Dear all,
You ya’ll have ideas for override goal aligners, poly carb or c channels.
Dear you,
How about you share your ideas first and then ask what ideas other have…
I think this is a general problem on the forum for asking possible solutions before thinking of your own.
This forum serves as a platform to seek ideas from the community and to share thoughts. I am asking this question to see what ideas other teams have. If you want a idea, I was think of a U shaped aligner with curves at the corners.
Literally, that was what I was calling you out on - you did not share thoughts, you just wanted ideas from community before sharing thoughts.
Ok - “U shaped aligner with curves at the corners.” what does it look like and what problem are you solving?
and from earlier:
Speaking to an implementation of using plastic or metal c-channels before really describing the problem you are trying to solve. Goals are all over the field - which direction are you approaching them?
Aligners made sense for push back long goals - but Override what problem are you trying to solve?
I think early season, analyze the game more details before general question of metal or plastic solution without detail to the problem you are trying to solve.
Personally, I would wonder about how to grasp the game objects and move them about the field - fixed goals don’t move.
I feel that aligners will help more for drivers, like if the driver can’t accurately drive to the goal and place the pins or cup properly, a aligner will defo help. Ok but I get where you’re coming from, still I think we’re looking at this from slightly different angles.
The reason I asked broadly first about aligner ideas is because it’s still early, and I’m trying to see how different teams are approaching the problem before locking into one direction. For me, that’s part of the design process—not avoiding thinking, but expanding it with more perspectives.
I mentioned polycarb vs C-channels because I’m unsure whether flexibility (to absorb misalignment) or rigidity (for consistency) would be better in that kind of design.
I agree that more detail helps discussion, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with using the forum to gather early-stage ideas as well. Just trying to explore different approaches before committing to one.
Is it that you think that VEX forum isn’t a place to ask for ideas?
Technically, if you read the community guidelines it says
This forum is intended for VEX users to communicate with other VEX Users and with VEX Robotics about VEX related topics.
Id say probably a poly carb alinger that can alling around the goals all around.
and I see your approach.
The concern is we have a lot of topics popping up, request to the community to provide solutions with little context or offering perspective on problem space for this game.
thank you for clarifying.
I’ll be honest—I don’t think aligners really solve the problem here. With different mechanisms and intake designs, you constantly have to reposition the lift and intake to grab and stack pieces. Over time, that movement can make an aligner ineffective at best, or at worst actually block you from scoring at all. In my opinion i really think just focusing on grabbing game objects and scoring should be the focus like lacsap said and if you’r are deadset on aligner make it last as a experimental feature that can be detached easily.
I think that an aligner is extremely important for this game. Stacking requires precision. You want to remove as much of the precision requirement from your driver’s abilities as possible.
My team is going to design an aligner on the front and back of our bot that is essentially just empty space in our chassis that hugs the goals. That won’t really block anything, in my opinion.
I disagree. If you’re misaligned to the goal, you just can’t score at all. It takes a lot longer for the driver to align with a goal than it does to align with a passive aligner. With the shape of the goals, aligning also looks fairly easy. I think you might be overestimating the difficulty and underestimating how useful an aligner could be.
I find that a little bit rude but ok…
I explained the why and got a thoughtful reply from OP. I acknowledged his reply.
Curt is different than rude.
I get that text forums are difficult to detect nuance and intent. Hence vague posts need clarifications and there are many right after new game is announced.
You may want to consider last year’s Q&A regarding mechanisms that “hug” the goal and potential violations.
The question itself is non-specific and may not hone in on any particular topic based on how it’s worded without 10 minutes of analyzing the wording.
If OP wants better answers, they should put effort into their topic post.
Do ya’ll have ideas for override goal aligners, such as using poly carb or c channels ?
Additionally, many people here volunteer their own time when they don’t need to. The bare minimum is respect, such as adding a “thank you” in advance or contributing something of their own. And if they don’t have ideas, they can say “I am stumped.”
Communication is key, and nobody has an obligation to respond due to a lack thereof.