Shooter vs Dumper Trade Study

[RoboGeek99]

Originally Posted by Swampdude

So what are the pros and cons of either design and why is one better than the other?

I'll start:
To me, shooting assumes you can't get to a trailer to score and you need to score from a distance (I guess because of the limited drive capabilities). But having 3 trailers to score in seems like there will always be one nearby. Also shooting seems like it will take too long and have more chances for jamming. Also in Aim High hitting a stationary target was hard enough, so how do you hit a smaller moving target with non-uniform objects (broken balls) consistently?

A dumper assumes you can get up close to a trailer, scores all at once and less mechanisms to jam. Doesn't care about ball shape.

I realize there's hybrids but ultimately it seems you still fall into one of these categories. Yes/No?

Well the way you phrased it...it sounds like ur really kinda biased toward a dumping mechanism...here is my take on the matter not my team's

Shooter
Pros:Fast, Unlimited Range (Close or Far), Reliable
Cons:May be inacurate, requires a lot of practice, complex

Dumper
Prosrop all at once, accurate is used correctly
Cons:Needs to stay in the 28*38, needs to be right next to the opponent's trailer

I might forgotten something but after looking at all of these as unbiased as possible im leaning toward going with a shooter mechanism (thinking of a softball/tennis ball shooter powered by globes and an archimedes screw or conveyor system to get the balls in place)
Either way yall go good luck!

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by RoboGeek99

im leaning toward going with a shooter mechanism (thinking of a softball/tennis ball shooter powered by globes

You might want to consider a CIM or Fisher Price motors.

[JesseK]

Ya know, you don't need compression on the tetrix balls if you create a continuous rotating catapult design... Just from a 4" stroke 1" bore air piston we got 4 feet out with a non-tweaked catapult.

Of course, it's difficult to fit within the dimensions, would be very unreliable while moving, and isn't very safe when compared to other designs.

But it would be fun to see it nonetheless.

An interesting note is that in hybrid bots, the 'dump' portion wouldn't be as effective as a pure dump bot due to the fact that inevitably the shooter has to take up some room.

[GarrettF2395]

My analysis of the 2 designs brought me to side more towards the shooter, because of a dumpers limited range and, how it is implemented.
(Just so you know, this is a way over simplified version of my assessment.)

When driving a dumper bot your driving strategy would be to corner your opponent and immobilize them long enough to score.
This means you have to stop them from moving (which will be difficult on the low friction floor) AND stop moving your own robot for a potentially long period of time.

But with a a well programmed camera targeting shooter, you theoretically never have to stop moving in order to score.
That being said...
A shooter is never going to be exactly accurate.
Which means that for the sake of accuracy, you will want to drive slower.
This would make you an easier target for the payload specialists... but at least you wouldn't stop moving.
This assessment brought me to a specific design....
However... as we say in the Ninja Monkee world... If I told you...
I would have to knock you unconscious with a banana...

[Jared Russell]

I have gone back and forth on this in my head. I can see scenarios where either one has a clear advantage.

I think this year you will see shooters in the winner's circle, and you will see dumpers (and everything in between). The difference is going to be in how well a team/alliance can execute their gameplan.

[Paul Copioli]

Here is my prediction:

A lot of teams will try a turreted shooter that can dump by spitting. Only a very small percentage of these teams (<10%) will be successful ....

Of coarse we are trying the above and hope we will be within that 10%, but odd numbered years have not been that good to us lately.

[Kyle Love]

I like the idea of the shooters that can dump. Through some shooter testing that 1646 did, we found that it's quite possible for a "long range" shooter to also be a decent short range "dumper". In between the two will be the questionable distances, teams who can consistently vary their shooting distance, very quickly, will be able to run the score up real quick.

[amariealbrecht]

personally i think that a shooter has many pros and cons...for example you can shoot balls at a rapid pace (if you organize this correctly with your speed) and then a shooter will have a good chance of hitting the trailor...especially if it is on a swivel

with a dumper you are very limited to the amount of time it takes to dump one basket of balls and you need to be concerned with the space gap between your dumper and the trailor you are trying to dump into.

for this competition i think the shooter will have a greater chance at making it through the competition

[gburlison]

I think that shooters dominated Aim High because the top goal was worth more points. With the balls worth the same amount, I think that either design can be effective. I think that a good dumper will be easier to build, so I expect to see more good dumpers in the finals of Lunacy than there were in Aim High.

[spc295]

Originally Posted by gburlison

I think that shooters dominated Aim High because the top goal was worth more points. With the balls worth the same amount, I think that either design can be effective. I think that a good dumper will be easier to build, so I expect to see more good dumpers in the finals of Lunacy than there were in Aim High.

I agree. but I would also like to say that I think a dumper on a turret will be the best. because it does not matter how you pin an opponent

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

but odd numbered years have not been that good to us lately.

Talk about setting the bar high, you've made it to Einstein twice in odd-numbered years, 2001 & 2005...

[Manoel]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

odd numbered years have not been that good to us lately.

Oh well, one of the teams I'm most inspired by predicts their performance using numerology...



Perhaps that's why their robots always seem to work like magic...

[cloud_254]

it may be just me but low speed shooters may be key in this game. they can "shoot" the ball a small distance accuratly. the only down side i see is the proximity that u would need to be.

[=Martin=Taylor=]

I'm gonna offer my support of the short range shooter (1-5').

This is a controllable design, there is sufficient power in the kit to get a large quantity of balls traveling this distance, and it will allow you to score in more situations than pure dumping.

That being said, I'm going to admit that my team has dropped the turret.

Although it was originally part of our design we found in prototyping that it wasn't useful in short range scoring. Even with the trailer on ice there is still sufficient drive train controlability to properly aim the robot.

It will be interesting to see how this effects us, since so many teams are building turrets.

[Creator Mat]

I don't think the dominate game plan this year in tele-operated mode is going to be getting balls and scoreing with your robot. I think the dominate strategy is going to be who can gather the most balls and hoard/ return the most to your teams throwers. I think this because it is going to be a lot easier (in my opinion) for your throwers to score then the robots. so where im going with this is a dumper with an effective ball gathering system is better. For the the purpose of less time standing at reloading station.

Pros: team throwers don't have to be as accurate and can rapid fire and a simpler robot (remember K.I.S.S.)

Cons: this is a maybe and don't quote me on this but somehow i heard that there is a rule that you can only put 1 ball at a time in the reloading station (i.e. no mass dumping of 10 balls at once) so this might rule out a dumper.

Food for thought