@Jon Coonan has joined the channel
@Binnur Alkazily has joined the channel
@Jim Carr has joined the channel
@Rose Bandrowski has joined the channel
@Charlotte Larson Freeman has joined the channel
@Niklas Pruen has joined the channel
@Harper Nalley has joined the channel
Let's have fun!!
@Ronan Bennett has joined the channel
@Jeremy Lipschutz has joined the channel
@Brian Hutchison has joined the channel
@Chris Mentzer has joined the channel
@Lucas Rininger has joined the channel
Brainstorming document link https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DSPL4Zf6EErl2e6gVjFUuCBxNemD5yNwUAEktfRMdxw/edit?usp=sharing
@Enrique Chee has joined the channel
@Clio Batali has joined the channel
Food for thought to get discussion started: What do we know our robot does NOT want to be able to do?
Shoot for one - not apart of our strategy
Or, what do YOU think our robot does not want to do?
Great starting point! Quick reminder: we also need to look into the ideas of breaking and defensive blocking. Keep an eye out for those as you read.
What our robot doesn't want to do or what we don't want it to do?
I think those are relatively interchangeable. For clarity let's just say what we don't want it to do.
I would actually not focus too much on defense
I second that (maybe it could be an option later on if the design was right but not for strategy)
In my opinion, defense will happen primarily as a result of our actions in the game. There is not much we can do to make our robot geared towards defense besides making it heavy and maneuverable.
but I liked Rose's idea of the board behind the robot to make it easier for our alliances to score, and it could also secondarily be used to stop other teams from scoring
Yea you're right
Thus, there is no real payout for focusing on defense in our strategy because the advantage is relatively marginal. However, if there is an easy-to-implement solution that requires little or no commitment, I'm all for it.
Niklas, strategy drives design (although honestly I think it could be very interesting, lets not let it influence our strategy). Thanks for your support though!
I agree with Lucas
I'll try to stick with it :smile:
I would focus on human players scoring points for our teams, so the robot would need a mechanism for dispensing moon rocks through the airlock (I think a shooting system would not be precised enough to score many goals, correct me if you think it would) and I liked Lukas N's idea of heaving a bumper or small guiding board on the front of the robot to push empty cells into the fueling port.
It's certainly something to consider
I'm a little worried about trying too much to guide the balls via pushing component, just because of visibility and bounciness. I absolutely agree on your point about the human player and the need to address interaction with the airlock
It could also hinder our ability to intake - keep that in mind.
I think th mechanics guys could come up with something
Possibly! As long as it makes sense strategically, then we can totally work with that
Actually, it might bring more points to have the robot dispense all its stored balls at the same time, but we would need to communicate with our alliances to stop moving, so we can fill their containers...
If we can have an alliance member pin an opposing robot long enough for us to dump a load of 3-7 balls in an opposing trailer once or twice during a game, I would be satisfied with our robots scoring, especially considering additional points would be coming from the human players.
Regarding the ball guiding - are we assuming we need to guide the balls to the human player rather than picking from the floor? I thought our discussion assumed we could collect balls from the floor like a vacuum cleaner and dispense/shoot out.
That was what I was assuming when we were talking about intake. Does anyone have a preference about whether we use and intake or a pushing system?
For clarification- I was expanding on the second part of Binnur's message.
In response to the first question, if we decide on a pusher, I can't imagine there being an application other than pushing the balls to the human player.
I love this conversation !!! Keep it up guys !!!! Kudos to SLACK !!! Of course I can't offer any useful strategy ideas since I have not read the rules and have not studied the game. :disappointed: Hint
I think strategygroup4 gets the medal so far for productive, meaningful discussions. Come on strategygroup3,2, and 1 ! Jon, Alex, and Will lead your groups !!! Group 3 is doing well from mentors point of view. Group 2 get your mentors and more students involve. Group 1, do you even exist ? What the heck with Yo, yo group 1 ? :slightlysmilingface: Peace out!
I would rather go for an intake systen, if thats not too many modules later on
With what else?
or an intakesystem where you can decide wether the ball should be dispenced in front of the robot(empty cells) or if it should be put into another robot
(Sorry just read above for context) I agree, I think it allows for more accuracy when delivering the balls
sorry its getting very designy again
It's okay - it's still a valid conversation
Delivering balls to the airlock is a strategy that can be accomplished using intake (which we were considering)
I was just thinking, at least for the engineers, we should read Ch. 8 which deals with the robot limitations.
Good idea Lucas
Hi All!! Great vibrant discussion, have you guys and gals ranked your strategy by priority? It should be part of the discussion tonight.
@Jim Carr That is the main item on the agenda for today as far as I know.
If you have time read the article, at minimum the 4th paragraph.
Awesome, thanks Jim!
Jim, Great article about Strategy ! Thanks
@Bo Baird has joined the channel
Great job today!! I am so ready for the kickoff!! It will be awesome!
Gang - sorry I had to miss the presentation. Would love it if someone happened to take a photo of the final presentation and can add a summary of how it went!
@Ethan Rininger has joined the channel
Have fun with the strategy development today, I will be VERY interested to see what priorities you come up with!!
@Riyadth Al-Kazily has joined the channel
@Brian Hilst has joined the channel
Nice work team SG4!! Reminder to consider the width and length as well as the heightened :+1:
@Alex Larson Freeman has joined the channel
We decided to present a shooting robot for all those out there who are curious.
@Bill Davis has joined the channel
@Tom Wiggin has joined the channel
or more accurately hooray since hoorays isn't a word
@Clio Batali did Mr.Chee say we could present tomorrow, btw?
Everyone, if you haven't already, please check out the chief delphi links just posted in strategy group 2
(especially the stuff from 2006 on youtube)
I'm a big fan of this completely passive, simple gear mechanism
It could work if we wanted to have it, looking at chief delphi there seems to be many teams that are going for fuel are also going for a passive gear loader just for if they have extra time.
Extra time during the game that is
Hey I'm handing off my presenting role - I'm not sure I can with how much I'm coughing, sorry.
Is someone else doing it
Someone replace me please :joy:
what kind of bot did we decide on building?
Our team decided on presenting a fuel shooter robot, the team as a whole needs to vote tomorrow in a survey that will be sent out, we will know what robot we are building at our next meeting
@Bo Baird has left the channel
this is the perfect opportunity to try out the Gazebo simulator!
we can use it to make a three dimensional animation with realistic physics!
we just need to make a CAD sketch first
We already presented
Also, what would be the point Tom? We weren't trying to design the robot.
The point was to make a strategy to present so that the mechanics could design something from there's not to design the robot
@Jon Coonan archived the channel