F4 - CADathon 2016

[J_B_Wood]

Hello. Just saw this and missed the deadline to sign up. Is it too late to participate?

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by doughy_goods

Hello. Just saw this and missed the deadline to sign up. Is it too late to participate?

Yes it is. Sorry. We will release the Manual and Field CAD here tonight at 11:59est so, you can still use the game as practice if you like.

[J_B_Wood]

Okay. Could you possibly still add me to the slack?

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by doughy_goods

Okay. Could you possibly still add me to the slack?

Sure. PM me your email.

[J_B_Wood]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

Sure. PM me your email.

Done. Thanks!

[Sperkowsky]

Hello! The CADathon competitors have had the game since noon today but it is time everyone else sees it.

Without further adieu here is the game reveal video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZPJ...ature=youtu.be

Here is a link to the manual and field CAD: https://drive.google.com/folderview?...&usp=sha ring

As stated earlier in the thread all teams will present their robots live Sunday at 8pm est and then get judged by Andy Baker, Adam Heard, and Devin Castellucci. We hope to see everyone there!

[ASD20]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

Hello! The CADathon competitors have had the game since noon today but it is time everyone else sees it.

Without further adieu here is the game reveal video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZPJ...ature=youtu.be

Here is a link to the manual and field CAD: https://drive.google.com/folderview?...&usp=sha ring

As stated earlier in the thread all teams will present their robots live Sunday at 8pm est and then get judged by Andy Baker, Adam Heard, and Devin Castellucci. We hope to see everyone there!

Yikes, G5 is brutal.

[frcguy]

Originally Posted by ASD20

Yikes, G5 is brutal.

Originally Posted by Polar Plunder Manual, G5

Injury is strongly encouraged.

What exactly does this mean? Also G5 and G6 are effectively are the opposite of what FRC does now.

[orangemoore]

Originally Posted by frcguy

What exactly does this mean? Also G5 and G6 are effectively are the opposite of what FRC does now.

I think some people might just be a little tired of these safety rules in FRC.

[Mike Schreiber]

I see no rules against launching game components. I predict last second polar bear tosser.

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by Mike Schreiber

I see no rules against launching game components. I predict last second polar bear tosser.

There is no rules against launching polar bears or icebergs. I believe some teams are already designing shooters. A last second polar bear tosser is totally viable and pretty cool. The icebergs on the other hand do not shoot well. A team actually prototyped and tested a linear punch and wheeled shooter. Finding that the icebergs just caught air straight away.

[WStowe3506]

Whoever made the field CAD must've had a lot of time on their hands or they forgot about the mirror function when adding the foam balls in the field. There are 8,127 individual balls in that pit. It is hogging a lot of my resources to render the field when I rotate it. Can anybody put an edited version out please?

~W. Stowe

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by WStowe3506

Whoever made the field CAD must've had a lot of time on their hands or they forgot about the mirror function when adding the foam balls in the field. There are 8,127 individual balls in that pit. It is hogging a lot of my resources to render the field when I rotate it. Can anybody put an edited version out please?

~W. Stowe

Welp I thought I fixed that. Apparently stuff like that does not translate going from .Sldasm to .STEP. I added a folder in the shared drive folder that contains all the native Solidworks files and it should have no balls in the pit.

[OccamzRazor]

Alrighty, some feedback on this CADathon! Generally, I think this is awesome and it successfully helped introduce some newer students on my team and other teams to what to expect week 1 for next season. It probably is the best way to hit the ground running. I saw at least 4-5 teams from NC and I would like to do this again with more students and hopefully more teams next run if there is another event in the winter.

I will break down some pros and cons I saw over the last 3 days. I truly believe there are more pros than cons to the first run through here.

PROS -
-The game was different and the objectives/rules were crystal clear.
-The challenge was easily presented and very possible to do in the given time frame
-Sam, your responses were quick and responsive the entire time. This was important and you followed through.
-Allowing the teams to communicate was a massive plus.
-This was perfectly set up to introduce new people to robot design even if they had minimal CAD experience.
-The judges were the right people for the job and this drew my students into participating.
-This game choice effectively challenged the students to think about COG and drive train capabilities. Most of the robots we saw could honestly not get into or out of the ocean without tipping. This is a very important lesson!
-I know that the teams I had participating can now more quickly model a working drive system and complete accurate concept sketches.
-I had two students who had never built a robot in CAD each turn in a nearly complete robot design with their veteran partners - a very effective first try at this!
-The team that won truly had what I thought was one of the best looking robot of the bunch and had the most completed features. Impressive for 3 days!

CONS - Mostly little stuff that could make a better experience.

-Allow the judges to hear what the contestants have to say about their design (their description) or at least let them submit a small essay. This is how FRC works at competition and I feel the judges did not understand many of the concepts the teams presented. This would also allow easier judging scrutiny, a better understanding of each design, elimination of the teamspeak confusion, and present a better chance for student learning. More interaction is always better and I think it would make it easier on you to host!
-I give a lot of slack and understanding here because of the computer issues but remember, these kids worked for 3 days on this. The broadcast was very long and only 4-5 teams heard anything from the judges they wanted to hear from. The scores should be presented at the beginning to allow the students to know how they did and make the trip home if they need to. My teams waited from 8-9:30pm to never find out how we did plus we had been at it since 9am that same day. Some students were fairly disappointed at the end to not hear a lot about their designs if at all after those 3 days at the grind stone.
-Rule clarification on how many renders are allowed, many teams thought only one rendered photo was allowed so that is all they submitted!
-Any team who did not submit CAD for a CADathon should not be able to place. A team who submitted only a photo should not be able to place and best all of the teams who did indeed submit a cad model. Not to discredit any team of course because their renderings did look like a solid robot design, but you could not see at all what was inside the models. Ranking means little in the competition like this but students do pride themselves after a long haul.
-Better means to upload or a longer period allowed to upload the models and renderings. That was rough but also encourages the teams to submit earlier at the same time.
-Show all of the photos of the robots so we know which robot the judges are speaking about. (I think you were doing that but then technology failed)
-Condense the rules down to apply more to the CADathon. Some rules the teams intended to follow for fear they would be disqualified IE they took it more seriously than they should have.

All in all, for the first shot at this it was undoubtedly a success! Props for coming up with this.

Robbie Hoyler

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by OccamzRazor

Alrighty, some feedback on this CADathon! Generally, I think this is awesome and it successfully helped introduce some newer students on my team and other teams to what to expect week 1 for next season. It probably is the best way to hit the ground running. I saw at least 4-5 teams from NC and I would like to do this again with more students and hopefully more teams next run if there is another event in the winter.

I will break down some pros and cons I saw over the last 3 days. I truly believe there are more pros than cons to the first run through here.

PROS -
-The game was different and the objectives/rules were crystal clear.
-The challenge was easily presented and very possible to do in the given time frame
-Sam, your responses were quick and responsive the entire time. This was important and you followed through.
-Allowing the teams to communicate was a massive plus.
-This was perfectly set up to introduce new people to robot design even if they had minimal CAD experience.
-The judges were the right people for the job and this drew my students into participating.
-This game choice effectively challenged the students to think about COG and drive train capabilities. Most of the robots we saw could honestly not get into or out of the ocean without tipping. This is a very important lesson!
-I know that the teams I had participating can now more quickly model a working drive system and complete accurate concept sketches.
-I had two students who had never built a robot in CAD each turn in a nearly complete robot design with their veteran partners - a very effective first try at this!
-The team that won truly had what I thought was one of the best looking robot of the bunch and had the most completed features. Impressive for 3 days!

CONS - Mostly little stuff that could make a better experience.

-Allow the judges to hear what the contestants have to say about their design (their description) or at least let them submit a small essay. This is how FRC works at competition and I feel the judges did not understand many of the concepts the teams presented. This would also allow easier judging scrutiny, a better understanding of each design, elimination of the teamspeak confusion, and present a better chance for student learning. More interaction is always better and I think it would make it easier on you to host!
-I give a lot of slack and understanding here because of the computer issues but remember, these kids worked for 3 days on this. The broadcast was very long and only 4-5 teams heard anything from the judges they wanted to hear from. The scores should be presented at the beginning to allow the students to know how they did and make the trip home if they need to. My teams waited from 8-9:30pm to never find out how we did plus we had been at it since 9am that same day. Some students were fairly disappointed at the end to not hear a lot about their designs if at all after those 3 days at the grind stone.
-Rule clarification on how many renders are allowed, many teams thought only one rendered photo was allowed so that is all they submitted!
-Any team who did not submit CAD for a CADathon should not be able to place. A team who submitted only a photo should not be able to place and best all of the teams who did indeed submit a cad model. Not to discredit any team of course because their renderings did look like a solid robot design, but you could not see at all what was inside the models. Ranking means little in the competition like this but students do pride themselves after a long haul.
-Better means to upload or a longer period allowed to upload the models and renderings. That was rough but also encourages the teams to submit earlier at the same time.
-Show all of the photos of the robots so we know which robot the judges are speaking about. (I think you were doing that but then technology failed)
-Condense the rules down to apply more to the CADathon. Some rules the teams intended to follow for fear they would be disqualified IE they took it more seriously than they should have.

All in all, for the first shot at this it was undoubtedly a success! Props for coming up with this.

Robbie Hoyler

\

Agreed on most of the cons (as a judge).

Making the submission deadline 24 hours before the airing of the show would help alleviate most of the problems.

I think Sperkowsky did a pretty good job of putting this all together solo.

It's a tough thing to run quickly and fairly, and I think Sperkowsky learned a good deal from this and will be able to put a much better one on next time.