8059 is proud to present 8059A and D, the two robots in the possibly final edition of Singvex:
59A and 59D were designed to complement one another in design and gameplay during Singvex 2018. 59D was designed to be a defensive robot and was effectively constructed in one day, with a strong focus on the quick descoring of caps as well as the ability to centre park. 8059A was a typical offensive robot focusing primarily on flags.
6 motor 1:1 Turbo
Able to climb alliance and centre platforms
1 motor 1:1 Hi-Strength motor brake
1 motor 1:1 Hi-Strength floor flipper
Ball System and Catapult:
1 motor 7:1 Hi-Speed roller intake
2 motor 1:7 Hi-Strength 2 ball catapult
Ratcheting system with auto-hold capabilities
Single motor “robot pusher” release for the quick removal of opponents from the centre tile
10 motor 1:1 Turbo
Elevated wheels for improved climbing ability
2 motor 1:1 Hi-Strength 1 bar descorer and cap flipper
As alliance partners, 8059A would be able to effectively focus on the scoring of flags while 59D would descore opponent caps on the poles while engaging in defence. Both teams would work in tandem to flip caps on the floor.
During the end game period, 59A was designed to push opponents off the center tile to help 59D maintain a parking position. 59A is also capable of alliance parking at this point of time.
Do feel free to ask any questions! We’ll be ready to help!
Actually we’ve always wanted to ask you guys, is a 2-ball catapult really more effective than a single-ball launcher?
Although in theory it is undeniably so, it discounts the fact that match conditions might not allow the drivers to properly make full use of the 2-ball capacity. If that is the case, it negates the benefits of having a 2-ball shooter and as a result, you might as well allocate your one motor somewhere else and have a 1-ball shooter instead.
For example, in a match with all the pushing and stress on the drivers, launching 2 balls and wanting both to hit to flags might seem like something hard to achieve. Yes, given the right conditions, it is still possible to do so. I am not saying it is impossible, it just seems that the dedication of 2 motors to the aforementioned mechanism does not translate to real benefits experienced in match.
I would love to hear what you guys think, since you built the 2-ball shooter :0
Personally I really think it is more effective.
And also do note that the 2-ball catapult is still able to function even with 1 ball in the catapult. So in that sense, there is no real disadvantage as compared to a normal 1-ball catapult.
Think during the SF (or was it QF?), 8059A actually launched quite a few single balls instead of 2-balls. The opponents was playing very hard defense against them (they even got their cap flipper damaged by all the pushing).
And having the options of firing off with either 1 or 2 balls does made the team more unpredictable in the gameplay.
Edit: One more point to add - comes V5, we will be talking about using just one motor for the catapult… regardless of 1 or 2-ball catapult. So there is really not much difference in terms of motor allocation.
You have raised some points that are indeed true. 59A did consider and attempt a few design choices in alleviating your aforementioned worries:
Tuning the catapult such that the robot hits the two balls when aligned against the centre and alliance platforms for ease of aiming
Allowing the robot to shoot 2 balls from various angles ( as shown in the video)
A motor brake which reduces the effect of pushing
The catapult can fire one ball as well, being able to hit the top flag at the usual alignment positions or the middle flag when almost up against the flag poles. This could or would be employed when the robot is experiencing heavy defense.
Going forward, the use of a gyroscope or vision sensor could further aid and reduce the chances of driver error. A lot of practice probably helps, too.
EDIT: Oops! @meng has put it very succinctly as well
Honestly… we have no idea what’s the Long term plans for our designs.
We will be doing a bit more prototyping, especially when v5 arrives.
And the plans for 8059D is a bit more complicated as well - half of the team will be graduating.
But regardless, I think defense is going to be a big part of this season game, eg. Knocking the robot off when it is about to shoot, pushing robot off the centre platform, stopping them from climbing, etc.
It generally prevents pushing from the sides and also from front and back.
But it will still pivot some what if hits from the corner.
The brake works pretty well… in fact too well. During the testing in the lab, 8059A lowered down the brake and got 8059D to ram it from the sides. The brake worked so well that it caused the c-channel at the side to bend.
And that’s also the reason 8059A was reluctant to use it during the match… to “protect” the chassis.
I am just thinking through your questions again… and I did a re-look at the video for the final.
Let’s fast forward the video to about 2:30min and look at the end game.
2 things stood out for me…
Between the time of 2:35min to 2:41min (during the time that the opponents were both busy climbing up the platforms), 8059A achieved a point-swing of 12points in this 6 seconds. More than enough to counter the opponents’ 9 points from the platforms.
If it is just a 1-ball catapult, there is no way we can achieved this impressive point-swing.
Most likely we might still barely squeezed past them, but I am really not so sure as well.
Looking at the firing rate (or rate of scoring), I would think that even flywheels will be hard-pressed to surpass it.
And again, bearing in mind that this 2-ball catapult is far from the finished article. There is still lots of room to optimise and fine-tune.
Eg. As of 2 days ago, I already observed the robot hitting the top flag from the far end of the field.
Think I will still stick to my initial assessment that 2-ball catapult is more effective than 1-ball catapult.