I was looking at the current world championship standings for the skills challenge on robot events and i saw that as of right now two teams have qualified for worlds with 0 points in programming skills(but of course that won’t stay but still funny).
But to the point what does everyone think that the amount of points you will to qualify for worlds Via skills both driver and programming?
I think it will be somewhere around 150-200 for the driver skills and around 50-75 for programming skills.
If all sacks, excluding wall sacks, can be scored, then the ceiling score for driver skills is about 300, depending if any bonus sacks can be scored on the high goal. I believe this ceiling could well be raised further with a purpose built driver skills robot, built very light and fast with no capability to push or descore or score autonomously and with all motors geared to overheat after 65 seconds
For driver skills, wall sacks would appear to be slower to collect, as most of them are a further distance from the troughs. I don’t think the same will apply for programming skills though, because it will be very difficult to score sacks on the far side of the troughs, hence wall sacks will need to come into play.
From memory, in Gateway a score of 28 qualified drivers skills, with a high score pre Worlds of 41 (by 2915A). Applying this ratio to Sack Attack, an estimated high score of 300 would suggest a score of 205 will qualify. Mind you, if more teams push to qualify through driver skills this season, it could well be higher.
Yes it is. The only reason why programming skills scores are lower is because it takes more time to run the robot… What would be really impressive is if the programming high score was higher than the driver skills one.
Well, if you could record all the movements on your robot during a driver skills run which got over 220, then play it back in a programming skills run… Of course, this is assuming your robot was reliable enough.
I think some forum members have tried that method before with interesting results, although I could be remembering wrong. I think their conclusion was that a recorded autonomous was just less reliable than a primarily sensor-controlled one.