[FRC Blog] - NASA Grants and Something New for 2015

[MechEng83]

http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-NASA-Grants-and-Something-New-for-2015NASA Grants Closing

NASA Grant applications are closing tomorrow, October 2nd! NASA grants are only available for teams in the United States. Find more information here (http://frc-grants.arc.nasa.gov/rcs/directions.php).

Something New – The 2015 FRC Game

Wait. Isn’t the new game always, well, new? Yes, but that’s the point of this note. Every year we try to do a little something different. Sometimes a lot of something different. No one should look at any rules from prior years and think “They would never change that”, because we may. Number of teams on an alliance, number of alliances in a match, match length, bumper rules, field surfaces, robot size, every element from prior year games is carefully considered anew every year. You should make no assumptions. This is all we can say, and all we plan to say on this. All will be revealed on January 3, 2015!*

Frank

*Looking at this, if I were a team, and knew nothing about the 2015 game, I might be nervous. Knowing the game, though, I think there’s nothing to be nervous about. OK, almost nothing.

Oh boy. Another non-hint hint....

[dodar]

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=130699

Oh boy. Another non-hint hint....

OMG! Water Game + Yellow Alliance hint at the same time!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

#FrankTooStrong

[thatprogrammer]

I don't think field size will change because of the andymark field being approved for 2015... *MAYBE ::rtm:: *

Wonder if we'll be seeing a big change in strategy similar to assists this year.

[nfhammes]

Number of teams on an alliance: 2v2? like FTC and old FRC? Could be interesting.
Number of alliances in a match: Unless they make it 2x2x2x2, would probably make modifying the field really expensive.
Match length: They can change it a bit, but there's event scheduling issues.
Bumper rules: These have changed frequently. Not that exciting.
Field surfaces: Low-friction surface, anyone?
Robot size: I don't see this changing too drastically either.

[notmattlythgoe]

Number of teams on an alliance: 2v2? like FTC and old FRC? Could be interesting.
Number of alliances in a match: Unless they make it 2x2x2x2, would probably make modifying the field really expensive.
Match length: They can change it a bit, but there's event scheduling issues.
Bumper rules: These have changed frequently. Not that exciting.
Field surfaces: Low-friction surface, anyone?
Robot size: I don't see this changing too drastically either.

This would also cause scheduling issues because you've now drastically dropped the number of matches each team will play.

[MechEng83]

Number of teams on an alliance: 2v2? like FTC and old FRC? Could be interesting.
Number of alliances in a match: Unless they make it 2x2x2x2, would probably make modifying the field really expensive.
Match length: They can change it a bit, but there's event scheduling issues.
Bumper rules: These have changed frequently. Not that exciting.
Field surfaces: Low-friction surface, anyone?
Robot size: I don't see this changing too drastically either.

4v4 would work too, w/ drivers stations having to fit in the "small" station zones like they did for 2012. This has the added benefit of allowing matches to extend a little in length while not increasing the tournament length -- or allow teams to get in 12 (or more?) actual matches at larger regionals.

[Jon Stratis]

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=130699

Oh boy. Another non-hint hint....

The correct link to the blog is http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-NASA-Grants-and-Something-New-for-2015

A little annoying when trying to go there and I just get the same CD page over and over :p

[The_ShamWOW88]

I know they may have other reasons for this but 4 team alliances gives more credence to why there were 4 team alliances at World Champs last season.

Maybe early premonition?

[BrendanB]

I know they may have other reasons for this but 4 team alliances gives more credence to why there were 4 team alliances at World Champs last season.

Maybe early premonition?

Maybe its how they plan to fit more teams at the championship without adding more fields?

[MechEng83]

The correct link to the blog is http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-NASA-Grants-and-Something-New-for-2015

A little annoying when trying to go there and I just get the same CD page over and over :p

Sorry about that. I clicked in the wrong tab when I copied the link... Fixed now.

[notmattlythgoe]

Maybe its how they plan to fit more teams at the championship without adding more fields?

I'm trying to imagine the logistic of fitting 8 robots onto one field without changing the size limitations on the robots again. Especially if we see some field obstacles added to the field again. That would be one crowded field.

[Andrew Schreiber]

4v4 would work too, w/ drivers stations having to fit in the "small" station zones like they did for 2012. This has the added benefit of allowing matches to extend a little in length while not increasing the tournament length -- or allow teams to get in 12 (or more?) actual matches at larger regionals.

Core issue with that is that it becomes a nightmare for small events.

Basically, your pit time is ((Event_Teams/Match_Teams ) - Queued_Matches) * Cycle_Time.

Queued_Matches is typically 2. Cycle_Time is usually somewhere around 8.

((40/6)-2) * 8 ~= 32
((32/6)-2) * 8 ~= 24

((40/8)-2) * 8 ~= 24
((32/8)-2) * 8 ~= 16


Idk, I would like a little more time to fix my bot than 16 minutes.

[nfhammes]

I'm trying to imagine the logistic of fitting 8 robots onto one field without changing the size limitations on the robots again. Especially if we see some field obstacles added to the field again. That would be one crowded field.

At least with defensive bots as a fourth spot for queuing on either side, queuing at most events wouldn't be impacted too significantly. But loading-on, even if each alliance queues in on one side, and isn't disrupted by robots getting off, would add some to match cycle time. Which is admittedly less of an issue when each match gives 8 plays, rather than 6.

[Justin Montois]

We talk each year when game hints come out about how the hint could mean big changes to field shape, alliances ETC. I think this is confirmation that something along those lines is coming so there's definitely cause for excitement!

Expanded championship, expanded alliance size? More teams, more matches, more teams in each match?

[notmattlythgoe]

At least with defensive bots as a fourth spot for queuing on either side, queuing at most events wouldn't be impacted too significantly. But loading-on, even if each alliance queues in on one side, and isn't disrupted by robots getting off, would add some to match cycle time. Which is admittedly less of an issue when each match gives 8 plays, rather than 6.

I'm more talking about match play. These fields get crowded with 6 robots playing on them, add in another 2 robots and you end up with clusters or robots not able to move because there isn't enough room. Not much fun to watch or compete in.

[The_ShamWOW88]

Maybe instead of 4 v 4, keep the same amount of bots but 3 alliances of 2 teams....add that mysterious Green alliance everyone keeps talking about....

[Steven Donow]

I'm more talking about match play. These fields get crowded with 6 robots playing on them, add in another 2 robots and you end up with clusters or robots not able to move because there isn't enough room. Not much fun to watch or compete in.

Yeah. Keeping logistics in mind, I assume this means something like different playing surface or bumper rules or robot size or something.

[Kellen Hill]

I'm more talking about match play. These fields get crowded with 6 robots playing on them, add in another 2 robots and you end up with clusters or robots not able to move because there isn't enough room. Not much fun to watch or compete in.

Ah, but what if you make the robots smaller as well!

[notmattlythgoe]

Ah, but what if you make the robots smaller as well!

I'm trying to imagine the logistic of fitting 8 robots onto one field without changing the size limitations on the robots again. Especially if we see some field obstacles added to the field again. That would be one crowded field.

:)

[Blackphantom91]

I think if they went with the motor constraints they had before it would be much harder in general. Size is a good point though.

[IndySam]

I would love to see a small size reduction and much more limits on #of high powered motors.

[efoote868]

Something new could be reusing an old set of rules... 2004 on ice!

[Lil' Lavery]

This would also cause scheduling issues because you've now drastically dropped the number of matches each team will play.

Unless you change the amount of time it takes per match "cycle." ;)

[Ali Ahmed]

What about 4v4 but only 6 robots in the field at a time? There could be a holding area for the extra robots and would switch off at certain points during the match. Similar to hockey. Just a thought...

[AdamHeard]

There is an interesting dynamic that could be done with a different type of minibots.

Teams are required to make 2 robots, one is the minibot.

Each match has full size robots and minibots (presumably in a segregated section).

It could be that your minibot is usually not in a match w/ your main robot.

[Michael Hill]

I don't think the number of teams fielding robots per match will change, mostly because of the AndyMark field having 6 driver stations. They're not going to go any wider because the field (and required field equipment) already takes up pretty much a whole gym floor. I can see height/weight requirements changing. I don't see bumpers going away, but rules about design may change. I can't really see a 2x2x2 game with the AndyMark field setup (as 1 alliance would have their drivers separated). I could see some of the motors going away completely (taking away the CIM would really make things interesting). I could also see taking away motor quantity restrictions, which is something that's been lobbied for for some time now.

[MARS_James]

Number of teams on an alliance, number of alliances in a match, match length, bumper rules, field surfaces, robot size

Last time these were done:
Alliance Size: 2005 (Kept at 3)
Number of Alliances: 1999 with the advent of alliances
Match Length: 2007 (Matches went from 2:10 to 2:15)
Bumper Rules: Every year they change slightly from my experiance
Field Surfaces: 2009
Robot Size: Frame Perimeter 2013, Height Classes 2007

I don't think field size will change because of the andymark field being approved for 2015... *MAYBE ::rtm:: *


Hey the field was technically a different size this year then previous years

[phurley67]

Don't forget you could run 2x2x2 with your alliance partner opposite you (only your opponents on the same side of the field). Which would be fair and present interesting opportunities with communication (which possibly could be part of the challenge as well -- driver station to driver station messages could be really interesting). Especially if there was still a significant assist type bonus at play.

Also consider a situation where 2x2x2 would allow for dynamic teaming red and green work together to slow a powerhouse blue, etc. Or if scoring was windowed so your alliance could only score during 1/3 of the match, and both the other 2 alliances would be working together on defense.

[Caleb Sykes]

Match Length: 2007 (Matches went from 2:10 to 2:15)


Match length changed from 2:15 to 2:30 in 2014.

[Link07]

You should make no assumptions

ITT: People making assumptions

[Andrew Lawrence]

There is an interesting dynamic that could be done with a different type of minibots.

Teams are required to make 2 robots, one is the minibot.

Each match has full size robots and minibots (presumably in a segregated section).

It could be that your minibot is usually not in a match w/ your main robot.

Put the minibots on regolith and add coopertition and you can sign me right up (for vex).

[piersklein]

What about 4v4 but only 6 robots in the field at a time? There could be a holding area for the extra robots and would switch off at certain points during the match. Similar to hockey. Just a thought...

I also really like this idea. I thought for how it could work: you are only allowed 3 robots on the playing field at a time. Game objects may only be accquired from outside the field.
For example: if this was done in 2013, frisbees could only be entered into play when a robot is not on the field (no full court shots)

[SenorZ]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nPGqxZ0xRjE/UV-6m-iOsdI/AAAAAAAA_CM/2IEViwsYhwk/s400/ky3-photos-2013-shrine-circus-20130405-008.jpg
CAGE MATCH!!!

[Michael Hill]

Put the minibots on regolith and add coopertition and you can sign me right up (for vex).

No no no...minibots...climbing towers coated in teflon.

[Jared Russell]

I am just excited that on October 1, Frank refers to "the 2015 game". I would have been worried if he had said "our various 2015 game concepts".

[sanddrag]

Whatever they do, I really hope they don't bring back the FRP.

[Andrew Lawrence]

Whatever they do, I really hope they don't bring back the FRP.

My mind is drawing a blank - could you remind me what FRP is again?

[thatprogrammer]

My mind is drawing a blank - could you remind me what FRP is again?

Regolith is also known as Glasliner FRP.

[The_ShamWOW88]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nPGqxZ0xRjE/UV-6m-iOsdI/AAAAAAAA_CM/2IEViwsYhwk/s400/ky3-photos-2013-shrine-circus-20130405-008.jpg
CAGE MATCH!!!

This.

x10

[Alan Anderson]

They could do away with bumper rules entirely, and change the size rules to require merely that the robot stay within a 3 foot diameter sphere at all times.

And then play the match with robots encased in 3 foot diameter spheres.

[sanddrag]

My mind is drawing a blank - could you remind me what FRP is again?Fiberglass Reinforced Polymer. Terrible stuff to drive a robot on, especially with mandated hdpe wheels and driving a trailer.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Shot in the dark.

We finally get the football game everyone has thought about it and it's played on turf (http://www.lowes.com/ProductDisplay?partNumber=604821-45036-UW0038240&langId=-1&storeId=10151&productId=50191335&catalogId=10051&cmRelshp=req&rel=nofollow&cId=PDIO1).

Field size can't get to much bigger but a different field surface is possible.

Probably some rule changes to stop the motor/bumper arms race that is happening. 8 CIM/MiniCIM drives and waxed sail cloth bumpers probably isn't what the GDC imagines every year when they are designing the game. (Personally I am all for it but I can see why they would like to regulate it.)

[cgmv123]

it's played on turf (http://www.lowes.com/ProductDisplay?partNumber=604821-45036-UW0038240&langId=-1&storeId=10151&productId=50191335&catalogId=10051&cmRelshp=req&rel=nofollow&cId=PDIO1).

They're going to make us play of turf (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/1c896a6a098b443a885db93b73bfe6f4/players-file-lawsuit-canada-over-world-cup-turf)?!?!?!

[artK]

Shot in the dark.

We finally get the football game everyone has thought about it and it's played on turf (http://www.lowes.com/ProductDisplay?partNumber=604821-45036-UW0038240&langId=-1&storeId=10151&productId=50191335&catalogId=10051&cmRelshp=req&rel=nofollow&cId=PDIO1).

Field size can't get to much bigger but a different field surface is possible.

I hope it doesn't happen, turf has a tendency to kick up particles that could clutter up electronics and gearboxes more than carpet and wheels already do to some teams.

[jwfoss]

Shot in the dark.

We finally get the football game everyone has thought about it and it's played on turf (http://www.lowes.com/ProductDisplay?partNumber=604821-45036-UW0038240&langId=-1&storeId=10151&productId=50191335&catalogId=10051&cmRelshp=req&rel=nofollow&cId=PDIO1).


I'm hoping the "change" is to go back to a game that doesn't involve picking something up and throwing it, this generation of FRC has yet to see a true "pick and place" style game.

New bumper standards would not be too unexpected, perhaps an extruded material/shape to make them all exactly the same.

[Rosiebotboss]

....Robot size: I don't see this changing too drastically either.

Standard door sizes dictate max robot size. I highly doubt FIRST would allow bigger robots. I wouldn't put it past the GDC to make robots smaller. 2014 was 110", 2015 could be 106" or 100". Or go back to the 28x38x60.

[Nate Laverdure]

Hey, cool your jets. It's exciting to speculate about a 5-sided field paved in a 3-inch layer of jello, but here's something else to consider: when we make major changes to the size, layout, and surfaces of the playing field, we push our community away from its objectives. A field that changes shape every year identifies FRC clearly as a game, not a sport. Sports have the power to change culture in a way that games do not.

(Also, the AndyMark field was probably developed independent of any knowledge of the 2015 game.)

[Brandon Ha]

Maybe, we will see the recognition by the GDC that all games from here on out will have rules in place to protect the offensive robots and punish the defensive game for aggressive defense...
Large object -> Aggressive defense -> AntiPenalty.

I.E. Read Spanking the Children from Jim Zondag

[MARS_James]

After much consideration I have made an opinion on the things listed by Frank:

Number of teams on an alliance:
I think a 4v4 would be a cluster unless the ideas listed about only 3 robots in play at a time were to be initiated. My only problem with that is logistically making it so all 4 robots have an impact.

Number of alliances in a match:

I am against 3 alliances for one very big reason:
I assume ranking would no longer be win loss but more likely a 1st 2nd 3rd system. Lets say we are at a regional and the last match of the day contains one member on each alliance who currently have all 1st places, 2 of these teams want to be on an alliance together for eliminations so they agree to send their defensive bots to disrupt the other alliance effectively turning it from a 1v1v1 to a 2v1, perfectly legal but very unfair to the final alliance. Now if we played a game were the alliances can't interact that would solve that but then strategy for opponents is a non-entity, as would upsets.


Match length:
I don't want matches to be to much longer as I like more matches which goes against that idea. Now shorter matches I like, if Aerial Assist would have been 2:15 instead of 2:30 at most events you would have been able to squeeze in an extra match for every team.


Bumper rules:
I think that these change so much that it doesn't really matter BUT I could see FIRST taking away sail cloth bumpers. Honestly with some of the headaches I have seen over the years I am surprised FIRST doesn't find a supplier to give us a voucher for the exact cloth FIRST wants us to use.


Field surfaces:
Now I find it interesting he made this plural not singular. I am totally against 2009 as a game BUT I do think a game where it is mostly carpet with a few areas not could be fun.


Robot size:
I am so used to our new robot size I hope they don't change it. I would however love to see the weight classes of 2007 brought back. The shorter you start the heavier you are allowed to be was a fun trade off.

[Libby K]

Yeah. Keeping logistics in mind, I assume this means something like different playing surface or bumper rules or robot size or something.

Oh god. No. Please no. Not again.

[Lil' Lavery]

Oh god. No. Please no. Not again.

I didn't realize Maize Craze scarred baby Libby so horribly. :(

[The_ShamWOW88]

Field changes could mean that we may see something sort of field element we have to climb over or drive over, etc. Something like 2003 with the ramp, 2004 with the steps, 2012 with the balancing ramps....

[Jay O'Donnell]

Does anyone else find it odd that this was posted seemingly out of the blue with no real significance to it? We didn't really learn anything and this sort of came out of nowhere. I'm wondering why they would even say this. Hopefully when January 3rd hits we'll understand!

[Jon Stratis]

Number of teams on an alliance:
I think a 4v4 would be a cluster unless the ideas listed about only 3 robots in play at a time were to be initiated. My only problem with that is logistically making it so all 4 robots have an impact.


Imagine having 4 big pads, one in each corner, with an opening that essentially only lets one robot into the pad at a time. One pad from each alliance has to be depressed at all times, and if a pad is depressed more than 15 consecutive seconds the other team is awarded points. Have weight sensors on the pads tied to a countdown clock the drivers can see. Add in safety zones so you can't trap a robot on a pad or park your robot on an opponents pad... You can have 4 robots on the field, but only 3 are active at a time and which three that is changes periodically. If this was combined with an assist-oriented game like we had this year, everyone could still participate in assists, given sufficient planning and coordination.

[MARS_James]

Imagine having 4 big pads, one in each corner, with an opening that essentially only lets one robot into the pad at a time. One pad from each alliance has to be depressed at all times, and if a pad is depressed more than 15 consecutive seconds the other team is awarded points. Have weight sensors on the pads tied to a countdown clock the drivers can see. Add in safety zones so you can't trap a robot on a pad or park your robot on an opponents pad... You can have 4 robots on the field, but only 3 are active at a time and which three that is changes periodically. If this was combined with an assist-oriented game like we had this year, everyone could still participate in assists, given sufficient planning and coordination.

I like the idea in theory, but you have to have only 2 robots on the field at some points since you need 1 pad compressed at all times, a robot breaking down completely destroys your alliance, and will lose you the match. If you have a sub-par bot on the alliance you just have them constantly running from pad A to pad B to relieve the heavy hitters.

Like I said it will take a lot of thought to make it work

[Anthony Galea]

Does anyone else find it odd that this was posted seemingly out of the blue with no real significance to it? We didn't really learn anything and this sort of came out of nowhere. I'm wondering why they would even say this. Hopefully when January 3rd hits we'll understand!

The GDC is just bored, with being finished with the game, so they want some entertainment of reading this thread. :p

[The_ShamWOW88]

The GDC is just bored, with being finished with the game, so they want some entertainment of reading this thread. :p

Yeah, now they get to sit back, eat their popcorn and watch the rumors run rampant....

[Jon Stratis]

Yeah, now they get to sit back, eat their popcorn and watch the rumors run rampant....

Unlike the LRI, Head Ref, and FTA (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1400681&postcount=41), the GDC actually has time to eat popcorn!

[FrankJ]

Maybe the game will be checkers or chess. We have not had an air game in a while.

[Michael Hill]

It's also possible that we replay an old game with modified rules. For example, the 2004 game could be played but with different restrictions requiring completely different robot designs than we're used before.

[mrnoble]

The GDC has to fulfill the requirements of the Triad: spectator friendly, rookies can succeed, successful veteran teams are challenged. They also have costs, investments and physical constraints to consider. Therefore:


It won't be a water game. Or an ice game, or any other field that requires crazy capital to create or maintain, or which could damage a rookie robot.
The field really can't grow or change shape too radically. The AndyMark field and space constraints dictate this.
The motors won't change, though they may cut back on the power (number of motors).
Robots won't grow. They could shrink, though; especially considering the shrinking electronic footprints. They will never shrink back to 1992 size, though, as FTC has that form factor well in hand.


I'll predict a few things.


Slightly smaller form factor.
Bumper cloth, or even whole bumpers, in the KOP. If there are required bumpers, it would dictate a specific footprint, and be the end of a major headache for most teams (those struggling to build bumpers, and those who have suffered on the field from non-regulation robots colliding with them or leaving debris on the field)
vertically larger bumpers (i.e., three pool noodles tall).
A manipulator task, rather than a projectile. Minimal game pieces, though, so probably not stacking.
A change to the field surface; Astroturf? Polycarbonate? Probably ramps or steps.

[Jon Stratis]

The motors won't change, though they may cut back on the power (number of motors).



I wouldn't be so sure of this. We've seen plenty of motors change over the years. Just in the past 8 years since my team started, we've seen FP, Globe, van door and the big CIM motors disappear, while new motors have come in, like the AndyMark, BAG, mini-cim, vex and ARA motors. Those are all just off the top of my head, probably not a complete list.

[mrnoble]

I wouldn't be so sure of this. We've seen plenty of motors change over the years. Just in the past 8 years since my team started, we've seen FP, Globe, van door and the big CIM motors disappear, while new motors have come in, like the AndyMark, BAG, mini-cim, vex and ARA motors. Those are all just off the top of my head, probably not a complete list.

What I meant was, we won't see the CIMs disappear. There's too deep of an investment in them for there to be a major shift away from them. Imagine teams being told that all their CIMs were illegal, and the new motors were XX, available from YY. How would that play out?

[Andrew Schreiber]

What I meant was, we won't see the CIMs disappear. There's too deep of an investment in them for there to be a major shift away from them. Imagine teams being told that all their CIMs were illegal, and the new motors were XX, available from YY. How would that play out?

I'd hope the 2.5" CIM motors would not go away barring a major size change. They are motors that you can abuse all day long and won't smoke. Honestly, it's the single biggest contributor to having most every robot driving most matches. CIMs are NEAR indestructible and I <3 them for it.

[Mr V]

I'm not sure why everyone keeps saying that the field won't change in size due to the Andymark field. The bigger issue is that FIRST and the other district already own a bunch of the current field perimeters. So they won't make a drastic change because of that, not because of a field that is not yet approved (at least publicly). One thing they asked AndyMark to change about their initial field was how the sides connected to the driver's station so that it was consistent with the FIRST pieces. I believe they did that so they can change the field size and/or shape like they did the last two seasons.

[Nemo]

I'm relieved to see this blog, because I'm pretty sure it means that 2015 will finally see wheels disallowed from FRC competition. FRC drive train design has gotten stale after many years of robot after robot that uses wheels to get around, and wheels have also found their way into a lot of manipulators. Here's looking forward to a new era of creativity and innovation.

[JesseK]

So long as they're not nervous about a 2009-esque floor surface combined with 2009-esque wheels, we're probably fine in 2015...

[Maldridge422]

In the wake of Aerial Assist, perhaps an overhaul of the penalty/foul system? Changes to how fouls are assessed against individual teams as opposed to alliances? Or maybe new classes of fouls that don't quite fit the yellow/red card system?

[MARS_James]

What I meant was, we won't see the CIMs disappear. There's too deep of an investment in them for there to be a major shift away from them. Imagine teams being told that all their CIMs were illegal, and the new motors were XX, available from YY. How would that play out?

Exactly how our new motor controllers are gonna play out.

[mrnoble]

Exactly how our new motor controllers are gonna play out.

Disagree. There's a fundamental difference between disallowing a type of part (no CIMs!) and adding a more advanced option. The talons, Jags, and Victors from past years will continue to function adequately for many teams.

[mrnoble]

I'm relieved to see this blog, because I'm pretty sure it means that 2015 will finally see wheels disallowed from FRC competition. FRC drive train design has gotten stale after many years of robot after robot that uses wheels to get around, and wheels have also found their way into a lot of manipulators. Here's looking forward to a new era of creativity and innovation.

I take it you're not serious.

[Aren Siekmeier]

I take it you're not serious.

I think he's serious.

Sure, it'd be a huge change. But it could also be really cool.

I like to think they won't allow anything round on the robot :rolleyes:

[mrnoble]

triangle "wheels" only!

[mrnoble]

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/36127

[MARS_James]

Disagree. There's a fundamental difference between disallowing a type of part (no CIMs!) and adding a more advanced option. The talons, Jags, and Victors from past years will continue to function adequately for many teams.

We as a community will adapt if we needed to, plus they would not take away the work horse of FRC drive trains and not give us something at least similar in terms of durability and power

[FrankJ]

Funny you should say no wheels. I think I found a game hint.

[Joe G.]

While speculating here, keep in mind that every decision FIRST makes regarding the game is ultimately intended to further the sport of FIRST Robotics. Messing with us is secondary. This can even be seen in some of the less popular moves FIRST has made (Here I'll point to the serpentine draft. Unpopular among the community, especially elite teams, but makes FIRST more marketable due to the increased average quality and intensity of every elimination match, right down to the 1v8 quarterfinal). Many of the things being posted in this thread simply wouldn't make sense to FIRST:


Getting rid of CIMs, unless forced by production concerns, would compromise the average level of quality of FRC robots, and make two huge FIRST suppliers who have spent lots and lots of money on products designed for the CIM's mounting interface and specs very unhappy.
Any significant reduction in maximum size beyond a trivial change to throw off pre-season CAD would make the robots less impressive, and the sport a less effective media spectacle. FRC stands out among their competitors in this area, and compromising this would hurt them. Same logic goes for weight, and to a lesser extent, power reduction. I admit that by this logic, I was very surprised, and initially quite disappointed, with the change in the 2013 rules, but in retrospect, this change had the positive impact of freeing robots from rules which lent themselves to rectangular boxes, and has resulted in some pretty creative robot shapes over the years.
2v2v2, aside from the mentioned "ganging up" concerns, makes the game much harder to follow. 4v4 would happen before this, but with the move to districts and smaller events, I see that as pretty unlikely as well. Let's not return to the bracket of doom... (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=407806)
Dramatic changes to field surface or how robots move don't make sense either. Again, FIRST robots are becoming more agile and fun to watch each year, and tossing a huge change in here would be a huge step backwards. These speculation threads seem to accept as fact the idea that regolith is a standard "tool" in FIRST's game design arsenal much like inner tubes or foam balls, and it's only a matter of time before it comes back. I think FIRST has wisely learned from what most people consider one of the worst games of the 3v3 era, and they would be silly to return to it. I've seen a lot of arguments for why Lunacy was a bad game, but I think the root cause was that by its nature, the mobility rules and surface crippled FRC robots, made them less capable than they would be otherwise for the sake of changing things up a bit, and made them less impressive for spectators. Here you have these multi thousand dollar, precision engineered, carefully programmed machines, and they're...sliding out of control into each other in a 6 way robot mosh pit? No thanks, I'll take an open field and difficult manipulation tasks any day, and I'd like to think the GDC views the 2009 game in a similar way. We're overdue for terrain elements, but it'd be best for FIRST to give us elements that they can reasonably expect elite teams to master (2010, 2012).


I wouldn't read too much into this. FIRST is not going to do something simply for the sake of throwing us for a loop...any changes will be backed up with improving the quality of the program. I can't find links now, but I recall seeing similar warnings via the blog in other years as well. I'd take this for what it is, a simple reminder that nothing is set in stone, going into the season with a closed mind will hurt your process, and maybe it's best to spend your preseason making your team more sustainable than perfecting your flat-field west coast drive with dimensions to accommodate last year's manipulators, rather than a warning of radical changes to major elements of the FIRST program.

[Nemo]

I take it you're not serious.

Not serious. Dry humor.

[Michael Hill]

Getting rid of CIMs, unless forced by production concerns, would compromise the average level of quality of FRC robots, and make two huge FIRST suppliers who have spent lots and lots of money on products designed for the CIM's mounting interface and specs very unhappy.



2009 was already precedence that FIRST would do this sort of thing. It's not like those same suppliers don't have a huge financial interest in their wheels either. When 2009's game was released, all already-designed wheels got thrown out the window that year. When I speculated about CIMs going away, it was a guess because production issues can and do happen. There's not a shred of evidence that anything has happened to CIM production at all, it's just a possibility.

[cadandcookies]

My bet would be a change in field material. Not to water or ice, but an alternative like Regolith/FCB, astroturf, or a metallic surface. Or an uneven/inconsistent surface (like the corn in 1992, a ball pit, or some sort of randomized structure) that would provide a variable playing field, like the "Tower of Terror" in this year's FTC game, but even more extreme.

[Ryan Dognaux]

My guesses are a smaller robot frame perimeter and a 4 vs 4 game. Events are growing, this will allow teams to have more matches without a super quick cycle time. If robots are 2/3 the size from previous years and the game is right I think it could work.

Remember - we've had 4 team alliances before. (Even if no one wants to remember 2001.)

[Lil' Lavery]

From the standpoint of an engineering challenge, I would love a no-wheels game*. From a spectator standpoint, I agree it would likely be a nightmare.

*Depending on the clarity of the rules and what is and isn't allowed.

[FrankJ]

Realize the Cim is essentially a commercial motor to a spec. Not likely to go anywhere. Globes & Fischer Price motors were donated motors that went into a product. More likely to go away when the product or donor goes away.

[Deke]

I think there will be a playing field, robots, game pieces, referees, and alliances. Some rules may vary.

[cadandcookies]

I think there will be a playing field, robots, game pieces, referees, and alliances. Some rules may vary.

Also it's unlikely to have balls as game pieces.

[Gregor]

My guesses are a smaller robot frame perimeter and a 4 vs 4 game. Events are growing, this will allow teams to have more matches without a super quick cycle time. If robots are 2/3 the size from previous years and the game is right I think it could work.

Remember - we've had 4 team alliances before. (Even if no one wants to remember 2001.)

Events are shrinking, not growing. As we move to the district system the average event gets smaller.

[Jessica Boucher]

From the standpoint of an engineering challenge, I would love a no-wheels game*. From a spectator standpoint, I agree it would likely be a nightmare.

*Depending on the clarity of the rules and what is and isn't allowed.

That happened in 2007.

[The_ShamWOW88]

I think there will be a playing field, robots, game pieces, referees, and alliances. Some rules may vary.

Kind of a stretch dontcha think? ;)

[mwtidd]

Frank's trying to trick us. 2015 is going to be Aerial Assist, with the same exact rules.

[Derpancakes]

My bet would be a change in field material. Not to water or ice, but an alternative like Regolith/FCB, astroturf, or a metallic surface. Or an uneven/inconsistent surface (like the corn in 1992, a ball pit, or some sort of randomized structure) that would provide a variable playing field, like the "Tower of Terror" in this year's FTC game, but even more extreme.

Honestly, I think the theme is going to be related to space with so much spacey stuff happening in 2015, and talk like this brings nightmares of the unspeakable game...

[MARS_James]

Frank's trying to trick us. 2015 is going to be Aerial Assist, with the same exact rules.

While that would be funny, I would probably flip a table at kick-off

[PayneTrain]

With districts, you already have 45% of the robots out of pit at any time. If y'all think we're moving to a format where 60% of the teams are out of pit at any given time (and at Waterloo, 80% and an impossibility of picking 8 alliances), I have land at the bottom of the Atlantic to sell you.

You don't want 4v4. If you think you want 4v4, you really don't.

I'm really going to try avoiding this thread because this is all to troll even for me.

[Lil' Lavery]

That happened in 2007.

Pardon? I don't follow.

Are you saying 2007 was a good engineering challenge that was difficult for spectators? Or are you saying that 2007 was somehow a no-wheels game?

[Michael Hill]

Realize the Cim is essentially a commercial motor to a spec. Not likely to go anywhere. Globes & Fischer Price motors were donated motors that went into a product. More likely to go away when the product or donor goes away.

I was under the impression that the CIM motor (originally starting as the Atwood used in RVs), in it's current revision, is a custom order from FIRST to Chiaphua. I'm not sure if Chiaphua is donating them to the KoP or not (I'm guessing not). I could be completely wrong about this, so if so, please correct me.

[jtrv]

Alright, I've given some thought to this.

We won't be seeing a 2v2v2. This would require the eliminations to be much bigger than the format they are now. Bo3 would NOT work, and BO5 could result in 2-2-1. What do we do? First team to 2 points? Well, that could work. Let's assume we do that. In each round, the first alliance to win two games advances. That means we will have 3 * 4 = 12 alliances for the quarterfinals. 12 * 3 = 36 teams. That's a lot of teams in eliminations. In fact, at the New York Tech Valley regional, I think there may be only 34 teams. I am sure that other regionals have enrollment numbers as low as this.

On the topic of a 4v4. This would allow for the current elimination round rules, bo3, and it would create 2 * 4 = 8 alliances, just like now. 8 * 4 = 32 teams. That means at regionals such as the New York Tech Valley regional, only 5 (or less!!) teams will not be picked. But - how would alliance selection occur? 1-8, 8-1, 1-8? The 8th alliance would get destroyed. 8th, 9th, 24th pick? The first alliance would have 1st, 15th, 16th. Sure it may reduce the powerhouses that number one alliances can wind up being, but the middle teams (3-6) would probably end up being the strongest due to best pick numbers. Look, we all know - some teams are better than others. What if you have multiple robots that don't work at the end of quals? Would a team have to pick a nonfunctional robot, and force themselves into a 3v4, or a 2v3 in reference to previously posted ideas? 2v3 isn't fun, I think we all know that.

Maybe it could be a return to 2v2. However, I -highly- doubt that would happen, unless they change the pick order of alliance selection. The number one team would be an absolute powerhouse. Unless they went 8-1. But then, it only allows 16 teams to be picked. It would incredibly stimulate competition on performing well, and you would have little room for error in your robot design. Unless they went to a 16 team bracket, which honestly would be a bit much... fitting 16 captains onto the field would be a bit crazy. Plus, we're up to the 32 teams again. Now a team might be forced into picking a nonfunctional robot, given the competition be small enough.

Anyways. I'm just looking at the math. Yeah, big regionals could handle it, but the small ones wouldn't be fun for anyone. Number one alliance would wind up with 2 powerhouses and 2 run of the mill robots. The lowest alliance would have a semi-powerful robot (enough to seed 8th), two run of the mill robots, and possibly even a non-functional robot, if the regional is small enough.

Perhaps they tried to fix this with inter-district play, but there have got to be some regionals aside from the New York Tech Valley Regional that have less than forty teams.

Should there be a field texture change, I think it would be an uneven ground. It is something we have not seen for a while, except in 2012 in the middle, but this is a completely wild guess. I think it would be a huge blow to teams with mechanum wheels, however, because they now have gravity working against them too if they are being pushed by another bot on said uneven ground. That would probably actually increase the popularity of the oh-so-powerful multi-CIM drives, due to being able to push robots even when you are on the low ground. I doubt that it would be a shooting game should there be uneven ground - defense would be incredibly, incredibly easy. One nudge and now you're at a whole new height. I couldn't imagine it being too uneven though - it might cause drivers inability to actually see the bot if its too small...

As far as I know (my freshman year was 2012 and I never really looked into past years games), we haven't seen field hockey. This could be a real possibility, I think. With big enough balls you wouldn't have the problem of robots getting stuck on them. Plus, bumper rules could change and require much lower bumpers. I think mechanum drives would absolutely strive here - agility is very important, and there probably won't be much "sitting still" time if your robot is fully functional, unless you're playing a goalie role.

For all we know, they could take 2009 and make us throw frisbees into other bots. We can't be sure, and I think all ideas should be taken with a grain of salt.

Just my two cents.

[markmcgary]

With districts, you already have 45% of the robots out of pit at any time. If y'all think we're moving to a format where 60% of the teams are out of pit at any given time (and at Waterloo, 80% and an impossibility of picking 8 alliances), I have land at the bottom of the Atlantic to sell you.

Can you please define "out of pit" as used here?

[Mark McLeod]

Can you please define "out of pit" as used here?
6 robots coming off the field
6 robots going onto the field
6 robots on queue
----
18 teams out of pit


18 /40 teams per district = 45 %

[Arpan]

Have you guys looked at the numbers for this year? I wasn't able timewise to do a detailed compairison, but it seems to me that every event that did not change venues is significantly smaller in terms of number of robots.

I predict longer matches, or a larger field (probably not), or less teams in a match.

[EricH]

Or are you saying that 2007 was somehow a no-wheels game?Some teams in 2007 had wheel-less robots. They tended to have a set of ramps instead.

In the wake of Aerial Assist, perhaps an overhaul of the penalty/foul system? Changes to how fouls are assessed against individual teams as opposed to alliances? Or maybe new classes of fouls that don't quite fit the yellow/red card system?

Maybe, we will see the recognition by the GDC that all games from here on out will have rules in place to protect the offensive robots and punish the defensive game for aggressive defense...
Large object -> Aggressive defense -> AntiPenalty.
For these two, I'm going to guess that there will be rework. HOWEVER, for Brandon, there were almost too many rules protecting the offense in past seasons. (I.E. if they had a ziptie touching the key, you couldn't brush 'em or you'd get hit with a rather nasty foul.) Back in my day, if you didn't have a tough robot, you probably wouldn't make elims because you were fixing stuff. Defense is a legitimate strategy. It should only be restricted if absolutely necessary: Safety, or a clearly-defined, highly visible area where defense cannot be played (and if it's not for safety, leave it at a regular foul unless even that will be an advantage).

That said, I'm going to say that they'll probably be looking really hard at enforcement and impact. Fully half the fouls in the book last year were technical fouls, mostly for minor stuff. (See: G12 in Week 1) And hard to spot, too--anybody see the refs miss a bunch of G40 calls? Oh, so you didn't see 'em either. (All HPs who committed one and got away with it, speak up now. We won't change any match scores.) And the tech foul score compared to an elite-alliance score, not much, but for an average-alliance score, or a 3v2 score, killer if you committed one. And don't forget the whole "refs-as-scorekeepers" part.


Here's what I see for a change in the fouls: I would hope that the GDC puts scorekeepers back in (it's not all THAT hard to train 'em, hopefully), and lets the refs focus on getting the calls right. Also, hopefully the fouls are more balanced, possibly adding a "Minor Foul" category such that the ratio is approximately 1:2:4, minor:foul:technical, and there are fewer of them to be called (and fewer judgement calls, with more flexible judgement, like the later version of G12!). Yellow and red cards are fine, as they are intended to be very severe penalties and only used if warranted.

[EricH]

Have you guys looked at the numbers for this year? I wasn't able timewise to do a detailed compairison, but it seems to me that every event that did not change venues is significantly smaller in terms of number of robots..

Apologies for double post, but: Remember to add about 15 teams to any given non-district event from the current posted capacity. Those slots are held back in case a local team is rather late (or happens to be a rookie), and are released later in the registration process.

[Arpan]

Apologies for double post, but: Remember to add about 15 teams to any given non-district event from the current posted capacity. Those slots are held back in case a local team is rather late (or happens to be a rookie), and are released later in the registration process.

Oh, I didn't know that. That kind of blows my assumption out of the water.

[IndySam]

It's been a long time since we had any big terrain to drive over. Hump, bump ramp, whatever. I would love to see big humps like Breakaway or ramps like Aim High or Stack Attack or steps like FIRST Frenzy.

[MartianSprocket]

It's been a long time since we had any big terrain to drive over. Hump, bump ramp, whatever. I would love to see big humps like Breakaway or ramps like Aim High or Stack Attack or steps like FIRST Frenzy.

Yes! I've been wanting to have some kind of drive challenge these past two games. I want a robot that I can confidently say is all-terrain; these flat floors have pampered us too much.

[mrnoble]

Yes! I've been wanting to have some kind of drive challenge these past two games. I want a robot that I can confidently say is all-terrain; these flat floors have pampered us too much.

An 18" radius half cylinder on the floor of the field would be fun to get over. I'd love to see that.

[JesseK]

Hmm. Now that we have mini-CIMs they may just ban CIMs. Both motors have the same footprint so we can keep our current investments in COTS gearboxes, yet the rule may address some of the power concerns (i.e. over-current draw) that have been brought up on these forums.

[Electronica1]

Could it just be a change in the bumper design standard (like 3 pool noodles so bumpers are taller, or something along those lines). A change like that could make sense due to the harder hitting drive trains, and the fact that the old bumper standards were set when you only had 4 cim drives.

[PayneTrain]

Hmm. Now that we have mini-CIMs they may just ban CIMs. Both motors have the same footprint so we can keep our current investments in COTS gearboxes, yet the rule may address some of the power concerns (i.e. over-current draw) that have been brought up on these forums.

Something like that would result in a much earlier notification than when build starts. You would have to deal with a choked supply line for a critical part and therefore a lot of really ticked off powerhouses and an innumerable number of teams simply out of luck for the season.

[AdamHeard]

Unless FIRST has real dummies steering the boat (which they don't), they won't do something like ban CIMs.

It sounds like Frank is describing some sort of visionary change. Something truly DIFFERENT.

If you ban CIMs, and bring grandma to the event she won't notice a difference at all. Most students and mentors on most teams wouldn't notice a difference either.

Banning CIMs is the equivalent to the rude teenager who leaves his trash in the theatre because it "creates someone's job". It causes teams and COTs suppliers to scramble and jump through some hoops, but to no real net gain. Motors are just Torque-Speed combos (aka Mechanical power supplies) with varying levels of durability (head dissipation).

In industry changes such as a motor change (at least in the style described above) is generally trivial. I really, really want to believe the change we are warned about it something higher level and actually meaningful.

For reference to my mindset, the wheel change in 09 doesn't fall into the above category. It's closer to it than say the introduction of alliances in 1999, but it wasn't a purely arbitrary change to create more work for teams.

[mklinker]

How about something simpler such as no ability to opt out of the KOP drive base (if any). When registering for the kick-off event, past practice has allowed for opting out of the KOP drive base. That option does not currently exist for 2015.

Just a thought.....

Maybe the game requires NO drive base????????

[BigJ]

How about something simpler such as no ability to opt out of the KOP drive base (if any). When registering for the kick-off event, past practice has allowed for opting out of the KOP drive base. That option does not currently exist for 2015.

Just a thought.....

Maybe the game requires NO drive base????????

Kit base opt-out only started 2 (maybe 3?) years ago - making a bunch of teams that won't end up using the kit frame take a kit frame is a waste. I'm sure we probably have at least 1 kit frame somewhere in our sheds still.

[MechEng83]

How about something simpler such as no ability to opt out of the KOP drive base (if any). When registering for the kick-off event, past practice has allowed for opting out of the KOP drive base. That option does not currently exist for 2015.

Just a thought.....

Maybe the game requires NO drive base????????

LOL. Check the new blog post: http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-KOP-Drive-System-Opt-Out-2015

[Joe Ross]

There hasn't been an announcement to buy pool noodles yet. Considering that they are already out of stores in most of the country, draw whatever conclusion that you like.

[JB987]

There hasn't been an announcement to buy pool noodles yet. Considering that they are already out of stores in most of the country, draw whatever conclusion that you like.

I conclude this year's KOP comes with a force field generator:D

[FrankJ]

So the blog says there will be wheels... I really cannot imagine no bumpers unless they do something to seriously limit robot interactions. So I would buy noodles on spec.

First has substantial dollars tied up in fields. Don't expect anything that will change the basic field. The carpet gets replaced for almost every regional so a different surface is a distinct possibility.

[the programmer]

My thought:

17357

(I really hope Frank doesn't see this...)

[mrnoble]

So now we know a bit more:

Wheels (check!)
Tough Box Mini, therefore CIMs (check!)
Multiple possible configurations (check!)
Opt-out, therefore similar parts costs (check!)

We can't yet eliminate field elements like hills, steps or obstructions, but it would be pretty tough to make that kit bot climb, even with monster truck wheels. I reserve judgement on that.

I don't know that I have enough imagination to come up with a viable way to increase spectator-friendliness, keep low-level teams viable, and challenge high-level teams, while fundamentally changing the game. I'm sure the GDC is smarter than I am, though, so I look forward to seeing how they move this sport forward.

FWIW, last year's game was essentially hockey, heavily adapted to the point where it could be called "robot ball". I wish they could just rejigger last years game with the lessons that were learned and not come up with a totally new challenge; it had the most potential of any game I've been in to become a real sport, even though it had some near-fatal flaws.

[Lil' Lavery]

Tough Box Mini, therefore CIMs (check!)
How does the toughtbox mini rule out replacing CIMs with MiniCIMs?

FWIW, last year's game was essentially hockey, heavily adapted to the point where it could be called "robot ball". I wish they could just rejigger last years game with the lessons that were learned and not come up with a totally new challenge; it had the most potential of any game I've been in to become a real sport, even though it had some near-fatal flaws.
I think we watch very very different versions of hockey. :rolleyes:

[MARS_James]

My thought:

17357

(I really hope Frank doesn't see this...)

No
No
No
No
No
No

Those are the two worst games I have ever participated in (also my last two as a student), if not for a favor I owed they would have caused me to quit FRC. I can not begin to describe my hatred of those games without using words not allowed on this forum


I think we watch very very different versions of hockey. :rolleyes:

How awesome would it have been to see to robots stop, take off there bumpers, and wail on each other with pickup mechanisms.

[Andrew Schreiber]

How awesome would it have been to see to robots stop, take off there bumpers, and wail on each other with pickup mechanisms.

I feel like you were watching a very different version of Aerial Assault than I was playing... Or just, welcome to New England.

[Chris is me]

Something like that would result in a much earlier notification than when build starts. You would have to deal with a choked supply line for a critical part and therefore a lot of really ticked off powerhouses and an innumerable number of teams simply out of luck for the season.

There's no reason at all this requirement would have to be made public though. AndyMark and Vex could be contacted directly and supply could be ensured. Keep in mind that Vex coordinated the production of the Mini-CIM and BAG in secret as well, only announcing the parts publicly at Kickoff when we read about the motors in the rules.

Honestly I'm thinking the change is some field obstacle you have to drive over. Haven't had a *required* obstacle since 2010, other than the fairly shallow 2012 ramps. The bump existed in 2012 but that was fairly optional.

[mrnoble]

How does the toughtbox mini rule out replacing CIMs with MiniCIMs?


I think we watch very very different versions of hockey. :rolleyes:

Maybe I'm pushing it a little on hockey, but people compared Lunacy to ice hockey and I think this is closer to to the spirit of the game, with single game pieces, fast play, and assists. It had more in common with soccer, too, than Breakaway did.

Granted that CIMs aren't guaranteed but it will be a shocker to me if they are out entirely. It would be a nonsensical move and FIRST isn't stupid.

[DonRotolo]

tl;dr

Clearly we will be having 15 teams on an alliance. Yes the field will be larger, but every team will get 60 matches per event...:p

Oh, and we'll still have bumpers.

[MARS_James]

tl;dr

Clearly we will be having 15 teams on an alliance. Yes the field will be larger, but every team will get 60 matches per event...:p

Oh, and we'll still have bumpers.

So we are playing This (http://www.shoppingsquare.com.au/images/products/47844.jpg) but with robots. I am strangely ok with this

[thatprogrammer]

So we are playing This (http://www.shoppingsquare.com.au/images/products/47844.jpg) but with robots. I am strangely ok with this

More like http://i.stack.imgur.com/2pwTf.jpg ! What if none of the major rules are changed what-so-ever, and Frank is just leading us astray with false hopes and prophecies?

[Electronica1]

What if qualifications are 6 team battle royale, and the only alliances are in elimination.

[thatprogrammer]

What if qualifications are 6 team battle royale, and the only alliances are in elimination.

I thought the Chief Delphi community fought very hard for a long time to ensure qualification rounds were the same as elimination rounds... :eek:

[Lil' Lavery]

More like http://i.stack.imgur.com/2pwTf.jpg ! What if none of the major rules are changed what-so-ever, and Frank is just leading us astray with false hopes and prophecies?

Why would anyone ever build that many overlords!?! :confused:

I can't decide if my favorite part of that picture is that they only have 56 supply or the secondary batch of overlords you can see in the top right of the minimap.

e; Or the random control group of 2 overlords. This picture keeps getting better and better the longer I stare at it.

[Abhishek R]

Why would anyone ever build that many overlords!?! :confused:

I can't decide if my favorite part of that picture is that they only have 56 supply or the secondary batch of overlords you can see in the top right of the minimap.

e; Or the random control group of 2 overlords. This picture keeps getting better and better the longer I stare at it.

Clearly to do a mass zergling drop. It's a hidden hint for a flying game.

[Nemo]

I could see the weight limit going down. And I also wouldn't be shocked by an initial height limit under 60 in.

[dodar]

I wouldnt mind seeing an old 2007 rule possibly come back.

Your weight limit depends on your height.

[Lil' Lavery]

Something not mentioned in Frank's blog post: autonomous timing. ;)

[Nemo]

Something not mentioned in Frank's blog post: autonomous timing. ;)

So... put an autonomous period after a teleop period? That would be interesting in a variety of ways.

[Michael Hill]

How about this crazy speculation: Nobody could decide on what wireless module should be used for the RoboRio, and to also mitigate any wifi concerns, we will now be going back to a tether format using ethernet.

:P What? No takers?

[Steven Donow]

So... put an autonomous period after a teleop period? That would be interesting in a variety of ways.

I think he's implying a change/difference in the length of autonomous.


Though Auto being post-teleop could be interesting strategically; but terribly boring to watch and a safety risk.

[AdamHeard]

I think he's implying a change/difference in the length of autonomous.


Though Auto being post-teleop could be interesting strategically; but terribly boring to watch and a safety risk.

It could easily be exciting and not a safety risk.

It would add an interesting end game dynamic.

Almost any of the automodes in the last few years could have been done at the end of the match w/ some tweaks.

[Steven Donow]

It could easily be exciting and not a safety risk.

It would add an interesting end game dynamic.

Almost any of the automodes in the last few years could have been done at the end of the match w/ some tweaks.

Except for matches where a many of the robots barely have an auto that moves forward. This is with the opinion that, for all intents and purposes, the endgame /end of the game should be one of the most exciting points of the game.

Safety being an issue is more of a game specific (ie. 2011/2007 arms being 'entangled')

[The_ShamWOW88]

It could easily be exciting and not a safety risk.

It would add an interesting end game dynamic.

Almost any of the automodes in the last few years could have been done at the end of the match w/ some tweaks.

Would add to pre-match strategy too since you probably would have to have your robot situated properly to perform it's auto-function effectively.

[PayneTrain]

Adding to autonomous period would result in painfully boring regionals and really exciting champs elims.

I think auto routines are something that would be great to see with bigger emphasis. When you tell people new to the sport kids are working with their teams to not only build these complex machines, but program them to run by themselves, you get a special kind of reaction.

[AdamHeard]

Adding to autonomous period would result in painfully boring regionals and really exciting champs elims.

I think auto routines are something that would be great to see with bigger emphasis. When you tell people new to the sport kids are working with their teams to not only build these complex machines, but program them to run by themselves, you get a special kind of reaction.

The end game autonomous could be optional.

It could also make use of 2011/2012/2013 style safe zones so that teams opting to not end in autonomous can't just bash you.

[Mark Sheridan]

The end game autonomous could be optional.

It could also make use of 2011/2012/2013 style safe zones so that teams opting to not end in autonomous can't just bash you.

That's a really good idea. Teams that don't want to run end-game auto can just stay in teleop. Teams that want the end game auto could for examples opt in to be switched into auto for the final 20 seconds and get a 2-3X bonus on points scored during that period. I think it would have that crazy end of match feeling that aerial assist had, with people nail-biting to the very end, wondering if the auto will work and get the clutch victory.

[rick.oliver]

No Bag and Tag.

[sanddrag]

No Bag and Tag.
YES PLEASE! PLEASE! FIRST, if you are listening, TAKE THIS MAN'S ADVICE. Or at least put restrictions on practice bots.
But let's not turn this thread into that. We've been there done that.:deadhorse:

[cadandcookies]

Or at least put restrictions on practice bots.


Not to get sidetracked too much, but I would be very hesitant to suggest FIRST do anything of the sort-- it seems like any rules that FIRSt could make would run into several problems, namelf that they would be very difficult to enforce, they would be extending FIRST's reach outside of the competition proper (ie, build season and competitions), and they woudl probably lead to some more venom if people start accusing other teams and such... just a couple thoughts.

With regards to the build season being open or closed, I agree, it's already been discussed enough.

[Ali Ahmed]

I like the idea of bringing back an old game, but one from way back in the day like the 90's.

My reasoning is that the technology has changed enough that whatever robot was the best then may not be today with the new motors, gearboxes, control system, etc. Older teams wouldn't have a huge advantage because old parts are no longer available, drill motors, for example. The game could be tweaked a bit to allow for 6 robots and autonomous but it would be interesting to see what teams would come up with.

[Jacob Bendicksen]

I agree with the 'bring back the 90's' sentiment - it would be a (relatively) level* playing field compared to bringing back Aerial Assist. While certain long-established teams would have some amount of experience, no members and very few mentors would have been around for the original game.

*...though it seems like the actual field will be anything but level.

[Lil' Lavery]

Well, most of the 90s games didn't have alliances... :rolleyes:

[The_ShamWOW88]

I like the idea of bringing back an old game, but one from way back in the day like the 90's.

My reasoning is that the technology has changed enough that whatever robot was the best then may not be today with the new motors, gearboxes, control system, etc. Older teams wouldn't have a huge advantage because old parts are no longer available, drill motors, for example. The game could be tweaked a bit to allow for 6 robots and autonomous but it would be interesting to see what teams would come up with.

Id love to see them revamp/refresh an earlier FIRST game for 3 team alliances and adding a challenge(s) to meet today's standards.

[Derpancakes]

Might I add that in the blog post about the 2015 chassis, Frank mentions, "Our goal is to give you as much information as possible without revealing details about the game. For example, the limited ground clearance on last year’s KOP Drive System implied that the 2014 field would be relatively flat, while a drive base with significant ground clearance would imply some type of obstacle on the field that robots will likely have to traverse. If we revealed details such as ground clearance, we would be giving away too much of the game." In the provided cross-section image, it's visible that the through-holes for the wheels are quite a bit lower than the AM14U. I think this is a clear indicator that the chassis rides higher, and that there will be some terrain.

[piersklein]

Might I add that in the blog post about the 2015 chassis, Frank mentions, "Our goal is to give you as much information as possible without revealing details about the game. For example, the limited ground clearance on last year’s KOP Drive System implied that the 2014 field would be relatively flat, while a drive base with significant ground clearance would imply some type of obstacle on the field that robots will likely have to traverse. If we revealed details such as ground clearance, we would be giving away too much of the game." In the provided cross-section image, it's visible that the through-holes for the wheels are quite a bit lower than the AM14U. I think this is a clear indicator that the chassis rides higher, and that there will be some terrain.
I also noticed that the file is labeled "AM14U2" (Last years was AM14u) not as one would expect "AM15"
Does anyone have a link to this same view from the AM14U?

[mklinker]

The AM14U and the AM14U2 = AndyMark One for you and AndyMark One for you too.

AndyMark one five you doesn't work as well!!!!!!!!

[Derpancakes]

http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-Kit-of-Parts-Drive-System-Option-2014
Here's the post about the 2014 chassis, however there's no teaser diagram.

[FrankJ]

http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-Kit-of-Parts-Drive-System-Option-2014
Here's the post about the 2014 chassis, however there's no teaser diagram.
You do realize the 2014 chassis was last year's news? You can buy one now from AndyMark. Drawings here (http://www.andymark.com/AM14U-p/am-2563.htm). There is also a blog pos (http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-KOP-Drive-System-Opt-Out-2015)t about the 2015 chassis.:]

[Derpancakes]

You do realize the 2014 chassis was last year's news? You can buy one now from AndyMark. There is also a blog pos (http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-KOP-Drive-System-Opt-Out-2015)t about the 2015 chassis.:]

A few posts ago this was asked about.

[FrankJ]

A few posts ago this was asked about.

Yeah I saw that after I posted. :] Anyway drawings are on the AndyMark website.

[wilsonmw04]

All this hate for Regolith and minibots. I love'd to have another out of the box game.

My guess is that they change how they limit the size of the robots. All our off season drive trains are going out the window.

[Whippet]

All this hate for Regolith and minibots. I love'd to have another out of the box game.

Hey, I actually liked the minibots!

[rick.oliver]

Aim High without the ramps; Rack 'N Roll tubes; Ramp bots; on Regolith.

[Peyton Yeung]

Zone Zeal on regolith would be interesting.

[jwfoss]

Tetras and Mobile Goals.

[wireties]

mini-bots that run mazes - we are gonna take a picture of the maze and transmit the pattern to the mini-bot!

[Justin Montois]

Flying Minibots.

(Quadcopters)

[pfreivald]

My guess is that they change how they limit the size of the robots. All our off season drive trains are going out the window.

I doubt it--at least not footprint; they just made it legal to reuse bumper assemblies from year to year, and replaced a giant sliding tray thing they have to ship from regional to regional with a string inspectors can carry around in their pockets.

Height or weight I could see changing, but I'll be quite surprised if it's footprint.

[EricH]

I doubt it--at least not footprint; they just made it legal to reuse bumper assemblies from year to year, and replaced a giant sliding tray thing they have to ship from regional to regional with a string inspectors can carry around in their pockets.

Height or weight I could see changing, but I'll be quite surprised if it's footprint.

Oh, but the footprint is so much easier to change now. All you need to do is change one number, and the string is now longer or shorter. And, if your bumpers were on the corners only, just carry 'em over and bolt 'em on the new corners (if the frame is the same shape overall).


Sometimes the best changes are the simplest.

[Joe Ross]

There hasn't been an announcement to buy pool noodles yet. Considering that they are already out of stores in most of the country, draw whatever conclusion that you like.

Should've gone farther and explicitly stated no bumpers.