Car Nack Predicts 13-4

[Car Nack]

Car Nack Predicts 13-4

Unfortunately the automatic Frisbee counter will be unreliable and require the manual counting of Frisbees for many matches.

Car Nack has spoken.

[Whippet]

Well, there goes filling the frisbees with water before scoring them...

[CalTran]

Pairing this with getting robots down from the third level means that turn around times on matches will be pretty lengthy

[Alex Cormier]

I don't think it will that big of an issue. Weight systems for couting is a huge industry standard if used properly. Thats the sticking point, if they use it proeprly there should be no issues.

[vhcook]

I'd be surprised if it didn't have problems with frisbees partially supported by the target lip or the chains.

I expect getting the frisbees out to be an adventure as well, even though the bottoms of the goals can be pushed up.

[Keyreaper]

Sorry I don't know this (and I feel I should) but who is Car Nack, and what does/is he predicting? D:

[JohnSchneider]

Sorry I don't know this (and I feel I should) but who is Car Nack, and what does/is he predicting? D:

He is a prophet that predicts plausible future events; sometimes even correctly

[Sandvich]

He is a prophet that predicts plausible future events; sometimes even correctly

Shush. He is right about everything.

[Doug G]

Sorry I don't know this (and I feel I should) but who is Car Nack, and what does/is he predicting? D:

You are in violation of Car Nack's first rule... "You don't talk about Car Nack".

Back to the OP... I am in total agreement... 2006 all over again.

[Racer26]

Yup. As a field resetter: I have a serious hate on for this game already, and it hasn't even been played yet.

That said, as a competitor, I like the game.

[EricH]

As I recall, Car Nack has a pretty good success rating when it comes to automatic scoring. (I'd say 100%, from the prediction of manual backup being used in 2006, but I can't remember if he's made any others.)

That said, FIRST has greatly improved said automatic scoring, by funneling game objects down to a single path with a sensor. This is not the way they chose to go this year... I'm with Car Nack, there will be issues with something getting caught, say a robot part, or not counted, and manual backup will need to be called in, particularly during Week 1.

[DampRobot]

I agree with the great Car Nack (how could I disagree?). Field reset will be a nightmare, what with the climbers being taken down on belay systems and frisbees being manually counted. Lets just hope that matches don't get delayed too frequently...

[JohnSchneider]

I agree with the great Car Nack (how could I disagree?). Field reset will be a nightmare, what with the climbers being taken down on belay systems and frisbees being manually counted. Lets just hope that matches don't get delayed too frequently...

After the first week theyll have to start allowing people to bring stools to get robots down. I think its an extreme safety hazard for students otherwise...
But it's not like itll add any time since counting frisbees(and dividing them) will take just as long.

[Justin Montois]

I think they will work fairly well. However, if it becomes obvious that they are unreliable, I think any matches that are within 6 points should trigger an automatic, manual recount.

[Lil' Lavery]

2006: Automated scoring was highly ineffective.
2010: Automated scoring was almost 100% accurate, but throughput was much smaller.
2011: Automated scoring (minibot poles) had significant issues, sometimes at the fault of the teams involved. Each sensor was only to be tripped once.
2012: Automated scoring was almost 100% accurate, throughput was in between 2006 and 2010.

[dodar]

2006: Automated scoring was highly ineffective.
2010: Automated scoring was almost 100% accurate, but throughput was much smaller.
2011: Automated scoring (minibot poles) had significant issues, sometimes at the fault of the teams involved. Each sensor was only to be tripped once.
2012: Automated scoring was almost 100% accurate, throughput was in between 2006 and 2010.

2008 had a semi-automated scoring system. The lap counter scored your lap points; it was 100% accurate.

[apalrd]

2010: Automated scoring was almost 100% accurate, but throughput was much smaller.

Due to the bad positioning of the sensors (directly at the center of the balls), the DOGMA algorithm would occasionally give penalties if two balls returned together and the sensor did not detect them as different bals. While the scoring was good, the return was not.

2011: Automated scoring (minibot poles) had significant issues, sometimes at the fault of the teams involved. Each sensor was only to be tripped once.

At Week 1 and Week 2, the scoring system was very very bad. The issues were mostly resolved by week 3, but our scouting at CMP recorded 4 false negatives (not including false positives) in our division, and the rules explicitly prevented the refs from awarding any points due to sensor failures (although the MI refs largely ignored this, thankfully).



If the system is not 100% reliable, then the rules should allow the refs to override a clearly incorrect score by the automated system and the scoring system should allow the FTA's to manually enter scores. The assumption that the system is perfect is the problem with FIRSTs automated scoring systems.

[Lil' Lavery]

2008 had a semi-automated scoring system. The lap counter scored your lap points; it was 100% accurate.
Don't confuse real-time scoring with automated scoring. IIRC, the laps were still "counted" by score keepers, who then entered them into the system in real time.

That being said, there have been issues with human kept real time scoring in the past as well. Namely in 2009. Also the annoying tendency in 2005 with the lack of blue on the display.

Due to the bad positioning of the sensors (directly at the center of the balls), the DOGMA algorithm would occasionally give penalties if two balls returned together and the sensor did not detect them as different bals. While the scoring was good, the return was not.
How did I forget about 1712's favorite rule!?! :o

[Bob Steele]

2006: Automated scoring was highly ineffective.
2010: Automated scoring was almost 100% accurate, but throughput was much smaller.
2011: Automated scoring (minibot poles) had significant issues, sometimes at the fault of the teams involved. Each sensor was only to be tripped once.
2012: Automated scoring was almost 100% accurate, throughput was in between 2006 and 2010.

Actually there were two different automated systems for scoring in 2006
The one for the high goal worked pretty well... but the low goal scoring one did not...

[Peyton Yeung]

The 2010 sensors are the reason we didn't play in the elims at champs. It's hard to make up 10 DOGMA penalties and still beat the opponent.

[Grim Tuesday]

The 2010 sensors are the reason we didn't play in the elims at champs. It's hard to make up 10 DOGMA penalties and still beat the opponent.

But hey, in 2010 it probably helped your seeding!

[GaryVoshol]

Actually there were two different automated systems for scoring in 2006
The one for the high goal worked pretty well... Except when the chute jammed, and the pokey-pokey stick didn't clear it fast enough. The balls didn't get counted for auton, and then because there was a delay, they weren't counted for teleop either.

[Donut]

This prediction is an interesting one. While I agree that at some point manual counting of frisbees will be necessary due to reliability issues, I question if it will be for many matches.

The weight of the frisbees is 180 +- 5 grams. If the weighing sensor was perfect and all frisbees were perfectly supported by the bottom plate of the goal, the minimum number of frisbees necessary to appear as the weight for a different number of frisbees is 36. Assuming that the weight sensor has a threshold at the half way point between whole frisbee weights this number can be halved to 18 (since 18 frisbees can give you a +- 90 gram range). I think it will be relatively uncommon for alliances to put 10+ frisbees into the same goal, which means most matches should have a pretty large margin for error with the weighing sensor. The goals have vertical sides so the only way I can see bad readings occurring is if a frisbee is partially supported by a hanging chain or is sticking out of the goal.

I do think that correct frisbee counting will be more of a problem in elimination matches. The larger number of frisbees scored by high caliber teams (also more likely to be concentrated into the single goal with the highest point value) will mean that the tolerances on frisbee weight have a higher chance of resulting in a miscount.

[bduddy]

Right on the nose... Didn't they eventually manually count every match?

[Gregor]

Right on the nose... Didn't they eventually manually count every match?

Yep, every single match at every single event.