pic: Dragonfly CAD file



All CAD was native to CATIA, done by our lead mentor JJ (staplemonx on here). Not sure how many people will want it, but I have made a step file of the robot available in my dropbox.

Download link for those who want it: http://db.tt/VaoyVJL

I’ll definitely take a look at the CAD. It’s a cool concept for a defensive bot, especially in a game were the field is effectively more narrow because of the lanes.

Thanks for sharing.

What a task that must have been done in Catia! I’ve had the pleasure of using 3 different CAD softwares and I must say Catia was the most difficult to learn and use. However after learning it the other 2 programs were so easy.

As for that model I love the concept for a strong defense bot. Is it legal to put bumpers on those drop downs? I don’t think there’s anything against it but I’m not sure

As I understand it, the outer surface of the wings that deployed act as bumpers but are not BUMPERS (in the upper-case-FRC-manual definition). In theory, they could’ve been left off–these guys were being nice.

Billfred is correct :slight_smile:

two questions:
how much did the robot weigh? (without battery)
Are the “legs” gravity dropped (with some kind of latch) or driven by motors?

the robot weighed in at 119.5 with the trolling addition. (minus Battery)
trolling addition - http://www.phillyrambots.com/wp-content/uploads/media/sphs---2010-2011a/image20.jpeg

The arms were pneumatic controlled in both directions. They worked like a charm. I am still pretty sure that if we had been picked at nationals we would have gotten our team to Einstein. Our blocking ability cut our opponents scores in half on average. And that was against all skill levels.

Here is some footage of us in action. http://www.atomicrobotics.com/2011/05/videos-weekend/

PS the kids were ecstatic at getting to go to St Louis, but bummed we were not picked for Curie eliminations.

That’s quite a statement.

I’m going to have to agree with staplemonx on this for the most part

It is a bold statement, but hey we like to think big. :slight_smile: But a more realistic statement is that we would have been an asset if we had been functioning the way we had hoped.

Our chances would have been higher of getting picked if it weren’t for our own inexperience and lack of consistency with minibot deployment. This lack of consistency left us with only the option of playing defense, and this year, IMO, you needed 3 offensive robots to do well at better events.

Just as an fyi, we will no longer be mentoring the South Philly high school team, but will be coming back with a newly formed, larger, and better supported program.

You know, except Einstein, where every alliance had only two scorers…

I think 3553 would have been an asset had they had EITHER a consistent Ubertube or Minibot to contribute.

Every Alliance actually had three scorers, but all seemed to choose to play the 3rd on defense.

The crappy thing is the team shut down and didn’t want to do any off season events where we could have proved it, So it will always be a statement full of a lot of hot air.

We will get there next year.

And how exactly were they supposed to score an ubertube?
Correct if im wrong, but i dont believe they had a scoring mechanism (right?..)
Or are you just pointing out the importance in an ubertube or minibot

IF we had more time to code, we might have been able to get an ubertube on a low peg. We did allow for it in the design. But in reality we probably would have used our autonomous period to get up a head of steam so that we could start at the opponents end of the field as quickly as possible. Thanks to MOE for that suggestion.

As for the minibot - uhg. Our initial design for regionals never worked. We worked with the “FRO” on a new design for world championships that worked but then we got hit with someones arm and it broke. It took us most of Friday to fix it. But our last three matches it worked.

Akash is dead on when he said we did not instill confidence till those three rounds when we were humming along.

As Adam already said, the third bot should still have been able to play offense.

And IRI where 3138 played defense every match and made it to the finals. (Maybe I’m biased, but I was surprised how defense was not a focus in elimination matches at IRI—I thought more teams would go with the 254/111/973 strategy to having 2 scorers and 1 defense).

But yeah, Chris is right, 3553 without an auto nor consistent minibot was facing a very very tough climb to getting picked. They would have needed to join an alliance with a team with 2 elite scorers, one of which that had a two uber auto, both with minibots, confidence that neither of them will break down and the willingness to have an inflexible strategy. Just look at 973, who was the 5th highest scorer on Galileo, fastest minibot, and played some really strong defense, fell to the second to last team selected. That being said, I wouldn’t judge a rookie team’s success on getting picked at the Championship.

This is key.

When our elevator went down in the Boston finals, 222 stepped it up huge on the scoring aspect while we switched to D for 2 matches. This kind of flexibility is what allowed us to be extremely competitive in those finals matches.

Had we chosen a robot that was simply a shut down defender, it would’ve been game set match for us.

On a completely unrelated note-
Stogi, whats up with the ripoff NUTRON logo :wink:

-Brando

can u email this chasis im on the cad team on my skewl team and im looking new chasis cause are current one issnt gonna lst in new challengs my emails [email protected]