I really want to meet this guy, I just want to tell him all of the lives he is starting on the wrong trajectory with this idea (insulting idea not person, Vex don’t ban me).
I certainly evolved my thinking… some. Adult influence on competitive robot designs is definitely not settled and I appreciate the discussion. There’s a mute button over there if you’re not interested.
I do really appreciate your perspective, but I think you’re missing the point. Are there wrong ways? There are certainly wrong ways to be a coach or mentor. We’ve been using the term “dad bots” for ages, especially in IQ.
Someone could release detailed instructions on how to build an easy to drive, high performing robot and provide the code as well. I don’t think anyone is going to do that, but we would all agree that’s a bad thing to do. It would be bad for the community as a whole to see true clone bots lining the finals. It’s not all good and these discussions are about where that line should (or even could) be drawn.
Well, nothing easier, just pay $37 to join their live webminar. You can supposedly even ask for a refund after, “no questions asked”.
What about a repository online that shows different mechanisms and how basic coding would work in place of the metabot? That resource could be non-game specific and continue to grow the programs for all in the community. I strongly feel that is more important that copying a online bot or just building the Hero bot and not upgrading. Most of the students I work with don’t have engineering skills yet. If there was a library of options to explore I believe it would be a huge catalyst in seeing different competition designs versus the “Dadbot” or metabots.
If something like this already exists and I am just late to the game please point me in the right direction.
that is a great resource. However there seems to be a disconnect. For example, How could a 5th grader design a shooting mechanism. As noted it does not need to be game specific. Just needs to be more than what is already available.
Although it is more FRC centric, the NASA RAP Design Guide gives an overview of just about every style mechanism you’d ever want on a competition robot.
Wouldn’t it be great for RECF to publish a model solution for the challenge early to midseason? They design the game around a model solution anyway. So why not just release it, let kids rush to reverse engineer it prior to worlds? This would eliminate a lot of frustrations and failures for the kids. And all the kids can have a competitive robot and not have to persevere through failure after failure after failure. What’s the point in kids failing anyway?
Ok if all the above sounds silly and ridiculous, then really any form of adult inspired “solution” should be out of bounds. I am all for adults teaching specific mechanisms and concepts, but totally against adults providing a “solution”.
That is just my $0.02. Cheers.
Citation needed…
No specific citation but it has been hinted before.
Watch @ 1:02
The games designers need to have a model solution in mind when designing the game or else the game either is too easy or too hard.
I was unable to attend VIQ worlds. Can someone give an estimate how many teams had the VEXIQ Fling Bot?
None had a original fling (that I saw) but from what I saw around 20-30 teams with a modified fling very close to the original.
Closest I saw was a fling with double cup on the catapult & a better intake.
Could be viewed as halfway evolution to spitfire.
Thank you for the link, though Grant only mentions they try to balance the game design, no mention of a model solution to work with.
Personal connection
Just at that time stamp, I have also learned that an ES team from the organization we started with 7 seasons ago got a shout-out from Grant for one of the few perfect qualification scores. That certainly brightened my day, so thank you again for that.
One of the teams in my Z team’s division had a fling that seemed pretty close to the original. Maybe except for the back beams that seems to be made to push the balls better
I saw more push bots than flings.
I feel like this topic has been explored ad nauseum and everyone has had their opportunity to provide their opinion/insight/whathaveyou.
I make a motion that we don’t rehash this same conversation every single time a robot reveal is posted.
Is there a second?
Yep me I bet Ben lipper is looking at this right now. Question what did he name his robot
On the contrary, I am quite interested, and was very active in that thread, and I would like to continue that discussion. Seeing how @VexParent2020 saw eye to eye to me shows that I am not the only one. But I would like to see how @FRC973 Feels about this.
I do not want to start an argument, I don’t want to cause anything I just want to get your point of view. I get that you think that you could influence kids to use your design and have one better than they could have created. The only problem in my mind is that it causes kids to rely on you instead of using the engineering design process. I don’t think you are doing this ill-heartedly, I just want you to know that we crave this problem solving competition but when we go to worlds and all we see is Spitfire for 2 and a half days. We get quite annoyed that we cannot win or come close to winning when you gave everybody your design. Coaches were getting angry at worlds when they were not teamed with a spitfire. You are a very intelligent person and I think you could make a living out of this, (maybe work for Vex). I don’t mean to be a stalker but I have seen all of your badges and looked deeper inside of you to try and get your angle and I realized, YOU LOVE VEX. Everybody knows you are smart but if you want more people to be like you, you should try something different, Thankyou.