The first several days after the kickoff are when most crucial robot design directions and game strategy are determined.
What are some of the painful pitfalls your team has fallen into when brainstorming the game/robot that you know to avoid now that you’re older and wiser? What will you do to avoid these pitfalls in the future?
Here a big one we’ve suffered from multiple times and what we’ll do to avoid a repeat:
**Falling back on a familiar and comfortable robot design from the past and adapting it to the new game. **
We did this in 2009 when we basically cloned our 2006 robot. We never let ourselves get beyond the idea that we needed to shoot the balls one at a time instead of considering the possibility of handling them in bulk and dumping them. We also did this in 2005 when we could actually play the 2005 game with our 2004 robot with almost no changes. In both examples we could have done much better if we had forced ourselves to conceptualize new ideas, role-play the game, and develop alternatives before making the final decision on our direction. Instead we got tunnel vision.
It’s good to learn from experience. It’s better to learn from somebody else’s experience.
Make sure you THOROUGHLY understand the rules of the game before you actually start designing the robot.
It completely stuns me when I see a team show up at an event with a misdesgined robot that is not prepared to compete in this game due to lack of understanding of how to properly pay the game that could have easily been solved by simply taking a day or so to understand how to play the game instead of rushing in with a vague idea of what to do due to the animation.
One issue we’ve had is jumping into design before strategy is decided. There’s usually several ways to implement a strategy, so limiting yourself to a single design generally isn’t the way to go. Less hurtful, but often similarly wasteful, is designing for a strategy that will he decided against. Why design if you’ll leave need any designs for such a strategy at all? The only answer is practice, which, while not bad, is inefficient during a build season and during that crucial period right after kickoff.
The Cybersonics team has had many pitfalls, but here are some of the most significant ones:
The biggest thing we have looked over in the past 3 or so years is the importance of picking up the game pieces efficiently, fast, and for sure. We always go right to how we are going to score and overlook the importance of picking up the game pieces.
But the one thing I feel our team has done extremely well (an aspect in which I feel many teams have huge pitfalls) is our drive train. We have used just about the same drive train for the past 3 years (including Lunacy), and it has served us extremely well! I see so many teams changing their DT's when in past years, they have worked great!
Another key idea: Simplicity is key, or as it is more well known, “KISS.” When you make something simple and effective, it makes your life infinitely times easier!
Our team took the KISS route last year, I can’t say from experience because that was my first year, but looking at archives, our team did better when we went more complex. Like the omnidirectional drive a few years ago, they got an award, we didn’t get one last year. The KISS method brought a very generic robot. Sure its robust and “reliable” (Not really, our robot broke down and stuff) but how is that innovative? Sounds more like imitation to me.
With that in mind, that is one reason for having such ambitious goals this year: Not to be ordinary. “Innovate not imitate” is one phrase that really stuck with me from the whole FIRST experience; I am taking that to heart.
I guess my advice is not to be satisfied with competence but to aim for the stars; go above and beyond of what is expected.
We usually end up designing a complex robot, and with our resources, the final product usually doesn’t work how we intended it to. In addition to FIRST, we compete in OCCRA, and the past two OCCRA seasons and this past FIRST season, we have built extremely simple robots. Our last three robots have had a minimum of moving parts, yet were extremely offensive.
Our Breakaway robot was simple, yet innovative. The kicker was basically a rotating paddle, and it worked extremely well. Throughout the season, we had plenty of teams compliment us on our simple, effective design and a few even asked if they could use our design(especially after Ann Arbor).
We also tend to have a habit of falling behind schedule and cramming to complete our robot even when it is a simple design. To prevent falling behind, we just need to make sure that everybody stays on task and completes the 15 minute jobs in 15 minutes instead of an hour and a half.
tl;dr version: Basically, 573 needs to keep the design simple and stay on task and we will have another outstanding season.
**Don’t try too many new things at once.
**
Last year we were trying out a new material (PVC), as well as trying out a 4 wheel coaxial swerve, CAN, and window motors. Lets just say that we had too many unknown variables, and the system failed… miserably. If we had done some preseason testing we would have been able to see that the PVC bends under the pressures of the bevel gears.
Experimenting during build season is beneficial, but only do a few things at a time.
Good news is that we were able to build a completely new bot for 10,000 lakes, where we placed 7th out of 63 after seeding. (That was an awesome spring break, 5 day build)
I agree to exactly what Phil stated about manipulating game pieces. If you’re trying to win the competition, the best robot out there that can score quick and efficiently will do so. If there is anything you need to worry about it is how long you spend debating about the actual robot. I remember in 2009 people were bringing in new ideas during Week 4 and I was freaking out. We didn’t have the time or money to deal with them. The best thing to avoid pitfalls is to understand the game quick and make sure you point out everything that is possible. Then, develop a machine that will achieve the game’s objective.
“You can’t do that” syndrome or “no way that will work.”
On more than a few occasions I have heard a rookie or newer team member come up with a good idea only to be shot down by more experienced members with the above phrases. Then that very idea shows up on another robot at competition (and works great.)
Don’t fall into that trap. All ideas can have merit and many good ones come from unexpected places.
Innovation just because you can innovate is not a good reason to have innovation.
Innovation because the game strategy calls for innovation is an extremely good reason to innovate.
Let’s take 1625 this year. 6WD swerve. Probably the #1 most complex drive to attempt, but their strategy called for the capabilities that it could provide, and they did very well. Same for 1501’s triangular robot.
OTOH, see 1114 in 2008, 330 in 2005 and 2008, 148 almost any year, and quite a few rookies (the highest rookie seeds, typically), as well as some of 1625’s other robots. They build simple robots that are engineered to perform well. Innovation (or, in 1625’s case, WINnovation) on these robots assists a simple design. It does not replace it.
Some of our best ideas come from rookies, simply because their mind has no limit as what you can and cannot do. Some kids knock their ideas down right away, but some others think about it. They give it a day or two and 15 or so drawings on napkins, and it ends up being the winning design! Its truly amazing.
If there is ever one thing I regret in designing, it is that often times the freshmen and sophomores get ignored! New or not, they have ideas too!
Some times [and more often than not, I’ve noticed], older, more experienced people over complicate things. I showed breakaway and a few other games to my Lego League teams, *, and each one had totally different ideas, but all were valid and all had been used at some competition I had been to! The designs [although not all too neatly drawn] were simple and effective.
Sometimes fresh minds on a project are a good thing! You never know what you might have overlooked.::safety::
“Falling into the Pit” comes as a result of not building a robot that solves the problem which is “the game.” The first step is to identify the problem your team is going to solve with the robot (there is more than one.) If you don’t solve the correct problem then no matter how well you build your robot you will not perform well. Even once you have identified the correct problem and have began to build your robot you must be vigilant that you stay on track. It is easy to sort of wander off course trying to “force” a design to work. This eats up your build season and will result in a lower caliber robot. Because of this, it is important to take a step back every week or so and make sure you’re still working your way towards solving your origional problem and not overcomplitating your robot with new problems added along the way. I would say a good rule of thumb is if what your working on doesn’t seem like an ellegant or simple design then probably isn’t and you need to rethink what you are doing. (I think you’ll find that simple ideas generally become more complex once you actually start design/build while complex ideas generally become, well… messy.)
Its also important to consider that often robots that seem very complicated to your team are in fact not to the team that build it. Don’t “fall into the pit” of building something that is too complex to finish in one build season. (On my team we have a saying. “Take how long you think it (a part) will take, then double it, then double it again, then you’re aproximatly around how long it’ll take.”) Complex features come as a result of practice and past experience. Those teams don’t just decide to build their complicated drivetrain / arm / shooter / ect out of the blue. They have built them before, know how to build them, know what not to do, and have a list of what to do better for next time. As they gain experience their complex feature no longer becomes a big deal because they’ve got it down to a science. That is the beauty of off-season prototyping.
Brainstorming cannot be accomplished in one day or even in two. It takes us most of the first week to analyze the game, play the game in our heads and on a mock field to see what is the best strategy. You have to analyze the scoring and what you need to do to win against other robots and what their strategies might be. You have to consider offense and defense and weigh ideas that might come at a price in terms of risky operation. You have to decide what your robot can accomplish it it finds itself as the only alliance partner (due to missing or malfunctioning robots).
Above all, you must get a handle on time. Two minutes can be the blink of an eye when you are trying to maneuver to score the bonus or it can be an eternity when your opponent is scoring like mad and you can’t do anything to stop them.
Something that 330 does that we’ve adapted (read: stolen) is we play the game the first week. We get the field elements set up, and act as if we’re robots with different functionalities and strategies. It really helps us visualize the game play and, as Al said, just how quick 2:00 is.
In the past, our major problem with brainstorming was that we just didn’t spend enough time on it. Often we’d skip right over considering the game and strategy straight to robot design, and even then not really plan what we were trying to achieve. (Note: always set and document quantifiable/testable requirements. Always. And then work to them. ;)) We’re working on it and are going to hold a practice kickoff soon with a different game to practice what we’ve learned.
Most important lesson: slow down. Brainstorming and requirement setting is a very important process. Give it the time it deserves. Attached is the picture I use to convey this to my design teams in college. (borrowed with permission: Penn State Systems Engineering)
You may be confusing KISS with over-simplicity. KISS tends focus on reducing over-engineered systems to more streamlined ones; improving reliability while retaining the same (or better) functionality. This keeps the focus on improve/sustained performance, which is the goal of any innovation. Sure, if resources or experience limit your maximum functionality, your engineering will and should echo that. If you’ve got the ability though, there’s no particular reason KISS should give you a generic robot. Heck, the term was coined by the lead engineer at Skunk Works.
If it works better for your team, consider using the Einstein verbiage, “everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler”. Or even Saint-Exupéry’s, “perfection is reached not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away”.
Here is a really great link on strategic design and implementation.
I was fortunate enough to get to see Karthik present this material at the Championship. READ IT. ::rtm:: Have your team review it, in a meeting. Take time to understand his Golden Rules. They are the pitfalls of most unsuccessful robots. I can’t stress how great it is that a Championship caliber team like 1114 is willing to share information like this.
For many teams, the most important thing to remember is the difference between staying comfortable, stretching, and over-reaching. Staying in your comfort zone will often limit your potential. Over-reaching will often end falling flat on your face. Stretching is the balance. Just like with sports, the more often you stretch, typically the farther you can stretch, and the better you will know your limits.
There are a few of things that I feel my team seems to fall for almost every year.
The Importance of a drive train. Each year we try and focus so much on the manipulator, that the drivetrain is neglected and throw together. Ultimately this hinders overall design and performance.
It might not be a bad things in some cases, but the team becomes overzealous. It seems that we jump into development of prototypes a bit too early, and when those prototypes go south, we wonder why we didn’t see very basic issues.
Not making a second robot. For the past couple of years, my team has not made a second robot, or one to practice with after ship date. This isn’t because of want, but primarily because we have 2 designs we take all the way to the end, and we can’t devote enough resources to developing two full, distinct robots and also creating a copy of one.
This one is key, but some people seem to under estimate what other teams will do. While brainstorming, some mentors/students immediately take the mindset that if we are able to score about 5-6 goals, then that’s good cause barely anyone will get those. Had we stuck with this mindset, not only would it have sorely effected our design, but we would’ve had a rude awakening once we got to worlds where they were scoring 10+ goals almost every match!
Highlighted from these two posts to say I think this is the problem I’ve seen most frequently with teams over my tenure in FIRST. You need to figure out what you have to do before you tried to build it.
Also there is a point where you have to start cutting chips so you can get something together for testing. Even if it doesn’t work the way you intended you will learn from the failure and be able to move on to something that works better.
Shameless copying of mechanisms that did something well in the past that you need to accomplish tasks for this years game is encouraged. Why reinvent something when you have a solution that works well. I can point out 2-3 mechanism variations that we use almost every year on my team because they are ready solutions in our arsenal that we know will be reliable.
Finally reliability is king. Never underestimate the value of not breaking in the middle of a match/elimination tourney/regional. It takes 20-25 matches to win the championship 10-15 of which are in the elimination tournament alone. Assume you have to do this with minimal maintainence to be competitive, because you can’t play if you don’t get out to the field everytime.
Some people think the secret to a great robot is a full team of engineers and a small mountain of corporate money, it isn’t.
The secret is prototyping.
Whatever you’re going to do, you need to play around with it, test it, tweak it, and learn if you’re idea is a good one LONG before you try to execute it.
(borrowed with permission: Penn State Systems Engineering)