We’ve now had several days of practice with three other local teams and, though I don’t at all believe that the four robots are truly indicative of the entirety of the FRC community, here are some observations.
Of the four teams, two qualified for St. Louis last year and both made it into eliminations - one was on the field throughout elims, the other didn’t play. One of the other two robots was above average in the PNW. The other team is largely without mentors and struggling.
All four have been designed to go under the low bar. At least three definitely will be able to do so… The other is not fully enough constructed yet to know for certain.
Two have pneumatic wheels - one of the two handles the defenses very well. The other really struggles. One has treads and seems to handle the defenses very well - though needs some adjustments for the rough terrain. The fourth has mecanum wheels and seems to handle the defenses pretty well.
Two shoot in the high goal, the other two shoot low. One of the high goal shooters is looking very accurate with vision tracking, the other is still in development and has not been fully tested. The two low goal shooters were not tested here, yet.
Three of the four robots are planning to be able to deal with all defenses. One of those three seems to almost have them all, but needs some fine tuning. Two have about half of them down, but need to add a couple more mechanisms before they are going to have it down. The fourth is hoping to be able to always be able to deal with at least two in every set up.
It was just interesting to see the four robots that were developed completely independently of one-another and where they were all similar and different.
None of the four robots are really at a point where the are ready to truly scrimmage… For the most part, the drivers were acclimating themselves to the controls and builders were watching the robots’ physical ability to accomplish various tasks. I can speak to your questions a little, though:
The field will feel crowded. Going over the defenses - even when the robot handles them quickly and easily - is a but of a bumpy ride. Robots often “bounce” a bit as they exit the outer works making collisions in the neutral zone fairly likely.
All of the defenses will present challenges for some robots - nobody should “assume” that they can deal with one until they have thoroughly tested their bot - different crossing speeds, different angles of attack, etc.
Accurate shooting is going to require some sort of vision tracking or the use of established shooting locations. No matter how wonderful a shooter is mechanically, it will only be as accurate as the human (or computer) aiming it. Vision is poor enough that it will be difficult to see whether or not a robot is in the “right” spot.
With a very strong cycling robot, a well-practiced drive team and conveniently-placed boulders, cycle times can get down to seven or eight seconds… Not that everything will be lined up perfectly every time for any robot or that even the best drive time will always (ever?) perform completely flawlessly… Of course, add time if boulders are not picked up instantly; if it takes the shooter more than about a second to line up and fire; or if the bot does not handle defenses well.
Looks like the PNW is going to have some very competitive robots. Getting this much time for driver practice is definitely a leg up in this year’s game. Can’t wait for competition season!!
Although I don’t want to pry for too many details, I am curious about the preferred shooting locations of the robots. Were they shooting from on the batter, next to the batter, out on the carpet, or in the protected zone of the outer works? Also, do the teams have high (goal) expectations for autonomous? How difficult do they think a 20 point auton will be, given what they know about their robots’ capabilities?
All the robots’s shooters are still in some stage of development… The most developed shooter of the bunch was pretty much sticking to the center of the court and putting them into the high goal with about 90% accuracy. They are working on their vision tracking and have been playing with different shooter speeds and angles from different locations. They’ve shown accuracy from all over the court… One of the low goal scorers will be driving up on the batter and shoving the boulder in… The other will be popping it in from a bit further away… The other high goal shooter has not yet mounted its shooter and haven’t put it on display here… They plan to have vision tracking…
Autonomous: The two high goal shooters are planning, at the least to be able to cross a defense and shoot their boulders into the high goal. One expects to be doing two boulders at some point in the season… One of the low goal scorers plans to cross a defense and score a boulder. The other hopes to be able reach a defense…
In my experience, vision tracking is something that 80% of the teams try, and 79.9% of the teams fail at. I’ve seen teams that had vision tracking working extremely well (won 2 districts) go to worlds and have everything fall apart when the bright LED’s around the arena make their system near unworkable.
I’ve also watched many, many teams have a great vision system on their practice field and then really struggle at the event.
In 2012, most of the accurate shooters were not using vision systems. I expect the same thing to happen this year when teams get to competition and find they can’t tune their system in well enough to make it work.
Maybe I’ll be proven wrong - but we’ll spend more time practicing with no vision system than we do with the vision system working.
I think youre right.
We also did vision tracking in 2012 and it worked fairly well at our week 4 event in Hawaii.
However, soon afterwards we figured it was just so much easier to create set points using both spots on the field and what the operator saw using the camera to manually aim and shoot.
After a while they just got way better at it, doing it much faster than the vision tracking.
No calibrations necessary.
We held a practice/scrimmage yesterday and I noticed even more similarities between the teams. Of the six teams in attendance, all six are going for the low bar. Five of the six shoot for the high goal (with varying levels of success). Of these five, four were using shooter wheels. The sixth bot is going for the low goal, but they are a rookie team and didn’t want to try for too much. Four of the six have a mechanism that raises up, making them taller than 15". Four or five (it was a long day and I don’t remember) had pneumatic wheels, of varying sizes. Three are attempting vision tracking, and two had it working. From what I saw, all six were capable of more than half the defenses, and at least three of them are planning on being able to do all of them. Though none of them have built climbers yet, at least two have plans for how they’re going to climb.
It should be said that these are definitely above average teams. Four of them competed in St. Louis last year and and three of them played in eliminations, one as an alliance captain. Two of them are teams recognized for consistently building strong robots. I’m getting more excited about the first weeks of competition because it looks like Michigan is going to be as strong as always.
Two of the four plan to climb. However, of those two, one had not attached the climber at all. The other had the mechanism attached - but no motors. Both consider climbing a lower priority.
We had an open house today with all the Purdue teams and all 4 of the robots seem to handle most of the defenses well. Of the four 1 focuses just defenses, 3 shoot high and low, and all 4 are low bar bots. Currently only 1 plans to climb.
