|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Where are you pulling this from? The boiler goals process 4-5 Fuel per second as stated during the webcast.
|
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
|
|
#18
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
No, but how much overflow can the boiler handle (say if you shoot at >5 fuel/sec)?
|
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
I think this depends on the geometry of the funnel. I can't find it in the field drawings, but it would be nice to see someone calculate the maximum possible number of fuel.
|
|
#20
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
As my team discussed this topic, it was brought up that if scoring gears has the most point potential, why wouldn't everyone do it? The answer seems to be that gearing is an intimidating task that may prove to be much more difficult than previously thought.
On the other hand, dumping fuel to achieve the boiler ranking point is comparatively less difficult. However, the big thing we seemed to realize was that while scoring ranking points via fuel may get you to playoffs, it just isn't enough to win playoffs against teams scoring ranking points via gears. A gearing ranking point is worth 100 pts, while the fuel point translates to 20 points; leaving a gap of 80 points at the very least, which would be extremely difficult to overcome by only scoring fuel. While it may seem undercosted point wise, strategy will be crucial as fuel provides a comparatively easier way to rack up ranking points, which is what really matters in terms of your shot at playoffs if you may not be able to always win matches point wise (similar to breaching the defenses last year) |
|
#21
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
The thing about fuel is that it's fairly important in order to rank high and very important if both alliances can max out on gear points. 120 balls in the high boiler seems to be a very achievable task to get the ranking point while 12 gears is going to be very difficult for any single robot to do. Climbing is also not to be overlooked. One climb is worth 150 high boiler shots! Elimination matches are certainly going to be interesting and i expect a lot of upsets from specialized alliances such as a gear only alliance. Lots of different strategies and counters to different types of robots.
|
|
#22
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
I see the fuel RP as equivalent to the breach - 60-80% of the alliances should get it. the Gear/Rotor RP is like capturing, where things have to go well for the whole alliance.
Also when working out the cost/benefit of gears vs fuel, remember that the points scored per gear goes down through the match (fist gear is 40 or 60 points, while the last 6 gears are needed to get the last 40 points). An alliance that only scores 11 gears gets the same points as an alliance that stopped after 6. Fuel scoring is more linear. |
|
#23
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
The Cylinder itself appears to be ~ 1.78 cubic feet, and the funnel is ~ 1.63. Assuming that the trapezoid below the cylinder is used for processing fuel, thats ~ 3.41 cubic feet total. The large clear bins used in the videos look like they hold approximately 50 balls, and are 4.24 cubic feet. Using this, the number of balls that could be held in the boiler stack is approximately 40. If you were shooting at a rate of 6 balls per second non-stop, the boiler stack would fill up in 40 seconds. So you need 240 balls going in non-stop. Obviously the voids in a rectangular container will be different than the voids in a cylindrical container, but it's close enough for me tonight. There are bigger fish to fry, like figuring out how to flood the boiler in the first place. |
|
#24
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
I'm going to dispute your 3.41 cubic feet figure (I'm getting like 4 cubic feet, 26 in tall cylinder with an approximately 9.1875 in radius which is less than the given number of 10.5 in bc the tube is lower radius than the frustrum), but more importantly how did you get 40? 3.41 cft is 5892 cubic inches, each ball is 65.5 cubic inches for 90 balls, but since sphere packing is only about 74% efficient this is 66 balls in only the cylindrical and frustrum part of the boiler room. How did you only get 40 balls?
|
|
#25
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
|
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
I addressed it in a little more detail here: https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/s...d.php?t=153169 It should be more around 54 or so? I may have calculated that inaccurately but it's a bit less than 66 balls. |
|
#27
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
Quote:
I suppose the best way to know for sure is have someone dump a bunch of balls in the high goal of an official field boiler. I think that one is on a shipping container as we speak though... |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
I agree with the roughly 60-65% packing. That would be for both the robot capacity and for the capacity in the boiler. Operating on the assumption that the boiler is approximately 3.41 ft^3, we multiply (3.41 ft^3)*(.60 usable ft^3/ft^3) giving us roughly 2.05 usable ft^3. Since balls take up a volume of roughly 4/3*pi*2.5^3 that would give us a volume of 65.45 in^3. The boiler volume converts from 2.05 usable ft^3 to 3535.5 usable in^3. Dividing those gives you roughly 54 balls. So it is certainly safe to assume that at least 50 balls will fit within the boiler while waiting to be processed.
I would like to argue that balls are actually being incredibly under-valued in many discussions so far. I am going to operate under the assumption of 60% packing due to packing error and that a team can dedicate roughly 25% of their robot to ball storage which does not seem to be unreasonable. Assuming tall configuration (excluding bumpers is 24in x 26in x 36in tall), this gives us a total robot volume of 22,464 in^3. This gives us roughly 5,616 in^3 of ball storage. Multiplied by .6 to find usable space yields 3,370 usable in^3. Divided by the volume of a ball (65.45 in^3), gives a conservative robot capacity of 50 balls. Now to calculate the number of cycles, I will assume a bad accuracy of 30% into the high goal. High achieving teams may have an accuracy of upwards of 90%, but 30% is a conservative estimate for your average team. Since 120 balls will be necessary to achieve the goal of a ranking point, that means that it would require that the team shoot 120/.3 balls which is equal to 400 balls. This would require 8 cycles for an inaccurate team. The time for a cycle in this game I believe would be rather short allowing for that number of cycles without many problems. This is primarily due to the fact that many teams could find a way to increase their ball capacity. Additionally, with a fly wheel shooter, the amount of balls that could be fired off per second is large. This would mean that the only time-consuming portion of scoring balls is collection. Balls are very readily available both on the field and from feeder station-like inputs. All of these estimates are likely underestimates of both the capacity of a robot and the accuracy of a capable team. I, therefore, believe that it would appear to be an almost guaranteed ranking point for teams with high goal scoring capabilities. |
|
#29
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
I don't think you will have time for 8 cycles and shooting 400 balls.
|
|
#30
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Fuel Seems Undercosted
Quote:
400 balls does seem like a long shot, but if you improved that accuracy to 50%, 240 seems more reasonable to me. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|