Are the three day builds affecting designs?

[MrForbes]

I don't know. We mostly ignored the 3 day builds.

[pfreivald]

I love the notion that every team that otherwise struggles has a leg-up on creating something that can contribute positively to the game. Having had years where we could do nothing but play defense, I can state without equivocation that it is more inspiring to have a robot that can truly play the game--for kids, mentors, sponsors, guests, everyone.

But we're also going to see a lot of Ri3D-clone robots *fail* during competition, because they were flawed in implementation/modification. Cloning Ri3D robots is easy for engineers--it's a non-trivial exercise for your average group of high school students and non-engineer mentors.

Furthermore, the Ri3D robots are limited. The motor-driven catapults have a comparatively short range, the choo-choo allows for only a single shot, and el toro intakes don't spit the ball out well. Unless modified in less-than-obvious-to-those-non-engineer ways, these mechanisms will not make a robot stand out when playing Aerial Assist.

I'm looking forward to a higher floor and the usual incredibly high ceiling this year.

[Uriah]

By the time anyone from our team watched the videos we were already deep into our design, so it didn't affect us that much. That being said, we eneded up having some of the same aspects of design.

Personally I like the entertainment since I know how hard it is, but I'd rather have our students come up with a design by themselves. To me it deepens the expirience.

[GDG 2337]

Maybe someday we’ll learn how to stop sippin on dat Haterate and ask where the ideas shown in Ri3D reveal videos came from. It may be like the old TV show Connections, where James Burke demonstrated how various discoveries, scientific achievements, and historical world events were built from one another successively in an interconnected way to bring about particular aspects of modern technology.

[Lil' Lavery]

So far, I've actually been a little surprised at the amount of robot variety I've seen so far. Maybe it will be different once I'm at an event, but I think more teams were willing to break away from Ri3D-style mechanisms than last year. Granted, last year's challenge was limiting in terms of what mechanisms would be effective, but we didn't see the strategic or design variety I was hoping for. This year has been better, in my estimation.

However, I still stand by my belief that Ri3D/Build Blitz could better serve the FRC community if they delay their builds and/or releases until at least mid-way through week one of the build season. It would allow for more open-ended brainstorming, prototyping, and strategy discussion, without the heavily credentialed influence of these projects. Strategically, the designs arrived at by most of the builds were very similar. There was a ton of influence put on shooting into the high goal and ground loading, without much placed on catching, easily catchable truss shots, passing, human loading, the one point goal, defense, or goaltending. Only O-Ryon really differed in this respect, and they're one of the least emulated teams. Unsurprisingly, a vast majority of robots seem to have these same focuses. And many of the varied designs I've seen come from the teams who arrived at different strategy conclusions and then stuck to their guns. I don't think a three of four day delay before the start of these projects would significantly comprimise the postive impacts they have, but it could help mitigate what I view as negative ones.

I do give credit to the teams for better documentation of their strategy, game analysis, and design process than the first year. Especially to the Build Blitz teams with their blog updates. Regardless of what happens with these projects, I'd love to see more in the way of this. Plenty of teams are working during these projects and can't follow live, so the more of these processes that can be archived and presented to teams, the better. Hopefully these teams can show more than just the results, but the rationale, iteration, and debate that helped them arrive at their conclusions (both strategically and mechanically).

Originally Posted by Max Boord

Ri3D also helps with concept development. To quickly see that a pneumatic puncher does not work allowed us to totally throw out that concept on day 1. The same is true with spatula pickup and slingshots.

You might want to tell that to 2530.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Strategically, the designs arrived at by most of the builds were very similar. There was a ton of influence put on shooting into the high goal and ground loading, without much placed on catching, easily catchable truss shots, passing, human loading, the one point goal, defense, or goaltending. Only O-Ryon really differed in this respect, and they're one of the least emulated teams. Unsurprisingly, a vast majority of robots seem to have these same focuses. And many of the varied designs I've seen come from the teams who arrived at different strategy conclusions and then stuck to their guns.

That might be because several of the people involved in 72-hour builds this year are people I've long considered to be some of the best FRC strategizers. Karthik may not be that inclined when it comes to operating the machinery, but when it comes to picking apart an FRC game to develop the optimal strategy, I can think of only a few people with a similar talent level.

My assumption is simple: They all arrived at similar strategies, because the strategies they arrived at are all reasonably close to the optimum strategy (caveat: at least for a team with limited design/build/test time).

To play Aerial Assist effectively, a team must have a simple, reliable, robust, effective drivetrain. If you can't move, you can't generate ASSISTs.

Next thing you need is to be able to acquire and pass a ball with low-kinetic energy efficiently. With this automatically comes the ability to score low goals, but the primary reason this is the next priority is the ability to minimize the time it takes for you to generate an ASSIST.

Once they can do that, the next logical place to go to earn points is to shoot HIGH GOALs, which automatically comes with the ability to shoot over the TRUSS.

After that, you can worry about CATCHing, and detuning a HIGH GOAL shot to make it easier to CATCH when thrown over the TRUSS instead of into the GOAL.

It should come as no surprise that each of the 72 hour teams prioritized the things an Aerial Assist robot can do in more or less that order.

Back to the original topic? I think 72 hour builds are affecting the landscape, but I think the effect is mostly positive, and it doesn't really stifle design variety THAT much. The best teams will look at the 72 hour builds as a quick benchmark for the kind of robot they need to be able to beat, and weak teams get a working design they can emulate until they gain enough resources to be able to beat it by making their own design from scratch.

[Samwaldo]

I personally viewed all robot in 3 day groups as what the "worst" robots will be! They all released alot of info about there mechanisms, so it would be easy to copy them for most rookies and teams. It was OUR job to be better than the 5 robot in 3 days. We have 1 or 2 similiar mechanisms. We knew many pickups would be the same so we built ALOT of horizontal pickups in order to perfect it. Our baseline that we knew we had to better than was the 5 robot in 3 days

[Lil' Lavery]

@Racer26

Several of the assumptions you make in your post, which parallel some of the decisions made by the Ri3D/BB teams, are not entirely true. While there are a certain degree of truth to them, to see what these builds did and use them as supporting logic for those assumptions is risky.

For instance, "acquire and pass" are not the same thing, nor does either equate directly to being able to score in the one point goal. There are plenty of robots with ground acquisition systems that stow the ball in such a way it is not trivial to pass using the same mechanism. Most of the Ri3D/Build Blitz teams are examples of this, as their eventual storage/launching mechanisms do not permit a clean release of the ball back to the intake mechanism. One can make similar arguments about several of your other points.

More so, you're viewing the conversation backwards. You're using the finished design as evidence of the "optimal strategy," when in reality strategy should drive design. To again use Karthik as an example, look at the priority list that the Build Blitz team he participated in came up with. Team Copioli's final product doesn't really reflect that list particularly well, as its lowest prority (high goal) is more emphasized than a few of the higher priority items (catching and receiving from the human player). Beyond that, as Karthik has repeatedly pointed out during his presentations, being able to accomplish a task is not as valuable as being able to accomplish a task well. A lot of these 3 day bots ended up being closer to machines that are "5/10" at several different functions, rather than "10/10" at only a few.

I understand the value in showing methods to complete several different game functions, rather than focusing on one or two, during a quick build project. I don't even necessarily disagree with it. But don't attempt to use that to justify their strategy decisions for a team with limited resources.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

@Racer26

Several of the assumptions you make in your post, which parallel some of the decisions made by the Ri3D/BB teams, are not entirely true. While there are a certain degree of truth to them, to see what these builds did and use them as supporting logic for those assumptions is risky.

For instance, "acquire and pass" are not the same thing, nor does either equate directly to being able to score in the one point goal. There are plenty of robots with ground acquisition systems that stow the ball in such a way it is not trivial to pass using the same mechanism. Most of the Ri3D/Build Blitz teams are examples of this, as their eventual storage/launching mechanisms do not permit a clean release of the ball back to the intake mechanism. One can make similar arguments about several of your other points.

More so, you're viewing the conversation backwards. You're using the finished design as evidence of the "optimal strategy," when in reality strategy should drive design. To again use Karthik as an example, look at the priority list that the Build Blitz team he participated in came up with. Team Copioli's final product doesn't really reflect that list particularly well, as its lowest prority (high goal) is more emphasized than a few of the higher priority items (catching and receiving from the human player). Beyond that, as Karthik has repeatedly pointed out during his presentations, being able to accomplish a task is not as valuable as being able to accomplish a task well. A lot of these 3 day bots ended up being closer to machines that are "5/10" at several different functions, rather than "10/10" at only a few.

I understand the value in showing methods to complete several different game functions, rather than focusing on one or two, during a quick build project. I don't even necessarily disagree with it. But don't attempt to use that to justify their strategy decisions for a team with limited resources.

I could agree that an acquiring mechanism does not necessarily allow for passing or low goal-ing, but show me a robot that can pass, but not score in the low goal, and I'll eat my hat.

I stand by my view that acquiring and passing a BALL ought to be priority number two, behind drive, for the reasons stated (also, you can't score a ball if you can't acquire it first). Its certainly possible to build an intake that DOES allow for easy passing. I know 4343's intake does that, along with dozens of others I've now seen pictures/video of. (and referencing Karthik's Effective FIRST Strategies seminars? Multi-purpose mechanisms that are simple and effective are a Good Thing.)

I can certainly see how TeamJVN's ball positioning doesn't allow for easy passing by reversing the intake. I'm pretty sure TeamCopioli's would do low goal/pass via reversing the intake action though, despite them not showing it in the video. BoomDone's El Toro's folded in touch the ball, and should be able to push a ball back out lightly. O-RYON can reverse its wheels. Ri3D 1.0 should be able to push a ball back out of its intake.

Any robot that can pass a ball out over its bumper, ought to be able to score in the low goal. I don't know that TeamCopioli could do this, but they can probably drive up to a low goal, spew it out onto the floor between them and the goal, and shove it in. A box bot can shove a ball into the low goal just due to the bumper geometry. I'll concede that any robot might not be able to do it well, but I would guess that TeamCopioli could do a decent job of it.

I think what really happened, though, is that they discovered when they started building and prototyping, just how easy scoring high is. TeamCopioli prioritized it that low, simply because they knew that scoring in the low goal has 70% of the scoring potential and thought it was significantly easier to do.

Shooting high? There is a large sweet spot (which Aren found on TeamJVN's build, but most teams would eventually figure out that there exists an optimum shot parabola, IMO), so shot location accuracy isn't terribly important. Shot alignment isn't terribly important, owing to the goal being the whole width of the field essentially, and getting a consistent shot trajectory from your shooter seems to be a fairly easy task this year. Those three things put together make it reasonably easy to get a shot that is REALLY forgiving on where you shoot it from and what direction you aim it in, which has the added bonus of making it difficult to defend against.

I'll agree that the 72 hour bots all collectively are closer to 5/10 jacks of all trades than 10/10 one task specialists, but I suspect that's probably a good thing in terms of their effect on design diversity. If a 72 hour build showed off a 10/10 anything, it starts to give away too much of the challenge.

I also stand by my assessment that the 5 72-hour builds that were completed (along with scores of 6-week bots completed) all converge on a similar strategy in their design, because that strategy they converge on is close to being the optimal strategy. Why else would they converge to that strategy?

[nxtmonkeys]

Check out the Robonauts 118. They have a punch-launching mechanism, and it is AWESOME. One of the RI3D teams tried it and trashed it, so any working punching mech is a strike against them.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Racer26

I think what really happened, though, is that they discovered when they started building and prototyping, just how easy scoring high is. TeamCopioli prioritized it that low, simply because they knew that scoring in the low goal has 70% of the scoring potential and thought it was significantly easier to do.

Also, don't forget that they have different goals than the typical FIRST team. They didn't build robots to compete and win matches. They built robots to show teams the design process, provide examples of successful mechanisms and sell their product. I think everyone would agree that the long 10 point shot is more entertaining and flashy than a passing robot robot that just scores in the 1 point goal (just look at all the reveal videos; there is a ton more shooting than passing). Their decision to build a 10 point shooter instead of a better passing robot fit their goals.

[JohnSchneider]

Originally Posted by nxtmonkeys

Check out the Robonauts 118. They have a punch-launching mechanism, and it is AWESOME. One of the RI3D teams tried it and trashed it, so any working punching mech is a strike against them.

They scraped a number of ideas simply based on the fact that they were working under time constraints and felt they might take too long to develop all the way through, not necessarily because they weren't the best answer.

[nxtmonkeys]

Ehh...

Good point. I think that because of the RI3D's influence on many robots, there won't be too many other punchers.

[Racer26]

Several teams come to mind with working punch-launchers (118, and 488 for sure).

They're certainly an effective way to play this game, but they're not the only way.

It should have been known (by vets who were around then, anyway) that 1114's Simbot SS (which was built to play 2008's game Overdrive) was proof that a ball of this style could be launched with something of that nature.

[nxtmonkeys]

I only know about this year. I'm a rookie, but I have learned a lot. Personally, I wanted to use a punching mechanism, but the RI3D video made my team back out of that idea. It would have been awesome to use our HUGE pneumatic cylinders to send that ball flying. I'll probably try it over the summertime anyways.