Yay mobile goals
Looks nice, keep up the good work!!
Pnumatics again, hmmmmmm.
Just a word of caution as i already have something similar to this. For the 20 point zone you will most likely need to make something that drops the mobile goal in a different way as doing like that with around 5+ cones resulted and the mobile goal being dropped at an angle and most of the cones falling off. So just a word of caution and something you may start thinking about but if you already have a plan for that then just ignore me
Attached are some pics of what i came up with and it actually works pretty great!
Nice job btw and where did the rd4b go?
Have you done anything to measure how straight that holds the mobile goals?
I had a lot of problems with the goal’s weight causing the lift to tip/bend slightly, and as a result the stack would lean out a little, which becomes a nuisance with large stacks.
Nvm my last question… i just read the second part of the thread title
I did extensive testing and it holds it at the right angle with any # of cones not revealing how
Can it 20 point tho?
It May even have issues with 10 because once he lowers it when he backs up then the arms will hit the pole. Please elaborate @antichamber
This exact design doesn’t exist anymore, I won’t reveal how I did it, but I made it so that it can score in those zones
You can drive over the pipe for the 10-point zone, and you can lower the lift slightly on the 20-point zone pipe so that the mogo rolls down it and the rails are not touching it.
I know buddy. I was just answering his question.
No, The original question was about the intake that he is showing. I answered the question regarding that intake. @antichamber said that a more recent version of this intake worked properly. Please sit down kiddo.
This conversation with multiple people and (apparently) multiple designs being discussed is very confusing with all of the pronouns used. Please have some maturity in the future.
Holy crap Zach :o
@Aponthis why did you get defensive about the convo between zach and antichamber? lol
I was just trying to clarify a seeming disconnect I saw between what people were talking about. When people are both talking about different things, lot of misunderstandings happen.
Apparently my interpretation of what people meant by certain pronouns (lots of "it"s and "he"s here) was incorrect. That’s fine, but I don’t appreciate being condescended to. This forum is supposed to be for collaborative discussion, not “dank memes.” The attitude that conversations are things to be won is unproductive and something I recognize from 12-year-old me (I’m 17 now, by the way).
@Aponthis clarification probably wasn’t needed, especially one that begins with “No @ Zach929Y” when a consensus was met between the two already. That just seems like calling someone out. Also, dank memes are completely irrelevant, and so is labeling others as people of younger ages, something i typically see in the uncollaborative discussion you state to oppose. Yeah the stupid statement was a little enough, but all you did was basically make things more complicated then again so am I, oh well.
As someone… i think @Highwayman said to me. Why don’t you slow down and read before wasting our time on something right in front of your face. Also, where did “dank memes” come from, the word “kiddo”?