|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#151
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Mythical Six Week Build Season
Quote:
Using the business analogy, those that would wait until the 44th day to finish and then throw their first prototype out the door wouldn't be businesses for very long. Who said you had to use the entire build season producing one prototype that you throw out the door? Iterate during the 44 days. During those 44 days use simulations, and other methods to predict and test performance. Use those 44 days be an engineer, or a whatever. That is more than enough time to take care of that part of the inspiration process. OK - Now for the post-build-season part of the discussion. At the competitions, I recommend spending as much of your time as you can, focusing outward, rather than inward. There is an excellent pay-off. Yes, businesses, computer scientists, cooks, engineers, farmers, etc. all improve their products when they have a chance. With that in mind, if FIRST was focused on being a competition, instead of on *using* a competition, I would be making a strong case for placing maximum emphasis on the competing (the scramble to claim a banner). But it's not and I'm not. Other people have different opinions. In my way of looking at things, there is nothing at all (well, very little *) wrong with telling teams that they will be given a challenge, that they will be given 44 days to create a solution to that challenge, and that when they go to the competitions they will be able to see how their solutions measure up against what the other teams bring. Is it necessary to make it possible for teams involved in FRC to do everything they possibly can (outside of or inside of the 44-day window) to win a banner??? The answer is, "no." The universe does not require it. Instead it's a choice FIRST can take, or not. Is it useful to allow for teams involved in FRC to do some iterating after 44-day window? The answer is, "maybe." There are strong arguments in favor of it, but there are also strong arguments that anything more than the the bare minimum puts the program on a slippery slope that can lead to plenty of unnecessary problems that can poison the well. Again, that's a choice FIRST can take, or not. FIRST can say when you should put your pencil down. FIRST can say that once the pencils go down, the solutions get graded. FIRST can say that further iteration occurs in between then and the next season. FIRST doesn't have to operate that way; and they sort-of do, sort-of don't, operate that way at the moment, but they could operate that way if they cared to. If I understand things correctly (I might not), some people I respect began the program wanting teams to spend 44 days producing their solutions, and to then test those solutions during a few high-excitement competitions. Reading between the lines, I think that those founders wanted the teams to invest time outside those 44 days in fruitful pursuits other than full-tilt (or even half-tilt) revamping, completing, etc. of their solutions. I like that model. I think it is wise. Does that clear up my point of view for you? Mine isn't the only viable point-of-view, but I like it, and I think it's a very useful one. Blake * If a team shows up at a competition unable to play, sure help them put something useful onto the field (and make a note about helping them before the competition next year). That is an entirely different kettle of fish than using the withholding allowance to lug in wholesale replacement mechanisms or extensive modifications. Last edited by gblake : 20-11-2015 at 21:59. |
|
#152
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Mythical Six Week Build Season
Quote:
At the core - I ask merely for honesty. I suspect the greatest fear is if you tell perspective schools what this really is like: they will run from it because this is no simple quick commitment or fast win. This is basically 2 years before you become an 'overnight success'. That is the reality and clearly we prefer to put lipstick on it. Added - Think about this. Today the computer on your desk is more than powerful enough to send a man to the moon. More than powerful enough to figure out the parameters of nuclear power. You have Internet so fast that only a nation state could dream of it 30 years ago. Yet our business have delivered Twitter, Facebook and first person shooters. Even today I find myself counseling students that: with a cheap Internet connection, a cheap computer from Walmart and a cheap All-In-One printer they have something that would takes years of work to gather 20 years ago. Yet people still can not find work with the barrier that low. Yes there is a problem with what we call the high bar. Last edited by techhelpbb : 20-11-2015 at 20:30. |
|
#153
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Mythical Six Week Build Season
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#154
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Mythical Six Week Build Season
Quote:
|
|
#155
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Mythical Six Week Build Season
I once read a postulation about procrastination, that it happens due to the psychology behind perceived energy it takes for a person to think through and do something. As someone becomes more adept at something, procrastination is much less likely since the perceived energy is much less lower. Examples are chopping veggies or getting a technical person to write a paragraph for a FRC award. That concept - energy to think through something - is something I face daily as a software engineer. Some days I only do 8 hours (compared to my wife's 10+) but I am mentally exhausted after those 8 if I've been working on brand new concepts.
I think that burnout is much less of an issue as the veteran status of teams becomes more prevalent. As we get better at competition and better at training 'the next generation', the energy we spend coming up with new concepts is far less than it used to be. As designs for things like gearboxes and drive trains converge, we focus the creative energy on the game challenges rather than finagling the fundamentals. So I think FRC's culture is more aligned with removal of the stop-bag day than it ever has been before. However, I think we'd need a formal poll sent to all teams. On the plus side, there wouldn't be so much conflict over who to spend Valentine's Day with. I'm sure that applies to other situations that are inevitable for individuals in the first 3 months of the year. |
|
#156
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Mythical Six Week Build Season
Quote:
This survey fostered the idea as I was surprised that a couple of really good teams actually stopped build practice bots because they typically had access to 3 districts (and 3 x 6 hrs. un-bag) plus a district championship to gain experience. I am not sure that they were top 1% teams, but they were within that top 4%. 6 hrs. of unbag split into 3 x 2 hr. sessions is a decent amount of access for practice, test, and tune. I know a lot of really great teams spend way more than that, but it truly is a nice chunk of time for a team. If teams had similar chunks each week, they could do some pretty impressive stuff. ********************************************** I really pushed for this as I think FIRST misses out on the inspiration of product development/improvement. Watching the documentary on Slingshot, and all the iterations they went through, I was reminded of how little refinement we get to do. |
|
#157
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Mythical Six Week Build Season
Quote:
|
|
#158
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Mythical Six Week Build Season
Quote:
We will usually have several 'test bucks' for software or specific mechanism design, but a vast majority of our practice is done on the competition robot before ship, during unbag windows and through practice matches at competitions. We really emphasize being ready to go out of the bag so we can cycle the practice field many times and tune and tweak. Would I prefer to have a practice bot? Yes definitely. However, it does take a considerable amount of effort for our team as we do all of our own fabrication. It's been working for us thus far, and we're continuing to refine our process! -Brando |
|
#159
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Mythical Six Week Build Season
Quote:
Yes 125 answered back in 2012 with a Practice bot that was 40% representative. I don't have my field notes to know what that meant for that team for that year*, but usually that was similar drive train, or something to hook the shooter up to while tuning. I also had helpers doing some of the interviews, so it may not have been me doing that particular interview. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|