Well, of course, it’s important to note that some teams (cough810*cough) have enough trouble finishing ONE robot 
If they really expected us to build two, they’d have to dumb things down a lot, like, each robot that moves get 10 pts.
Originally posted by Michael Krass *
**Well, of course, it’s important to note that some teams (cough810cough) have enough trouble finishing ONE robotIf they really expected us to build two, they’d have to dumb things down a lot, like, each robot that moves get 10 pts.
I second that. I’m lucky if my team can get more than three people working on the ONE robot. I’d go crazy.
I want to congratulate(translation beat down) those teams that manage to build two identical robots one to ship and one to practice with.
drr, i just realized something…
it’s physically impossible to build two competition robots, that are not teathered, using the current control system scheme. from what i’ve heard, the controls are NOT changing, which means that there’s no way that you’re allowed two robots. of course, if the control system is changed to allow two RCs and two OIs, then 2 robots would be possible :D.
Maybe the human player would be converted to a driver. If it took us 36 hours of staight work to finish the 1st robot that would be 72 hours or 3 days. I hope I can operate power-tools after 3 days without sleep.
What if you had two controlers and your robots were built to perform two different functions as opposed to an All-In ONe machine. And… your team drove both units as they deployed at the start of the match.
Hey what about establishing your parther team at the start of the season. You go to all the same regionals, all events. You planned the robot build together so they functioned as a very well coordinated team?
your partner for the entire season.
no, i’m just saying i thought that the controllers were going to be more or less exactly the same as last year, which means two robots per team is physically impossible. if they make changes to the controls, then two robots is possible.
*Originally posted by Ian W. *
**drr, i just realized something…it’s physically impossible to build two competition robots, that are not teathered, using the current control system scheme. from what i’ve heard, the controls are NOT changing, which means that there’s no way that you’re allowed two robots. of course, if the control system is changed to allow two RCs and two OIs, then 2 robots would be possible :D. **
Hmmm. Let me think. Standard control system we are used to + EduRobotics kit control system + autonomy = two OI’s + two RCs + four robots per alliance = way cool competition.
But then, what do I know…
-dave
Maybe the goal of the 2003 game is to knock over some tower with balls and position them somewhere? Instead of driving over to the other side of the field and picking up balls you first have to get them down from a higher elevation…just a thought
All I wanna see is another entertaining competition that can have basic functions performed by a brick with wheels again.
*Originally posted by dlavery *
**Hmmm. Let me think. Standard control system we are used to + EduRobotics kit control system + autonomy = two OI’s + two RCs + four robots per alliance = way cool competition.
But then, what do I know…
-dave **
i thought that the EduRobotics control system was not to be used for competition robots because it didn’t have as many outputs as the competition one, or something like that… 
It doesn’t, but there would be nothing wrong with using it if the rules were to allow you to. You just couldn’t make your second bot as complex.
*Originally posted by dlavery *
**Hmmm. Let me think. Standard control system we are used to + EduRobotics kit control system + autonomy = two OI’s + two RCs + four robots per alliance = way cool competition.
But then, what do I know…
-dave **
i think u know more then your letting on.
besides i don’t rememebr reading anything like 2 robots per team in that 2003 design thread
*Originally posted by Ian W. *
**i thought that the EduRobotics control system was not to be used for competition robots because it didn’t have as many outputs as the competition one, or something like that…
I think that the actual statement was to the effect that the EduRobotics control system would not REPLACE the Isaac 32 control system we have been using. I don’t recall anything about “in addition to…”
-dave
p.s. anyone remember that one of the most effective and far-reaching Directorates of the old KGB in the former Soviet Union was fully dedicated to producing just one thing: dis-information. You know, release information that sounded real, seemed real, but wasn’t; the sole purpose was to flood the channels with LOTS of information, all of it plausible, so that you could never really be sure what was real and what wasn’t. But none of us would think that ANYONE associated with FIRST would EVER resort to those sorts of tricks… :rolleyes:
FIRST explicitly said at the MI forum that the EduRobot controller would not be allowed on any competition robot(read: anything that’s on the field at a regional or championship)…
Hey what about establishing your parther team at the start of the season. You go to all the same regionals, all events. You planned the robot build together so they functioned as a very well coordinated team?
- Mike Martus
I dont think That is possible look at it this way even with the internet, team 25 in north brunswick nj and team 47 pontiac Michigan make sharing ideas difficult and going to regionals even more so.
A team that attends many regionals ie. CD could get paired with team that barely can afford to goto one regional and then nationals would be out of the questions with odd even pairs
Man, I’m in the new Stoney Creek Robotics Team and it’s going to be this challenging???!!!
Where do you guys get all of this information from anyway?
Different sources, usually rumors, mostly from people in FIRST that you might meet just by having a team shirt on or stuff like that.
Oh.
Some some people just make up. Like that Dave character, allways acting like he knows what he is talking about, then goes and talks about something he isnt.
VROOM!
Wetzel
/me exhibits shifty eyes
-Jim