Robot Idea

[Pault]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

254 would usually just dump the ball out of their rear intake into the low goal in that situation. 67 or 971 would swing their arm around the other way and score into the high goal. Generally speaking, that's a pretty specific scenario, and not worth the added resources to get out of. I'm sure these elite teams would rather focus their focus their programming, debug, and driver practice time on features that will be advantageous the other 99% of the time they're driving around the field.

True. I never said that they were worth it; in fact I imagine that if any good team did try to turret their shooter they would have been a lot less successful. All I'm saying is that if a team did manage pull one off, it would be a lot more useful this year than in 2012.

[TheMadCADer]

Why spin the whole shooter around? Why not just have two shooter wheels and two hoods opposite each other? 254 already had their shooter hood actuated, it's a common feature on that sort of design. Just make the whole robot symmetrical.

[Henrique Schmit]

Originally Posted by TheMadCADer

Why spin the whole shooter around? Why not just have two shooter wheels and two hoods opposite each other? 254 already had their shooter hood actuated, it's a common feature on that sort of design. Just make the whole robot symmetrical.

Fitting a hood, that must go down enough so it doesn't hit the ball when you're shooting through the other side, and the shooting wheel in the same side would increase the design complexity. Like the turret, the design complexity you'd add would out weight the benefits that it'd bring.

[AdamHeard]

Maybe if 254 could've shot both ways they'd have won champs

[Dr.Gusta]

Dont think I made this entirely clear but we were looking at this because it would be difficult and not easy to do. We are just coming out of our rookie year and did not have the best working bot in the world to say the least. This could be a challenging but rewarding experience for the team (I think) to help grow and develop us to make a veteran team style robot. Was not meant to be an improvement to the Cheesy Champs robot but simply a change so we don't just photocopy their robot.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Dr.Gusta

Dont think I made this entirely clear but we were looking at this because it would be difficult and not easy to do. We are just coming out of our rookie year and did not have the best working bot in the world to say the least. This could be a challenging but rewarding experience for the team (I think) to help grow and develop us to make a veteran team style robot. Was not meant to be an improvement to the Cheesy Champs robot but simply a change so we don't just photocopy their robot.

No one is offended or trying to be mean, we're all just joking in good fun. I apologize if you were offended.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Dr.Gusta

we were looking at this because it would be difficult and not easy to do. We are just coming out of our rookie year and did not have the best working bot in the world to say the least. This could be a challenging but rewarding experience for the team (I think) to help grow and develop us to make a veteran team style robot.

Something I would suggest is to make this an offseason project and bring it out to the Fall Classic, Battle at the Border, or another SoCal offseason event.

The other thing I would suggest, if you haven't done this already, would be to figure out what worked and what didn't work and why it did or didn't work this last season. (Example: Intake wasn't up to par. Why? Intake wheels kept falling off. Why? ____ What do we do about it for next year? _______ Just an example from what I saw of you guys at IE, by the way.)

One of the best things to do, when copying/iterating someone else's design, is to figure out WHY X was done in a certain way. It might bring something to light in your own process that is lacking. So... why did so few teams use a turret this year and in 2008 (particularly compared to 2006 and 2012)? Why did 254 opt to have a capability for a 3-ball automode? Why did this, why did that... you get the picture. (Some of those may be publicly available.)

[aphelps231]

Originally Posted by EricH

One of the best things to do, when copying/iterating someone else's design, is to figure out WHY X was done in a certain way. It might bring something to light in your own process that is lacking. So... why did so few teams use a turret this year and in 2008 (particularly compared to 2006 and 2012)? Why did 254 opt to have a capability for a 3-ball automode?

Take a look at succesfull robots in the 2014 season and weigh their strengths and weaknesses. Relate strengths to critical parts of the game and look at weaknesses in relation to strengths. Ask yourself, was this weakness completely inevitable? If not, how could this be improved in order to increase success in the future? Was said weakness a compromise made in order to implement a strength?

That being said, incorporate this into next year's game with prototypes on kickoff and during early build season. As mentioned below, what particular abilities might be a large psychological influence during competition? What abilities might stand out as unnecessary during qualification events, yet blend into the crowd during the World Championship event?

Another point to keep in mind regarding 254's 3-ball is the psychological impact. In the rare case that 254 wasn't doing the choosing during alliance selection, the fact that they have the ability to perform a 3-ball autonomous mode would yield a large influence towards the decision.

Similarly, a 2-ball autonomous mode was a big deal during districts and regionals, even lesser so during district championships, and quite average during the World Championship.

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by Dr.Gusta

Dont think I made this entirely clear but we were looking at this because it would be difficult and not easy to do. We are just coming out of our rookie year and did not have the best working bot in the world to say the least. This could be a challenging but rewarding experience for the team (I think) to help grow and develop us to make a veteran team style robot. Was not meant to be an improvement to the Cheesy Champs robot but simply a change so we don't just photocopy their robot.

The reason I made my original comment about turrets was to pose the question, "Why didn't 254 build a turret?", or more broadly, "Why did 254 build the robot they did?". IMO, understanding the answer to that question is just as, if not more valuable than the lessons learned from taking their robot and reengineering it with some added complexity (though there are valuable lessons in the latter as well).

As a mentor for a rookie team in a similar situation, what we're doing is running through a full build season without the six week time limit using a past FRC game. This way, we're not only tackling the design and manufacturing part of build season, but the game analysis portion as well.

EDIT: EricH beat me to essentially the same point.