We made something…
And it is consistent, considering it is made of PVC pipe, HYPE Blocks, and hope.
30 Likes
Can it shoot up to the correct height and distance of the actual nodes?
3 Likes
We had a very good success rate in the middle row (around 7/10), and we need more testing for the top row, but considering that the motors were controlled by power and not with velocity is not that bad.
4 Likes
Yea 2023 is a shooter game. I don’t know how you could do it without a shooter if some sort in your robot. Catapult maybe?
Trebuchet. Obviously.
12 Likes
Love it! Can’t wait to see how this concept develops
3 Likes
I think rollers are cooler.
Nice concept, I thought of shooting but we didnt test anything. I’m amazed that you can do it consistently as you say. Did you test it from distance of community line behind charge station?
3 Likes
We haven’t tested that, but I think it would be a tough shot. The cone seems very unstable in the air, and the long distance wouldn’t help.
1 Like
absolutely unreal. I hope y’all are able to turn this concept into a full robot because shooting game pieces during non-shooting games is one of my favorite things
4 Likes
I didn’t think shooters would work for this game, excellent…
1 Like
When would you ever be shooting from behind the charging station? You’re only allowed to launch game pieces from inside the community.
3 Likes
The community extends to the tape line just on the outside of the charging station. According to G404, a robot could stay on the far side of the charging station, poke a bumper or manipulator over the line, and shoot a game piece onto the grids.
11 Likes
This year, we are very limited in resources of all kinds.
Importing things from the USA to Mexico is very expensive.
We haven’t bought our control system, and the import fees are around 35% + 16% of IVA.
In the US, a RoboRIO costs $485. We pay $760
If you have suggestions for how to save money, I would love to hear them. 
So our main objective with this concept is to score at least in the lower and middle row, with a robot architecture capable of being optimized in the season to get up to the high row.
Yesterday we established our week 1-2 robot architecture to be:
-
WCP Drive (6" wheels, 18ft/s single-speed gearbox with 4 Neo’s).
-
Roller intake for grabbing cubes off the ground.
-
Intake cones for the single substation (potentially only a funnel of PVC pipe and polycarbonate).
-
An indexer mechanism that works with cones and cubes (we don’t know how, but it doesn’t seem too hard).
-
A shooter with variable compression for cones and cubes on the opposite side of the robot.
Next Wednesday, we will discuss and reexamine our progress to fully define the robot design.
4 Likes
Can’t you only shoot from the community?
Yes.
This idea was suggested to avoid having a big mechanism out of the frame perimeter and reduce DOF.
see @ash4fun reply
Shooting from the tape is legal. Abiet hard since everything can just bounce back out
1 Like
We have simmilar problems, in Europe (Poland) we can’t really import from usa, cause it could take ages, and we had limited build team, but that seemes to be somewhat solved for now.
We also have simmilar concept, altough we thought about shooting / deploying from the same intake mechanism, didnt figure out a indexer too.
Good luck guys
2 Likes
Yesterday evening, we tested “tossing” the cubes to the highest node from directly in front of the node.
The testing was done by a student launching the cube by hand. We found that the material the simulated node was made from affected the results so we quickly made a better simulation.
We tested tossing the cube in a constant orientation. We then tested the effects of tossing the cube with a flat path vs an arcing path, random orientation, with no spin vs with top spin vs with back spin and with the cube slightly deflated. Each set of tests consisted of 10 or 20 attempts to get statistically significant results.
We saw a lot of variation and inconsistencies in the results. In different sets of trials, the students got a success rate of between 40% and 70% using fixed orientation, an arcing path, normal inflation and no spin. The arcing path gave a slightly better success rate than the flat path (65% vs 60% with 20 attempts for each). With random orientation, the success rate dropped to 55% with 20 attempts. When comparing inflation, they achieved a success rate of 40% with normal inflation and 70% “slightly deflated” with 10 attempts each. When comparing spin, both top spin and back spin gave a success rate of 40% vs 70% with no spin with 10 attempts each.
We will be deciding today whether it will be worthwhile to consider tossing of the cube or if we should abandon the idea.
5 Likes
Everyone is shooting this year, right?..
18 Likes