2009 Aparatuses

[Korbin]

Allot of discussion is taking place on drive train decisions, which are in this game very important, but how about the rest of the robot functionality? Robots could benefit from being able to heard well to their human players, and also to be able to receive from them, and possibly score on other robots, using the camera or not. The amazing feat of programing a rotating accurate shooter to always score on competitors trailers is possible for some teams as demonstrated in a similar problem in aim high, but for the most part then and still now most teams will have to rely on human aim to score on other robots, and will probably opt to try and dump or some other close range scoring.

So my question, if you have to chase down another robot's trailer you have a tough job ahead of you, would the time and percent of success be higher spending that time playing defense and giving moon rocks to your human players to shoot at one of their many moving targets; who will be focusing on the match and not paying attention to the unavoidable payload specialists. Is including the functionality important? I am leaning to no, the only reason I can think is that it will help score on un-functioning robots/stationary trailers in qualifying matches, where that will certainly come up. Being agile and good at getting rocks to the specialists seems to be a more valuable design focus.

Let me know what you think about that, and the apparatus in general.

[dtengineering]

I think you might get some good ideas from the 2006 game (especially the "behind the design" book for that year) and the 2004 game.

Both games had to move balls, 2004 required players to shoot them into mobile (and stationary) goals similar to this year's goals.

Jason

[Chuck Glick]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

I think you might get some good ideas from the 2006 game (especially the "behind the design" book for that year) and the 2004 game.

Both games had to move balls, 2004 required players to shoot them into mobile (and stationary) goals similar to this year's goals.

Jason

Don't forget 2002. Those were very similar goals and has the same sort of feel as this game, except, we have less traction .

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Chuck Glick

Don't forget 2002. Those were very similar goals and has the same sort of feel as this game, except, we have less traction .

I think the dump action of the teams baskets back then violate the <R18> rule.

[paulcd2000]

My team is definetly thinking a lot about apparatuses. i think that if a team has a really good tracking system, and a highly accurate launcher, they could well dominate the field. However, i think there's mostly going to be close-range fighting due to the highly chaotic driving surface. So a dumping hopper might be best. It is difficult to say.

[paulcd2000]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

I think the dump action of the teams baskets back then violate the <R18> rule.

<R18> is the rule that talks about trailer-hitch construction... Is that really the one you mean

[ttldomination]

I believe she might mean the rule where you cannot go outside the 28x 38 x 60 footprint this year. NOT AT ALL.

Honestly, I believe shooters are really inconceivable because in the past few game, the targets have not been moving as crazily as they will this year. The trailers are attached to the OTHER team's robots, and obviously taking your time to line up to shoot will prove fruitless if the trailer moves.

[smartkid]

Originally Posted by ttldomination

Honestly, I believe shooters are really inconceivable because in the past few game, the targets have not been moving as crazily as they will this year.

I agree, I think where in the realm of mechanisms that can grab and hold the cells while staying within the footprint.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by ttldomination

Honestly, I believe shooters are really inconceivable because in the past few game, the targets have not been moving as crazily as they will this year. The trailers are attached to the OTHER team's robots, and obviously taking your time to line up to shoot will prove fruitless if the trailer moves.

Everyone who say teams can't or won't do this haven't seen the teams who consistently have and will do that. Y'know the ones who are always getting the banners and the robot design awards all the time.

[McGurky]

What do you think of doing somthing like a snowblower, and have the camera follow one basket, and shoot in that basket?

[bkwrm92]

Some of our team mentors want to make a shooting apparatus, but some people (mainly the design subteam and the drive team) think this will be unfeasible. The shooter not only has to adjust for distance (so small coding feat), but also has to be able to land inside the goal/on a post without a backboard. In 2006 we had a backboard, so it was much easier, but this year, I don't think shooter bots will be effective at all.

Not only that, but the game is going to be so much of a clusterf*** that you wouldn't be able to aim for more than half a second without being knocked off target/filled with balls.

I think we're going to see lots of 2006 bots that were modified/had minor design changes for this game. I also think this is going to be a very low scoring game for the actual robots, but the human players are invaluable now.

[paulcd2000]

Originally Posted by bkwrm92

Not only that, but the game is going to be so much of a clusterf*** that you wouldn't be able to aim for more than half a second without being knocked off target/filled with balls.

i think that aiming and shooting on the fly will be vital skills for any shooting robot. you may not be able to do complex manuvering while aiming and shooting, but if you're moving with a constant velocity, a rotating shooter with good software might be able to manage it.

[=Martin=Taylor=]

We considered using a wedge that could be driven into the goal and then opened (like a beak) releasing tons of balls. It would make driving/aiming a lot easier. We'll have to see how that goes in prototyping...

Originally Posted by paulcd2000

i think that aiming and shooting on the fly will be vital skills for any shooting robot. you may not be able to do complex manuvering while aiming and shooting, but if you're moving with a constant velocity, a rotating shooter with good software might be able to manage it.

If I learned anything in 2006 it was that driving while shooting is pretty-much-darn-near-impossible. The robots just jiggle too much while driving to make good shots.

The best shooters of '06 had turrets and tilts that could get into position in seconds and fire off all the balls while the robot was sitting still (think 25). Robots that could'nt shoot very fast got pushed out of position and missed most of their shots.

[McGurky]

would that go against the size rule though?

[=Martin=Taylor=]

Originally Posted by McGurky

would that go against the size rule though?

Assuming it was not very long and was included as part of the robots length. It might also be recessed within a C-shaped portion of bot, perfect for controlling a goal.

Its too bad we can't latch onto these things. It would make scoring easier.