pic: Foley Freeze doubles up

[jgannon]

loading photo ...

[Nuttyman54]

Did you ever do it? I only saw the elimination matches

[Jonathan Norris]

the closest they got was scoring the first one, then came back and picking up the second, but dropped it before they got to the rack. Very impressive

[johnr]

when you get to watch the six keepers on video, keep an eye on us(910). we still ran the double keeper program and it looks like we would have made a seventh. i hope we can pull it off at marc.

[team 1094]

i was driving our robot during IrI ( the orange one). they told us to do that and it was legal, so when the match started their robot went for the rack but missed and then they attempted to hang the other on the rack, but the time ran out.

[lukevanoort]

I saw a couple of their attempts on the webcast, it was pretty cool, but sorta sad to see them score, go back to get the next tube and run out of time. It seemed that the trip back was what really kept them from getting two, not the actual challenge of scoring a keeper twice. Have you guys considered adding something like a little servo actuated half claw or similar to hold the second tube by the robot while the first is scored?

[Chris Fultz]

Originally Posted by lukevanoort

Have you guys considered adding something like a little servo actuated half claw or similar to hold the second tube by the robot while the first is scored?

I dont think you can do that. You would have two tubes in your 'possession' (one in the gripper and one in the holding claw) and that is not allowed.

[lukevanoort]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

I dont think you can do that. You would have two tubes in your 'possession' (one in the gripper and one in the holding claw) and that is not allowed.

In the famous words of Homer Simpson, DOH! Darn, now I'm out of ideas that don't involve attempting to throw tubes at the rack. (And, judging by how difficult that was for human players, I'm pretty certain it would be a rather unreliable method)

[Greg Needel]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

I dont think you can do that. You would have two tubes in your 'possession' (one in the gripper and one in the holding claw) and that is not allowed.

true, but it is only a 10 point penalty for scoring while in possession of 2 tubes. In a situation like IRI where you get 15 bonus points you could still end up with 20 points bonus and 2 keepers on the rack which sounds like a justifiable reason to take the penalty.

[Herodotus]

Originally Posted by Greg Needel

true, but it is only a 10 point penalty for scoring while in possession of 2 tubes. In a situation like IRI where you get 15 bonus points you could still end up with 20 points bonus and 2 keepers on the rack which sounds like a justifiable reason to take the penalty.

Except you can't start with two keepers in your possession so that idea won't work. Also purposely taking a penalty isn't exactly GP. We were disappointed that we couldn't get the second keeper up in a real match however we are elated because we have gotten the second keeper onto the rack at our little practice field time and time again, we might have some video of that somewhere. At first we though our practice rack may have been off which caused our auto to be off on the real field but in reality it is all about positioning. We can do the whole cycle in under 15 seconds consistently but only if we get that second keeper positioned correctly behind the robot.

However we've started to get it down and we feel very confident that we will be able to double score at MARC, so keep an eye out for us there.

[Greg Needel]

Originally Posted by Herodotus

Except you can't start with two keepers in your possession so that idea won't work. Also purposely taking a penalty isn't exactly GP.

It is true that you can't start with 2 keepers in your possession but that isn't what was said here. If you set up the same way that you did with one of your alliance partners touching the keeper you could grab it at the start of auto mode with your second gripper.

Personally I don't feel that GP has anything to do with this situation. I consider this thinking outside the box. Scoring 2 tubes in auto mode is a feat which has not been done and requires this kind of thinking. I put this situation along with others I saw throughout the season, such as teams who get a ringer stuck on a flag choosing to keep scoring in order to get a long row enough to win; if you could get a row of 7 or 8 it seems worthwhile because in most situations you could still loose. IMO knowing the action and the consequences there are times in which taking a penalty can help your alliance and that has nothing to do with GP.

[Herodotus]

Hmm you make some good points. However at this point I think we are going to stick with the loading off the ground. Timing hasn't really been our problem so grabbing the tube sooner isn't really going to get it working. When we see the second half of auton go it almost always completely finishes, the problem is with grabbing the tube in the first place. Picking a tube up off the ground in auton isn't easy and most of all requires proper placement of the keeper. However I think we have actually gotten the robot to be consistent in it's picking up of the second tube now so we should be able to get it to run correctly at MARC. So keep an eye out for some video after he MARC competition

But also more importantly, we really don't have any place to put the second gripper. But yeah if we had been designing from the beginning specifically to run a double auton mode then a second claw would have been useful. But that brings up the fact we didn't know there would be 15 point bonuses at IRI until quite a bit after the build season to building a second claw into the frame really didn't make sense at the time of construction.

But I can see what you are getting at, taking a penalty to win a game doesn't have to be a bad thing, as long as it isn't a penalty that involves destroying another robot or something like that.

[FoleyEngineer]

Does anyone know if MARC, ThinkFordFirst, or Kettering will use the "new and improved" IRI rules? I sure hope so as they were really nice enhancements to this year's game.

[Jim Meyer]

Originally Posted by FoleyEngineer

Does anyone know if MARC, ThinkFordFirst, or Kettering will use the "new and improved" IRI rules? I sure hope so as they were really nice enhancements to this year's game.

I certainly liked the new rules, even having a 4th machine on the alliance. Neat little strategy twist.

The only rule left to be fixed is the possession of more than one tube at at time rule. It should be reworded to prohibit intentional posession of more than one tube at at time. I just find it really silly that if a tube is accidentally thrown onto a robot, and it can't be removed, it puts them out of commission for the entire match. I saw it happen to 330 at IRI, it was very disheartening. I don't think that it would be too hard to judge either. I'd rater have a ref make a tough call every once in a blue moon than the way things played out this year.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Jim Meyer

The only rule left to be fixed is the possession of more than one tube at at time rule. It should be reworded to prohibit intentional posession of more than one tube at at time. I just find it really silly that if a tube is accidentally thrown onto a robot, and it can't be removed, it puts them out of commission for the entire match. I saw it happen to 330 at IRI, it was very disheartening.

Yeah, it happens. At least twice at IRI. And I wondered why with all those great machines, no one tried to have their alliance partner remove the ringer for them?

I don't think that it would be too hard to judge either. I'd rater have a ref make a tough call every once in a blue moon than the way things played out this year.

Almost every double-ringer possession could be considered unintentional. Why would anyone want to put a ringer on a place where it cannot be shaken off? Flags are the usual culprit, but sometimes the ringer slips down around the bot's arm. That human player didn't intend to throw the ringer around the flag, so why not let it go? Your alliance partner didn't intend to drop the ringer and have it miss the spider leg, and bounce off onto your robot. Intent - wanting to do it - simply has no part in the decision. Every call would have to be, "Well, we don't think they wanted that ringer on their flag, so no call." It would totally eliminate the rule.

If the rule is eliminated, then there is nothing to prevent a robot from collecting up all the ringers of the opposing alliance and not allow them to score. That probably was the GDC's intention (there's that word again) for the rule. But you can't dismiss accidental possession without gutting the rule.