Robo-Cross B

[goodcheer]

I am planning on attempting Robo-Cross this year with my friend. I am new to the realm of robotics. We were talking about building it ourselves, no kit. Is that possible/affordable? Does anyone have any tips for getting started? Additionally, could someone tell me the approximate cost of supplies/tools I will need, where to get them etc.? Also would you need to program the robot? I know some code but I am not an expert so if you do, could someone explain? Thanks!

It is possible to build one without a kit. Try looking for a multi-functional RC or wired vehicle like a bull dozer or dump truck, new or used depending on how much you want to spend. Make sure it fits the dimensions. The vehicle needs to go forward and backward, right and left, and it is best if it has a third function so you can make a lift. Such a device would not need to be programmed, but it might need to be mechanically modified to enable it to perform good enough to get all the possible points. You want it to be able to pick up the items or scoop them up and place them into the buckets or at least push the items into the highest scoring zones. Good luck and have fun.

[dougleppard]

The robot and kids are doing well. This Saturday is their contest. They can put the two jugs in D pointing up and can have all the items except all the poneeies iin the jugs. It will be seen if they can do well at the ocntest.

Here is a picture of the robothttps://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/513 ... 0robot.jpg.

It has mecanum wheels meaning it can move in all directions, uses a scoop to pick up items and dump into the jugs. The kids press down with the scoop at the end of the jugs and pull back to point them up. It is a dual driver so each of the kids are involved.

It has been fun to work with the kids.

Doug

[SOCoach]

My robo kids were working on their logs today and figuring out their possible scores. They were telling me that half the time they were scoring more points by simply driving the robot into zone D right away and calling time, rather than waste time attempting to pick up the items. I haven't worked through the scoring system much this year yet . . . my question are they correct or are they missing something. Is it more beneficial to simply drive into D early and get the time bonus over trying to pick up a great deal of the objects?

[SOCoach]

Nevermind . . . I see where my students messed up. They forgot the 3x for the jug being upright and then another 2x for each object being in each jug. That makes a score in the high 200 very possible even without pennies. Apparently I need to help them more with math . . .

[jander14indoor]

Didn't think I messed up the math that bad setting up the scoring. But students CAN think in terms of how much time is an object worth. A lego in each jug in zone D is worth X seconds. How long does it take to pick up the next object, etc.

Jeff Anderson
Livonia, MI

[Melinda]

At our local invitational in Seattle this weekend, many teams used the "loophole" rule and moved an object or two to get points, then moved the robot into the final zone D and called "science." These teams were the top scorers at the event......Do you think this rule will be changed? It seems to conflict with the spirit of a build event.

on another note, the proctors were having a hard time explaining the scoring questions some of us had.

is the following accurate:
Ping pong ball final score for each one in zone c is 3 points
6 points in zone D
18 points for each ping pong ball in upright jug in zone D
36 points for each ping pong ball in upright jug in zone D, if at least one ping pong ball is in each of the jugs.

So the maximum one can get for all 4 ping pong balls would be 36 x 4 -- if they are in 2 upright jugs in zone D. Or is it actually more or less. (I'm wondering if its 2 x 3 x 2 per ball, not 3 x 2)

thanks for the clarification on all counts.

[chalker]

At our local invitational in Seattle this weekend, many teams used the "loophole" rule and moved an object or two to get points, then moved the robot into the final zone D and called "science." These teams were the top scorers at the event......Do you think this rule will be changed? It seems to conflict with the spirit of a build event.

on another note, the proctors were having a hard time explaining the scoring questions some of us had.

is the following accurate:
Ping pong ball final score for each one in zone c is 3 points
6 points in zone D
18 points for each ping pong ball in upright jug in zone D
36 points for each ping pong ball in upright jug in zone D, if at least one ping pong ball is in each of the jugs.

So the maximum one can get for all 4 ping pong balls would be 36 x 4 -- if they are in 2 upright jugs in zone D. Or is it actually more or less. (I'm wondering if its 2 x 3 x 2 per ball, not 3 x 2)

thanks for the clarification on all counts.

As usual, this is not the place for official comments or clarifications..... Regarding a rule change, I can almost guarantee it won't happen. The rules writers discussed and considered this technique. One perspective is that teams should always consider that if every other team is going to use that technique, they can use it too and just add 'one more piece' to get slightly more points. Rinse and repeat and there will be some middle ground between number of pieces and time.

And yes, your score analysis is accurate.

[jander14indoor]

again, not official, etc.

Agree with chalker, this is not a loophole, these techniques were explicitly considered when we wrote the rule. It was part of how the point values were set. Yes you can get what seem like a lot of time points by grabbing something driving to zone C and calling science quick. The values on the objects (like the total 144 points you get for putting the ping pong balls in both jugs upright in zone D) were set to make you think, how much time is it worth to do that task? If it takes you less than 144 seconds it is worth doing and will beat the team that didn't do it and called time faster.

A comment about point values. There are 180 points available for time, but 456 available from objects. You only have to get half the object score to beat a simple grab and object and yell science approach. The challenge is to balance these things!!

Look for some official clarifications soonish.



Thanks,

Jeff Anderson
Livonia, MI

[kwinks]

I agree with Melinda's comment above "It seems to conflict with the spirit of a build event." If you look at the SO official website, there is a long list of goals. One of the goals of tournaments is "To bring science to life, to show how science works, to emphasize problem solving aspects of science and the understanding of science concepts." How does a robot, performing elementary tasks, demonstrate any of those things? We're probably going to see this type of entry in most tournaments. I get that. The problem lies in the fact that they were able to win the event with minimal effort and little to no gain in ability or knowledge of science/engineering. It seems that this could have been curbed if the bonus wasn't awarded unless, for example, half the items are in a jug(s).

[chalker]

I agree with Melinda's comment above "It seems to conflict with the spirit of a build event." If you look at the SO official website, there is a long list of goals. One of the goals of tournaments is "To bring science to life, to show how science works, to emphasize problem solving aspects of science and the understanding of science concepts." How does a robot, performing elementary tasks, demonstrate any of those things? We're probably going to see this type of entree in most tournaments. I get that. The problem lies in the fact that they were able to win the event with minimal effort and little to no gain in ability or knowledge of science/engineering. It seems that this could have been curbed if the bonus wasn't awarded unless, for example, half the items are in a jug(s).

My perspective is that problem solving in science (and the real world) isn't always about following the 'obvious' path. There is still learning involved in getting even a functional robot to begin with (we made the mistake a few years ago of allowing a loophole in a robotics event where points were awarded for having non-functional devices, and somebody entered their shoe and got some points). We've already explained the tradeoff between time and objects is definitely weighted towards objects, so part of the 'science' involved is looking at the resources / time / knowledge available to the student and putting together feasible and successful approach. Most students will quickly realize that going with the bare bones approach isn't going to result in enough points to be competitive.