Originally Posted by Jibri Wright

We have a linear shooter this year and in prototyping, we didn't know how strong it would be, so we made it as powerful as possible. Turned out it was too powerful We have however 'nerfed' it. As stated before, we don't need to be that powerful.

I kind of figured most of the teams that can shoot 50+ feet were in a similar situation as you guys. Thanks for replying!

[Bryce Paputa]

If you ignore air resistance, the half court shot we designed for would land further than 50 feet away.