Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by marshall

LOL...

That is funny but look around at the limited number of Technic sets available in most stores these days.

I still have a 12 gallon tub of Technic pieces with pnuematics and the lot - all of it bought locally.

Lego has actually in some ways gone backwards.

[evanperryg]

Originally Posted by Foster

Can you find all the parts to build a robot at Bed Bath and Beyond? (Hint, those stand mixers have pretty heavy duty planetary transmissions).

I like the "stand on the shoulders of giants" theory. I like that teams can build on what others have done. But I agree with techhelpbb, at some point roboteers need to be able to dig down and look at what the things are built on. In the programming world TCP is the bucket we can carry data in. And while I can design and code a UDP based system that would send 35 frames a second to the driver station the question becomes "what can I do instead of that". COTS will never replace just sitting down and thinking about the problem and put forth multiple solutions.

I really, really want to take apart my stand mixer now...

Anyway, I think you've made a very good point. The purpose of COTS parts is to streamline the design process. Instead of spending loads of time making small, individual aspects of the robot work, COTS parts enable you to skip the tiny details and go directly to the "big picture," that is, the design of the robot itself, as opposed to the design of its gearboxes, wheels, extrusion, etc. However, it cannot be denied that custom fabricated systems, if made properly, can usually do the job better than an off-the-shelf solution. Why? Because something made custom for the specific purpose it is going to fill will inherently perform better than a more general system of the same construction quality. There's nothing wrong with COTS parts, but putting the time and effort into a really good custom mechanism will (almost) always be worth it.

[AndyB871]

Originally Posted by bEdhEd

Andy, I don't take your post as a bash, so please don't take mine as a bash either.

Haha, no worries, I don't. I was just a little worried that the discussion would turn into a flame war before the _real_ discussion started, so I was a bit defensive (plus I'd just finished shoveling after the snowpacolypse so...) . Reading the discussion now (and holy cow it's exploded over the last day) I'm really stoked with where this discussion is going.

I'm seeing lots and lots of great opinions, and even a sort of consensus about COTS parts.

As I Read further, I'm starting to see my viewpoint change a bit too with the way people frame the issue.

This is one of my favorite replies so far

Originally Posted by JesseK

In developing new products, I simply hope that suppliers do not encourage sacrificing resiliency in problem solving for convenience in executing a solution. Students who are taught that mindset are terrible Engineers, expecting where to be told a solution and the complaining when it doesn't "just work by pressing the button". "Business is Business" is a cop-out when it goes that far.

And I think that's the center of my worry too. Problem solving is important and you can't start problem solving by trying to design an airliner, you've got to start small. Where better to start that process than at the lowest (reasonble ) level possible?

For example, to jump into software-land. We're using Java now, and Java has a hozillion great libraries for everything under the sun, INCLUDING lots of fantastic FRC open-source projects that we could leverage. This is a LOT like COTS mech/electrical parts.

I let my students use these libraries, even if (and when) they do find them on their own, but under one condition. I get them to understand the concepts and reasons WHY that library existed.

NAVx MXP is a great example; No one is going to expect every student to understand sensor fusion, and kalman filtering, on top of a robust I/O protocol. That's Crazytown. I'm sure some particularly bright students might be able to get it. I don't expect them to reverse-engineer anything, but I do help them understand what a Filter is, and why it's important.

A yearly project for new students is to build a simple complementary filter that eats gyro data & a single magnetometer and produce a smoothed heading. This is a simple (mathematically too) project that helps them understand just what's happening under the hood. Once that project is done, the concepts are understood, I give the go-ahead and they pull in the NAVX libraries and navigate away! No re-designing the wheel, the guys at kauailabs did a fantastic job, better than we can expect to in 6 weeks, so by all means lets leverage that.

That is how I feel about larger COTS Parts. If you use them, that's great, just make sure the backup knowledge is there, the why, the question to the answer.

Thanks again guys for the fun discussion

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Software is getting to the point where not much needs to be done to get it to work. GRIP is a fantastic example of that this year. It takes most of the effort in getting vision code down to a bare minimum. That being said, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. For many other non FRC projects, vision has always been a hassle. Whether it's getting libraries to be recognized correctly, installing OpenCV, or cluttering code, it's never been quite as straightforward as I would have liked. With GRIP though, I don't think I will ever have to worry about that again. Although it only supports exports to FRC network tables, it seems like it shouldn't be too difficult to modify the export so that it can be used in non FRC projects. Does it take a lot of the work out of getting vision code? Absolutely! Would I ever go back or tell students to go back to hard coding it for the sake of doing it manually? Probably not. Especially since it makes it easier to transition into more advanced concepts. As new platforms make things easier to code, new things will likely emerge to take it's place.

[Dalas]

http://www.wcproducts.net/mcc2016/

I wasn't going to comment on this thread, but this is just going way too far.

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by Dalas

http://www.wcproducts.net/mcc2016/

I wasn't going to comment on this thread, but this is just going way too far.

How is it different from a robot in 3 days?

All of the parts are COTS parts, save for a few custom gussets.

[Peyton Yeung]

Originally Posted by Dalas

http://www.wcproducts.net/mcc2016/

I wasn't going to comment on this thread, but this is just going way too far.

What? A bunch of COTS parts not directly designed for any game specific tasks built to play the game? I don't see what's wrong here. They aren't selling a robot in a box. They aren't even selling a climber or manipulator in a box. It's just raw products that can be modified to be useful.

[George Nishimura]

Originally Posted by Anupam Goli

How is it different from a robot in 3 days?

All of the parts are COTS parts, save for a few custom gussets.

One of the Ri3D "rules" was to not release CAD drawings full CAD models.

According to that site:

*We will be updating this page, more info will be going up this weekend* *Kits will be available for purchase, please email support@wcproducts.net for more info*

I would regard their intent as completely different to Ri3D (even the AndyMark team, who use a lot of AM products).

That's not a criticism of WCP or this product, but I think it would be unfair to the Ri3D teams to group the two together. This is clearly one step beyond what they do, and what the KOP does.

EDITED: Apparently totally wrong, struck through comment

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by George Nishimura

One of the Ri3D "rules" was to not release CAD drawings.

Not even close to true. Actually, thank you for reminding me to post the 'Snow Problem CAD model. You can find that here (or in my signature).

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by George Nishimura

One of the Ri3D "rules" was to not release CAD drawings.

According to that site:



I would regard their intent as completely different to Ri3D (even the AndyMark team, who use a lot of AM products).

That's not a criticism of WCP or this product, but I think it would be unfair to the Ri3D teams to group the two together. This is clearly one step beyond what they do, and what the KOP does.

Ri3d teams are encouraged to release CAD what are you even saying.

[George Nishimura]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

Ri3d teams are encouraged to release CAD what are you even saying.

Apologies - I'll retract amend the statement. I swear I heard that referenced in one of the videos - I must have misheard.

EDIT: Found it. So what I heard was "full CAD model". Video

The only real rule we have is that we don't want any of the teams to release full CAD models. We don't want to give any team a blueprint - or what they think is a blueprint - to build a FIRST robot

[Joe Johnson]

A lot of good discussion here. Thanks to everyone for being so respectful and for not getting devolving into name calling. I respect that in the Chief Delphi crowd. Thanks.

As to my views, listen, I design gearboxes for a living and I am SO GLAD to be out of the gearbox biz for FIRST. Having so many great gearboxes that we can just order lets the team focus on implementing their ideas rather than the details of involutes, center distances, ...

It is not just in the mechanical world that things are getting easier and better.

Coding:
What about compilers? Why should we steal the experience of writing in assembly from our kids?

Electronics:
What about MEMS sensors? Why back in my day, we didn't have none of these new fangled gyros telling us what our angular rate was, no sir e bob. We had to LOOK at our robots and tell THEM what direction they were headed.

Coding (again):
PID loops implemented in WPI libraries? What? and steal the experience of writing an anti-wind up integral term from the coding team? Are you nuts?

Design:
What about CAD? Why are we taking away the experience of hand drawing section views to discover interferences?

Electronics (again):
Beaglebones? Raspberry Pis? Teenseys? Arduinos? Bla! Why teams should layout their own 6808 boards. Puts hair on your chest!

The tools get easier and better in every field. These enable better and better solutions. For everyone. The top teams, the bottom teams, and the middle teams.

I think it is more inspirational. Period.

So, I'm all for them.

Dr. Joe J.

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by George Nishimura

Apologies - I'll retract the statement. I swear I heard that referenced in one of the videos - I must have misheard.

Only Team Indiana doesn't release their CAD files.

2 years ago, Vex had Built Blitz, which had teams of some of the most brilliant minds in FIRST designing and building robots in 3 days for the 2014 game. There was a thread raising a stink about it here. The topic isn't new, but the MCC isn't as competitive as the Team JVN robot was in 2014(No offense to RC or any of the WCP team that worked on the MCC bot ). I don't understand why people will continue to say that ideas like WCP's MCC bot and Ri3D are going "too far". Being able to see cool ideas work early in the season is great for drawing inspiration from and building on top of. Sometimes we need to give our kids an idea of what's been done before so they can think beyond and better.

[George Nishimura]

Originally Posted by Anupam Goli

Only Team Indiana doesn't release their CAD files.

2 years ago, Vex had Built Blitz, which had teams of some of the most brilliant minds in FIRST designing and building robots in 3 days for the 2014 game. There was a thread raising a stink about it here. The topic isn't new, but the MCC isn't as competitive as the Team JVN robot was in 2014(No offense to RC or any of the WCP team that worked on the MCC bot ). I don't understand why people will continue to say that ideas like WCP's MCC bot and Ri3D are going "too far". Being able to see cool ideas work early in the season is great for drawing inspiration from and building on top of. Sometimes we need to give our kids an idea of what's been done before so they can think beyond and better.

The Ri3D teams can each obviously choose their own rules, but I've amended my comment to refer to what I heard:

Originally Posted by George Nishimura

EDIT: Found it. So what I heard was "full CAD model". Video

For reference, I'm not saying WCP nor Ri3D are going "too far". I perceived that there was a difference in intent between WCP and Ri3D:

• Ri3D - to inspire prototyping, designing, strategizing
• WCP - to provide a (base) off-the-shelf robot solution

That may be my misinterpretation, but again, I don't personally see anything wrong with either intent.

EDIT: according to WCP, the MCC is more like Ri3D, intended to show how to effectively use their products.

[orangemoore]

Originally Posted by George Nishimura

The Ri3D teams can each obviously choose their own rules, but I've amended my comment to refer to what I heard:



For reference, I'm not saying WCP nor Ri3D are going "too far". I perceived that there was a difference in intent between WCP and Ri3D:

• Ri3D - to inspire prototyping, designing, strategizing
• WCP - to provide a (base) off-the-shelf robot solution

That may be my misinterpretation, but again, I don't personally see anything wrong with either intent.

I think this string of posts may clear up the issue of the "kits". While the MCC robot is designed with mostly COTS parts I think it is to show what is possible, and not just to create a robot that you will see copies of on the FRC playing field

Originally Posted by R.C.

Sorry need to put more info, most if not all of the robot is COTS components sold through VEXpro or WCP. There are a few pieces we had to custom make and have had customers ask us if we'd have those parts available. We are hoping to make specific parts available that teams can't easily produce.

Originally Posted by Ty Tremblay

Whew. Glad to hear that this didn't mean WCP would be selling a bot-in-a-box.

Originally Posted by R.C.

Ty,

Yeah we don't want to sell pre boxed g2g solutions. We've been getting a ton of customer calls and emails about how to integrate the PTO and how to do various other tasks in this game. We thought it would help teams if we were able to put something together.