Robot Idea

[Dr.Gusta]

When first saw 254's Barrage in this video http://www.team254.com/frc2014-reveal/ my first reaction was holy smokes that is really really impressive. My next thought was that this looked very similar to the type of shooters used in the 2012 game "Rebound Rumble". What I was thinking was modifying 254's desigin silightly so a turret like the one featured on 118's 2012 robot (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qWiIx_SzIE). This would allow 360 degree shooting and the ability of angle adjustment. This could make a 3 ball auto scoring all three in the hot goal possible because of the quick re aiming of the shooter. With a good vision processing program for assisted aiming this could be very interesting and will probably be pursued by my team. What do you guys think? I will probably start CAD soon ish.

[Jay O'Donnell]

Originally Posted by Dr.Gusta

When first saw 254's Barrage in this video http://www.team254.com/frc2014-reveal/ my first reaction was holy smokes that is really really impressive. My next thought was that this looked very similar to the type of shooters used in the 2012 game "Rebound Rumble". What I was thinking was modifying 254's desigin silightly so a turret like the one featured on 118's 2012 robot (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qWiIx_SzIE). This would allow 306 degree shooting and the ability of angle adjustment. This could make a 3 ball auto scoring all three in the hot goal possible because of the quick re aiming of the shooter. With a good vision processing program for assisted aiming this could be very interesting and will probably be pursued by my team. What do you guys think? I will probably start CAD soon ish.

254 already scores all 3 balls in the hot goal during autonomous. Their reasoning for the wheeled shooter was partly that it could get all 3 shots off within those last five seconds.

[Dr.Gusta]

Originally Posted by Jay O'Donnell

254 already scores all 3 balls in the hot goal during autonomous. Their reasoning for the wheeled shooter was partly that it could get all 3 shots off within those last five seconds.

Oh I did not know that still would be an interesting idea worth pursuing.

[Knufire]

The reason that turrets were very popular in 2012 is probably due to the relatively narrow goal (a standard basketball hoop) that required more precise left/right aim. In games such as 2013 and 2014 where the goal spans the entire width of the field, it's not nearly as advantageous.

[Pault]

Originally Posted by Knufire

The reason that turrets were very popular in 2012 is probably due to the relatively narrow goal (a standard basketball hoop) that required more precise left/right aim. In games such as 2013 and 2014 where the goal spans the entire width of the field, it's not nearly as advantageous.

Actually, I would argue that it is more advantageous this year, simply because there is so much more defense this year. In 2012, you either straightened yourself on the fender on lined up in the key where you could use your drivetrain to adjust without interference. This year, if you can shoot from various angles reliable, it would be a huge advantage. To start, just think of all the times a team like 254 or 1114 was pinned against the wall in front of the low goal, facing the wrong direction. They had to wait for the opponent to back off from them before they could shoot.

The reason they were way more popular in 2012 than 2014 is because this year it is about 10,000x harder to implement. Just think about the space restraints. And the huge bulky assembly you would have to rotate. And there is no hope of using a lazy Suzan. And to make it worse, you have to be able to feed the ball into the shooter vertically. I'd be very impressed by anyone who makes it happen effectively.

[Jay O'Donnell]

The only turreted robot I saw this year was from 2826: http://youtu.be/KwtabB9_04k

[KamalRC]

Originally Posted by Jay O'Donnell

The only turreted robot I saw this year was from 2826: http://youtu.be/KwtabB9_04k

Team 223 Xtreme Heat also use a turret on their shooter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfak...ature=youtu.be
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=127191

[O'Sancheski]

The complexity outweighs the benefits. Fixed shooters were still perfect for 2012.

[rcoren22]

Originally Posted by KamalRC

Team 223 Xtreme Heat also use a turret on their shooter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfak...ature=youtu.be
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=127191

Originally Posted by O'Sancheski

The complexity outweighs the benefits. Fixed shooters were still perfect for 2012.

We only went with the turret to help keep us in frame perimeter in starting configuration. Our arms hung over the frame unless it started in a 45 degree offset. After getting two heavy duty turrets demolished, and littering the field with ball bearings, we decided to change our arms for MAR Champs to fit without a turret. (Much better)

[Lil' Lavery]

Turrets are one of those things that has hypothetical value, but rarely translates into improved performance for a vast majority of teams. While some of the 90-95th percentile of teams can execute them well enough that it can help give them an advantage (without sacrificing robot quality elsewhere) in order to become a 99th percentile team, for the rest of FRC teams, they tend to end up wasting resources and decreasing precision. Like swerve and octocanum drives, turrets are cool, but in terms of on-the-field performance, a majority of teams would be better served by investing their resources elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Pault

Actually, I would argue that it is more advantageous this year, simply because there is so much more defense this year. In 2012, you either straightened yourself on the fender on lined up in the key where you could use your drivetrain to adjust without interference. This year, if you can shoot from various angles reliable, it would be a huge advantage. To start, just think of all the times a team like 254 or 1114 was pinned against the wall in front of the low goal, facing the wrong direction. They had to wait for the opponent to back off from them before they could shoot.

254 would usually just dump the ball out of their rear intake into the low goal in that situation. 67 or 971 would swing their arm around the other way and score into the high goal. Generally speaking, that's a pretty specific scenario, and not worth the added resources to get out of. I'm sure these elite teams would rather focus their focus their programming, debug, and driver practice time on features that will be advantageous the other 99% of the time they're driving around the field.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Turrets are one of those things that has hypothetical value, but rarely translates into improved performance for a vast majority of teams. While some of the 90-95th percentile of teams can execute them well enough that it can help give them an advantage (without sacrificing robot quality elsewhere) in order to become a 99th percentile team, for the rest of FRC teams, they tend to end up wasting resources and decreasing precision. Like swerve and octocanum drives, turrets are cool, but in terms of on-the-field performance, a majority of teams would be better served by investing their resources elsewhere.


254 would usually just dump the ball out of their rear intake into the low goal in that situation. 67 or 971 would swing their arm around the other way and score into the high goal. Generally speaking, that's a pretty specific scenario, and not worth the added resources to get out of. I'm sure these elite teams would rather focus their focus their programming, debug, and driver practice time on features that will be advantageous the other 99% of the time they're driving around the field.

Yup. Don't add a complicated mechanism to 'fix' a perceived issue which can be mitigated by finishing early and getting driver practice.

[Pault]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

254 would usually just dump the ball out of their rear intake into the low goal in that situation. 67 or 971 would swing their arm around the other way and score into the high goal. Generally speaking, that's a pretty specific scenario, and not worth the added resources to get out of. I'm sure these elite teams would rather focus their focus their programming, debug, and driver practice time on features that will be advantageous the other 99% of the time they're driving around the field.

True. I never said that they were worth it; in fact I imagine that if any good team did try to turret their shooter they would have been a lot less successful. All I'm saying is that if a team did manage pull one off, it would be a lot more useful this year than in 2012.

[TheMadCADer]

Why spin the whole shooter around? Why not just have two shooter wheels and two hoods opposite each other? 254 already had their shooter hood actuated, it's a common feature on that sort of design. Just make the whole robot symmetrical.

[Henrique Schmit]

Originally Posted by TheMadCADer

Why spin the whole shooter around? Why not just have two shooter wheels and two hoods opposite each other? 254 already had their shooter hood actuated, it's a common feature on that sort of design. Just make the whole robot symmetrical.

Fitting a hood, that must go down enough so it doesn't hit the ball when you're shooting through the other side, and the shooting wheel in the same side would increase the design complexity. Like the turret, the design complexity you'd add would out weight the benefits that it'd bring.

[AdamHeard]

Maybe if 254 could've shot both ways they'd have won champs