Thank you for the explanation!!!
ri3d designs are great but there isn’t any actual time constraint. You shouldn’t be like my robot is better because I built it faster. People that do ri3d’s are very good at robotics and it is quite an accomplishment but giving more credit to teams that build faster I don’t understand.
I do think though that the 62A and area 51 and Anomaly’s robot is quite good. However being able to hold more cubes is a big advantage people just need to figure out how to incorporate that onto a DR4B.
This is an unnecessary height but currently the lift my team has built can reach 12 cubes tall, stack 15, and can hold 12 cubes…However this robot design you have come up with is really great and has large potential.
Why aren’t you able to stack to 24 then…
I would rather do 3 fast cycles of 5 to get to 15 than make unavoidable tradeoffs in speed, stability, complexity etc for larger capacity. At a certain point, you only need to stack a certain height to mathematically guarantee a win. With 3 stacks of 15 the color and tower distribution doesn’t matter, you have already won.
To touch on the discussion of tray vs stacker designs, here’s some of what we discussed when we were designing:
There are obvious benefits to tray robots-- they can process as they drive and have a larger capacity, but once they place a stack they can’t add to it. It’s possible that tray robots could end up being able to build 15 stacks reliably on their own and super stacking becomes unnecessary. Autonomous makes that pretty unlikely though, because both tray robots on an alliance would have to build and deposit max capacity stacks in auton. If you can’t max out your capacity in auton, and you don’t have an alliance that can add to your base stack, you can’t recover those cubes you missed and 2/3 of your points are final after autonomous.
Again, nothing is stopping a lift bot from processing while they drive
You would either have to process cubes internally or put the whole tray and intake on a lift, both of which could be done in theory but will involve tradeoffs. We added the side rollers to be able to somewhat process as we go but it’s still not nearly as fast or continuous as a tray. If you are claiming that you already have a robot that can stack onto tall stacks and continuously process, please prove me wrong.
I don’t even think it’s all that important for a super stacker to process continuously, it just needs to accurately place small stacks onto tall stacks.
So I wont be able to completely prove you until about a month or so, but, it is not impossible to have side rollers directly into a tray on a lift of some sort without many drawbacks, instead of the 2 stage side roller alignment and passive intake. There will be drawbacks of course but I think many of these drawbacks have been severely over exaggerated.
And yes stacking on top of a preexisting stack will be quite difficult, which is a drawback of a tray-lift design, but as long as you can make a nice straight stack below that one, you should be golden. If you have a larger capacity tray-lift, you will also wont have to worry about aligning your stack as much since you will be doing it less.
Nobody said the intake held all 12.
Stacking to 15 makes it possible to achieve a mathematically guaranteed win, so I don’t see any real advantage and a lot of risk in trying to go higher. We’ve already seen a tray robot that can do a 10 stack (8059), and that robot was built in a single day. Assuming tray robots will be able to do 10+, then what is the reason for having any more than a 5 cube capacity. Time isn’t really a factor either, 1:45 is more than enough to do several cycles. The more cubes you hold, the more torque your lift needs which means it’s slower, and the less stable both the robot and the stack will be. Regardless of if it’s possible to build, I would still prefer more cycles, but fast and accurate ones.
Stacking 11 is enough to guarantee victory if you win auton and balance your colors.
You are right. 11 guarantees a win with perfect distribution and auton, but that is very unlikely. Someone on 62 (Katie) did the analysis and came up with 15 as an ideal number, she would be the one to explain how she arrived at that. I know it also factored in potential robot capacities and strategies so it could change as the season progresses.
Personally I’m going to try a strategy with a tray bot where I sacrifice auton by not stacking at all during it and instead collecting cubes, then attempt to make it up during driver control with faster intake speed
If you can make it fast enough, then why not stack the cubes. Starting on the quarter of the field with the smaller goal zone, you have a lot of cubes near each other on the ground that you could easily grab with rollers, so you could probably route your auton in such a way that you have time to score them.
For the single goal side, I could see a tray robot maxing out at 11 cubes (1 preload + 2 rows of 5). A tray robot on the other side will have a much harder time collecting enough cubes to max out their capacity. Going fast enough to make an 11 stack and place it in 15 seconds also comes with the risk of misplacing it and having a potentially catastrophic stack collapse. We saw a game of chicken emerge in skyrise where everyone was pushing for 5 or 6 section autons and consistency was pretty poor at worlds. A reliable 3 section auton would have won most RR and finals matches.
That consistency problem is another reason I think the best course for a tray bot during auton would be to simply collect cubes. Auton is only six points and a couple cubes, with sixty four other cubes on the field that can easily be made up.
Think you missed the point.
Teams that performed Ri3D or Ri1D never stop building and improving.
Eg. My teams never bring the same robots to worlds from their Ri3D or Ri1D.
But the main purpose of all these projects are to give ideas to other teams and hopefully kickstart other teams.
In fact, I have always say that all these Ri3D projects are not for all teams.
Even for my side, I only encourage the more senior or experience teams to attempt.
+10000. I can not agree with this any more.
Ri3D/Ri1D are meant to be fun, learning experiences for the teams that built them. Then they produce reveals or show match videos that showcase what they were able to pull of in that short time period. I think spreading the design idea is only a secondary purpose of the reveal, it should mainly be to show off the productivity of 1 or 3 days.
Obviously these robots are not meant to be worlds caliber robots. They were built in 1 or 3 days out of the 365 day season. That’s not even 1% of the time you actually have to tune your competition robots. No robot in 3 days is going to be perfect, and that is certainly not the purpose of them. For example, I’m sure 8059 is not loving how cubes can fall out of their tray. I know that I hate how my rollers from my ri3d turned out. I don’t think this 62 one is also satisfactory with its stacking and intaking speed.
Every rushed robot has its kinks… they are just starting points and learning tools.
Is it bad that I’m sitting here just now realizing the ri3d means robot in 3 days and isn’t a team name …
Can your robot build two stacks in the larger goal zone? If so, how?
There’s a 1-motor
linear slide thing four bar I guess on the top that sort of pushes the cubes forward. When the cubes are far forward enough, the passive intake releases.