yea, that was successful this year /s
It’s very hard to get anyone to share anything when the season is over, only three teams have shared code so far this year, perhaps a few VexU after this weekend.
That’s not a choice, that is forcing. Look at VEXU. 3D printing is a major advantage.
Simply put, you don’t want to do the research to learn how to make your own 3D printed designs, then don’t, your choice.
Done
Leave it to the teams who earned it.
I give grace to all this season.
I do appreciate the code share - my club leveraged your example code and extended - that is the point.
What is being debated, what condition do you accept 3D printed parts as part of VRC MS and HS? The point of the proposed pathway is to provide a learning opportunity for all. All that is being asked is to provide a model of their solution - no explanation (though that would be nice), nor specific implementation on their bot… It provides a watermark / timestamp of 3d solutions so those lazy teams just want to photocopy/clone solutions. and not understand how/why/where it works.
I have seen photocopy robots (literally try screw for screw copies and fail). I do not understand why anyone feels threatened on the field or in judge room … transparency will not diminish your success on the field or judging room. Moreover, having snapshot of parts or code in repository, it strengthens your position - plus you get street creds for innovations.
Our club has benefited from the altruism of 44 / QCC2 and as a club we share ideas freely… I hope all other clubs do as well.
dude - do you argue about 18" x 18" constraint - guess what - it is forced on all teams …
all teams are forced to have VEXos firmware installed.
all teams are forced…
you get the point - you do not like it, you do not compete…
this is just a proposed constraint to compete.
Did the teams design, iterate and manufacture the size limit? No the teams put zero work into that.
Did the teams design the firmware? No.
But they shouldn’t be forced to share THEIR work. It is theirs not ours.
And I have seen some succeed even though they were not the original. Very situational scenario.
Ok, like judge award for design, you need to provide model or can’t use it.
this transition period that is the context, you want 3d printed parts, then provide model in order to enter robot …
This is a proposal - you don’t like it, dont do it.
If teams were required to share CAD files to use 3D printed parts to compete then why not require teams to share their detailed designs for their robot as well? Feels like a short jump.
nope - I disagree - all the team asked is to provide similar model of parts available from VEX on product page (not sure all pages do ) but in this case would be good.
Yes, but that is only to the judges, not the entire community. Big difference.
If I remember right, these were for a 15" vexu robot. These would be hard to plug and play, unless they hole counted your robot. Many 3d printed parts have a very specific purpose, and would not function easily with other robots without some modifications.
And remember, there would most likely be a limit on the parts. They wouldn’t make up a huge part of your design.
People do cad reveals and early season concepts all the time, as well as robot reveals which sometimes can give detailed pictures. Should we stop doing those?
This isn’t forced either. You don’t want to share your design, you don’t have to print. Easy as that.
You miss point - model only available to Inspection/EP for event - would be released to community (in one proposal) and then to general community end of season…
Taking away the choice is the heart of the issue . If people want to do this then let them. If not then thats ok too.
Okay, less of a problem with that. What I’m arguing against is forcing to share your designs by essentially holding the possibilities of a 3D printer hostage. If the designs will only be shared with judges and EPs I have less of an issue.
No, inspection collects the list,of parts, working out how to index them so roboteers can find them.
So to compete with 3D printed parts, teams would be required to share the parts they developed so other teams could simply download and print them? Sounds like thingiverse.
It’s quite literally mandatory thingiverse under the proposed system.
Seems some think that the range of possibilities is:
- Current state - No 3D printing
- Must publish ahead of time in order to use 3D printing
- Volumetric/weight-based restricted 3D printing
- Anything goes 3D printing
What I am reading (and based on the previous 5 years) is that RECF is against option 3 and 4, full stop. So the real range of options is:
- Current state - No 3D printing
- 3D printing with some trade-off to bolster “less competitive” teams, though it may be possible that in future years this “bolstering” is reduced or eliminated.
As others have stated, there’s still choice under 2 - 3D print-and-publish, or don’t 3D print. Similar to lexan usage.
That implies no specs on 3D parts or anything of the sort. Of course that’s off limits, but size/mass specs and “share your work with the class” are two very different things.
That’s fair. I’ll edit my post to reflect that option