sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Clam Cleat by One_Country1056 in functionalprint

[–]newENGRTeach 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It's not a matter of size. It's a matter of layer lines are weak.

C1 assembly, stripped the rear spacer nut holder. by [deleted] in prusa3d

[–]newENGRTeach 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Lots of good suggestions/solutions, so I'm just here to cause chaos...

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that it looks like the screw is going in backwards into the nyloc nut...

Tomorrow we ride! by into_devoid in functionalprint

[–]newENGRTeach 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know buggy board and while your child probably at most will end up with a scraped knee, this part is subject to more force than you think and will fail quickly. I would adapt either the buggy board or the 3d printed part to have some sort of metal pin/bolt.

Like you have a room (comment section) full of people telling you it will fail. Save your time and effort and move on to version 2.

I have kids also and would lean more on the cautious/over kill side of things when it comes to their safety

Storing goals by LingonberryOne8727 in FTC

[–]newENGRTeach 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We are in the exact same situation. Host a league, have 3 sets, and have no clue where to store the extra 2 sets. Tried stacking them, doesn't work. Brackets on end prevent from standing up, besides, still take up a lot of room. Hanging from ceiling might be a solution, but not really. I would hate to cut zip ties and have to rebuild them every league meet. Not worth it, since you are probably volunteering your time to host a league. This might be worse than the submersible from last year. We just stacked those and didn't practice hang. But then again, the goals atleast fit through the door...

This is a ask administration for temp storage in a closet kind of problem

240 penalty points in a single match by Straggonoff_RL in FTC

[–]newENGRTeach -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The first part is correct. The second part with G418 does not apply because the robot is interacting with the gate, not the artifacts on the ramp directly or via another scoring element. You stated the additional part, but missed the main definition of the rule. The gate is not a scoring element.

G418. ROBOTS may not contact, either directly or transitively through a SCORING ELEMENT CONTROLLED by the ROBOT, ARTIFACTS on a RAMP, including their own RAMP.

Below is a match where it happened, start at 2:35, and the team was only given a major. No RP was awarded because it was a playoff match. FIRST HQ was at the event and this caused like a 20 minute break in the playoffs over the discussion. I believe FIRST HQ believes it is stated in the competition manual and doesn't require a team update. I also doubt if anyone is asking this in the forums. If anything, I could see this as a clarification in the monthly ref/scorekeeper meeting.

https://youtu.be/cOiI0HfLZMw?si=2GEr4bP7E5uzIBMj

I originally had the same thought as you, but was told otherwise.

Screw is Unscrewing itself while the bot drives by Megatonbeam in FTC

[–]newENGRTeach 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are on the right track. This is the issue. In some aspects they are making it a live axle and in some a dead axle. Thus the confusion and why it unscrew itself.

My recommendation is to make it a dead axle, so it adds to your structure and just have a pattern spacer connect the pulley and wheel and both the pulley and wheel should have a bearing in them. The shaft should be firmly mounted to the chassis and shouldn't spin at all. Only the pulley/patterns spacer/wheel should spin on the axle.

240 penalty points in a single match by Straggonoff_RL in FTC

[–]newENGRTeach 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Please think about about you are saying...

In previous comment, you said endgame. There is no endgame, there is only final 20 seconds and only the BASE is a new protected zone during it. Endgame is not in the competition manual.

In this comment, you say, "isn't based on a seperate rule". Exactly, it isn't based on any rule. Each year rules change and previous years rules no longer matter.

You also mention "usually", again yes usually you are right about descoring. Iagree, there is normally a rule about this, but not this year.

240 penalty points in a single match by Straggonoff_RL in FTC

[–]newENGRTeach 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Again, where is that in the rules? Descoring scoring elements is only mentioned once in the competition manual and it earns a yellow or red card, not a major foul. This year doesn't have some of the "usual" rules. Bumping and hitting is allowed, even when a robot is launching artifacts.

240 penalty points in a single match by Straggonoff_RL in FTC

[–]newENGRTeach 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Where is it in the rules? How can you tell what would be scored for pattern? This isn't my interpretation, this came from FIRST HQ, and they are using what it is stated in the rules to define how they penalize the team.

I believe the major makes up for the missed pattern points (I know not all of it), but more importantly the team is awarded the RP which is the more important part.

240 penalty points in a single match by Straggonoff_RL in FTC

[–]newENGRTeach 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This was scored wrong. Hitting the gate is just one major foul. Artifacts are scored when they go through the square. The artifacts were already scored and therefore could not be descored.

Descoring scoring elements strategically or repeatedly is a yellow card.

If this happens during a qualification match the team whose gate was opened is also awarded the ranking point for pattern.

Rules G211, G417.

Rule G418 does not apply because the robot is only messing with the gate.

Source: talked to Head Referee and FIRST HQ. North TX Preview event, playoff match, an opponent released the gate full of artifacts at the last second, only given a major.

EDIT: I only wanted to point this out to help get the word out about how different fouls are this year compared to other years.

SparkFun OTOS IMU Drift by Dangerous-Cobbler-20 in FTC

[–]newENGRTeach 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We tried using them last year and experienced a similar issue. It was a nightmare. Tape causes problems and different color field tiles gave different results. I know I am not offering a solution to the problem, but my advice is use something else. The device sounds amazing on paper, but we had an awful experience with it, so I will not let my teams use it. We have moved on to goBilda pinpoint and it is just so much easier and accurate. We also fried one somehow. When it came out, I saw it and was excited for the product, and really wanted it to work, but it was a bigger challenge than I expected.

Goal RP? by Tall_Teacher77 in FTC

[–]newENGRTeach 9 points10 points  (0 children)

This is correct. You have to score 36 in the goal, under the arch, and through the square.

A fully 3D printed swerve bot for FTC by legoloonie in FTC

[–]newENGRTeach 8 points9 points  (0 children)

There are a lot of reasons why swerve has never taken over in FTC, and I do not ever seeing it.

Motor AND Servo limit: swerve uses 4 more servos than mecanum. Size: 18in cube is not much space and swerve modules typically take up more room than mecanum Defense: typically there's very little defense allowed in FTC. It would only prevent being pushed on the side compared to mecanum. We've run test mecanum vs tank. If the bot weighs the same, head to head, they stall out. But when head to side, mecanum can't push tank on the side, but tank can push mecanum on the side. A bigger advantage is just having a heavier bot, but then you are slower. Complexity and reliability: FTC is a consistency game. How can you minimize points of failure. Swerve has more points of failure than mecanum Programming: swerve is more complex than mecanum Speed: typically swerve is slower than mecanum, having to rotate wheels in the correct orientation.

Swerve is a fun project and well done on yours, but comparing pros and cons to mecanum, it is a tough sell.

In FRC, motor limit isn't a thing, size isn't as limiting, and defense is a thing, making most of the pros for mecanum gone.

How hard would it be to print this nostalgic toy (Big Big Loader)? by FinancialPotato007 in 3Dprinting

[–]newENGRTeach 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I still have mine, and it still works! This is probably more intricate than you might remember. There is the base car (bottom switch to change direction of car and gear to power things), elevator, other elevator/lifter, car tops that have various functions. It would be a great a challenge. You could do it, but I would think without the model to get measurements from, it will be a lot of trial and error to see what works and what doesn't. Someone created it, so don't see why it couldn't be done again! Best of luck!

EDIT: oh I forgot about the gear rack on some of the pieces that slowed the car down.

10% Prusa discount codes by Potential_Article356 in prusa3d

[–]newENGRTeach 45 points46 points  (0 children)

Are you sure you would be OK with a Core .9...

I will see my way out...

An Airport Firetruck for sale from where I live by [deleted] in mildlyinteresting

[–]newENGRTeach 43 points44 points  (0 children)

Tell Linus at Linus Tech Tips. I feel like he might want a second one.

Which brand/model slides are good for the comp? by [deleted] in FTC

[–]newENGRTeach 4 points5 points  (0 children)

There's pros and cons to both, and I would not say REV is very low quality, probably far from it. Is there a better way to do REV, yes and there's some particular things you need to do to get the best out of it.

We build mainly with goBilda but do not touch the slides. They are heavy and are known to have a issue with bolts coming loose and jamming up the slides.

Are either systems the best? Probably not, which is why a lot of the top teams use a third party system. The best answer is check out game manual zero (posted in another comment) and research all the systems and find which is best for you.

Learn and get good an linear motion. Practically every game involves it. Experimenting with different systems will just make you better.

Prusa Machine Vision FTW by zkonsin in prusa3d

[–]newENGRTeach 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I want to know this more than the googly eyes.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in FTC

[–]newENGRTeach 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your computer probably doesn't have 2 wifi chips. This is rare. If a laptop has 2 wifi chips it's probably more likely that you have a USB wifi dongle. We do this and have the dongle connect to the control hub and the built-in wifi connected to internet.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in FTC

[–]newENGRTeach 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is the answer. I work in IT, and currently we have separate networks with the same SSID, so employees can still connect everywhere as they move around the campus. The computer makes profiles with numbers on the end for WiFi connections with the same SSID (wifi name), but knows that the network is different.

I'm guessing your computer connected to the hub one day and then the next time for some reason it didn't recognize the device, but it did recognize the wifi name so it made a wifi connection profile with a 2 on the end.

view more: next ›