|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
| View Poll Results: Fuel vs. Gears | |||
| Fuel |
|
121 | 28.34% |
| Gears |
|
306 | 71.66% |
| Voters: 427. You may not vote on this poll | |||
![]() |
| Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
#46
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
|
|
#47
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
2013 provides a very valuable counterexample to teams thinking it'll be ineffective to run quick cycles between these two approximate points on an otherwise flat field under defense.
Part though certainly not all of this is that many times teams overlook the value of a consistent traffic routine. Drivers get very, very good at moving between these two points quickly by any means necessary and legal. Floor pickup is a fundamentally different on-field approach that comes with a unique set of challenges and difficulties. Several recent games can illustrate floor pickup of numerous unorganized game pieces in actual reality. Using the retrieval zone for fuel vs gears poses other differences. In general, unless you've been doing this very well for a very long time, try not to rely on what the game "looks" like in your own head. It's almost certainly incorrect/incomplete--that's what match achieves are for. The question also isn't whether one situation will face more defense, it's what effect that defense has on your net value. Even if Function B is defended twice as heavily as Function A, if Function B is offensively worth 3 times as much as A, well then you can do the math for what you expect your own robot to achieve. |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
My points are: 1) Fast, maneuverable robots will be successful doing cycles. It will take a lot of resources to slow them down. 2) It took 1983 about 15-20 seconds to do their cycles. 7-8 cycles will probably be the upper limit for the best teams, 5-6 cycles for good teams. 3) There are many similarities of this year's game to 2013: the stationary fuel shooters, the cycle shooters/gear placers, the littered field (Frisbees were ALL over the ground in 2013), the flow of traffic and types of defense, and even the climbing. If you're curious about how this year's game will look on the field, check out some videos from 2013. There will, of course, be differences but there are enough similarities to make a perusal worthwhile. |
|
#49
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
The best robots in the world will be able to score 6, maybe 7, gears per match.
So you will need 2 elite level gear scorers to get the 4th rotor. 2011 was significantly easier to acquire the objects and the best in the world averaged just over 6. |
|
#50
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
I wonder if we'll see a Gear ferrying strategy develop. I think it's obvious that receiving a Gear and carrying it to your alliance's Airship is an easier task than actually placing a Gear on the peg. So it might beneficial for alliances to have two robots ferrying Gears to a robot picking up those Gears and placing them on the Lifts. I know this introduces quite a few points of possible error, most notably the passing of the Gear from ferry bot to placing bot, but it might be a useful strategy for Quals when you have a bit of an underdog alliance.
|
|
#51
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
|
|
#52
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
|
|
#53
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
It does make sense why more teams are going to focus more on gears than fuel since gears earns a lot more points in comparison.
This however, is going to make a fast, high-efficiency fuel shooter bot capable of earning 40 kPa on its own (10 kPa in autonomous, 30 kPa from unloading a hopper into the high efficiency goal in tele-op) very valuable for most alliances and an almost definite pick for alliance selections. |
|
#54
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
I must agree with Mr. Copioli, the best teams will cycle 6-7 (maybe 8, with light defense) gears per match. In many games the best teams are limited to 6-7 significant actions.
I posit that FUEL will be the best method to get RANK POINTS in qualifications (aside from winning, of course), and GEAR cycling will be the best method to win elimination matches. |
|
#55
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
|
|
#56
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Team 1708 is looking more towards the gears but will weight the option of also collecting the fuel for low goal. Due to the size constraints FIRST has given us it will be rough. Nothing like a challenge!
|
|
#57
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Scoring 40x high goals in auto seems quite ambitious to do with one robot... Backing out what a robot would need to do:
Time of flight of a ball: 1s (speaking in round numbers) Processing time: 40/4 (or 5) balls/s = 8-10s (as stated in tour video) Wait for all of the balls to drop from a hopper: 2-3s (observed in the Hopper tour video) Time to drive to the hopper, then drive to shooting position, align to goal, and start firing: 15-1-8-2=4s to 15-1-10-3=1s Seems like quite a stretch to me. |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
The robot can begin shooting their starting 10 balls before all balls fall from the hopper as well. Still not easy by any measure, but very possible. Also, even a 30 ball auto would give quite a kPa and point boost.
|
|
#59
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Quote:
|
|
#60
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Fuel Vs. Gears
Not specializing in gears is like giving up the 140 points on the 4th rotor. In rare situations, eluded to by Paul above, a 3rd robot may need to get 1 or 2 gears to finish the 4th rotor. Yet even in that case, I'd tell the 3rd robot to play defense rather than shoot balls.
So if you're doing gears, do them right - by only doing them. Hang if you find a solution for it with enough time/weight budget left. Teams doing mainly/only balls already know there is a throughput challenge, so I suspect they're not going to also do gears. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|