Annual Thread: Whats this years game going to be?

[team222badbrad]

Well everyone this years Kickoff is less than a month away!! Wow, this FIRST year went by fast!

Some people did a little detective work to find out where this years Championship was going to be and did a pretty good job, maybe we can do some to find out what this years game is going to be.

I think this years game is going to have some things that no other games have ever had. I also think the field is going to be rectangular, because FIRST spent lots of money designing the all metal field. They also have lots of them and they can be easily modified. It will probably also have some weird way to score points like the FLOPPIES! I think they will also bring in obstacles again. I also think they will have also have a stationary goal and movable ones. The will probably keep some type of robot/home zone, because that is a way to score points. It will also be rookie friendly and be easy to calculate points.

[OneAngryDaisy]

I have a gut feeling that says this year the challenge is gonna be tough.. why else would FIRST promise everyone that a "quick" solution for building bases would be given?

that same gut feeling says that whatever it is, we're gonna have to go over something..

[Gadget470]

For some reason I don't think Round Objects will be a part of this year. Cubes instead of balls.. goals not in a circular pattern, either octagonal or decagonal [possible DEKAgon joke, god I hope not]. And I don't mean like last year's goal or the year before with the circle of PVC.. I think any extensions will also not be in a circle.

I expect something else dealing with semi-precise balancing, due to the Segway HT launch (possible promotions other than dean wandering around on his Segway).

Hmm.. what else.. I don't think there will be items intended for tug-o-war this time around, FIRST seems to always throw a kink in games to change the biggest part. (2 x 2 competition with hanging bar became 4x0 with teeter-totter became 2 x 2 tug-o-war)

I think this year will again have 2 x 2 alliances with a dead robot still being of score. (Nothing 0, Stretcher 10pts, home zone 10pts).

Or hey.. maybe with the expansions.. a 3 x 3. Might be a bit far-fetched though considering badbrad's comment "FIRST spent lots of money designing the all metal field." I wouldn't be surprised at the same size field.

Well.. I've tossed in well more than my 2¢

[Clark Gilbert]

Hexagon shaped fields (smaller than past years rectangles and flat), the scoring objects will either be golf balls or something of similar size, and you will score them in lexan troughs (similar to 2000, but smaller, and mobile) that can be moved around and scored on the sides of the field. My guess is that the game will be 2x2 again too.

[Adam Y.]

I have a gut feeling that says this year the challenge is gonna be tough..
I expect something else dealing with semi-precise balancing, due to the Segway HT launch (possible promotions other than dean wandering around on his Segway).
I'm going to cover all of our bases mechanical wise this year. Anyway I've got this odd notion that our robot will have to climb stairs. It's got to be some obstacle course with something thrown in to collect. :D Anway check these websites out. This is the closest looking wheel design to the ibot and is what allows it to climb up stairs.(yeah I know the ibot has four wheels and that has six wheels but this machine doesn't have gyroscopes)
http://tyranny.egregious.net/~khrome/lego/
http://www.visi.com/~dc/tristar/

[Joel J]

I have no idea, but I want to guess. There is a high possibility that the shape of the field has changed--pentagon?--(the game has already been designed, so don't bother me you grammar grinches :p), but I seriously think it has remained the same. 2 vs 2 is once again the alliance/matchup structure, and opposing teams start on opposite sides of the field. The main challenge of the game requires robots to be fast and maneuverable, not beasts; it requires robot operators to be more skillful; it does not involve robots getting to an "endzone" at the end of a match, but rather an end position (think back to 2000); and it uses stationary "goals" in an attempt to disencourage boring push and shove, but has several items that can be grabbed from "worlds" and carried to a robot's "end position." A robot scores by doing something with big balls (think back to 2001), not sure what though. Tallying the score at the end of a match has become so easy its almost hard. Thats all I can think of right now. I feel like nostradamus--vague predictions, and all..:)

[Kyle Fenton]

Here is what I do know for a fact

* The field will not be rectangular (said at team forum)

*The field is flat (said at team forum)

*The game will be simpler for TV viewing (said at team forum)

*FIRST will not be adding anything fancy that will cost them a lot of $$

Here is what I guess.

*Similar to last year, in the respect there is going to be two types of robots, goal robots, and ball robots (balls, floppies, whatever). Both types of robots will have an equal responsibility.

*2v2--Most Definitely, this is always been the preferred type of competition.

*I believe the things you pick up are something standard like a soccer ball (like last year), tennis, basketball, etc, so they can readily purchased anywhere.

*I heard a rumor of getting an updated Operator Interface with a built in antenna, USB ports, and easier default channel switching (no dongle).

*No flexible rules, like tape measures from last year.

* A 3x rule, or something similar, so the idea is to get the closet possible score. FIRST never believed in a shut out kind of game, for the qualifications.

[EDIT] The BOM (Bill of Materials) should be comming soon

[Mongoose]

- 5 bot melee
- Pentagon, bots start at each corner
- (Basket) Balls located on a raised platform in the middle, platform with 2 ramps going up; sides allow for robots that can climb up stairs
- Bring balls to a one of five large zones from edge to edge with a box-like thing suspended over it, if you can place it on the board, 2 points, otherwise, 1 point
- The box will have really low walls, so balls can be knocked out of it, and balls can be knocked out of the lower zone, too
- The three teams with the highest score get the sum of the losing two

This probably goes against the grain of some other ideas (like alliances, although maybe you could do interteam plotting and scouting between matches) and suggestions, but it's just a fun speculation.

-Eric

[JVN]

Originally posted by Kyle Fenton

*I heard a rumor of getting an updated Operator Interface with a built in antenna, USB ports, and easier default channel switching (no dongle).


Didn't we already get this year's OI in the EduBot Kits?
Unless I'm mistaken it's the same one as in past years. I don't think FIRST would send a second one in the kits, it's too much $$$.

See Post:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15388

[Matt D]

I think there is going to be some element of automation next year. Maybe for the first 15-30 seconds, the controls are disabled.

I think there is going to some sort of raised scoring object (goal, etc) also.

[Kyle Fenton]

Originally posted by JVN
Didn't we already get this year's OI in the EduBot Kits?
Unless I'm mistaken it's the same one as in past years. I don't think FIRST would send a second one in the kits, it's too much $$$.

See Post:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15388

Hmmmm????

The EDUBot is an Isaac16 (the ones used in Battlebots)

And the ones we used is an Isaac32

The Isaac16 were most distinguishable by having gold ports, and the Isaac32 has silver ports.

It was originally stated that the Isaac16 was incompatible was the Isaac32

The website says however that they are both compatible. Weird.

Another thing that is weird though is that the OI still has only 3 digit display, while there is 4 digit teams this year.

Our team still hasn’t receive our edubot, so I don’t know

[Gadget470]

ok. it's 1:30am, I have mspaint, I have thoughts.

Nothing good can from this.

Follow-up to my thoughts on the game (above, note the FIRST symbols were hand made.)

[Johca_Gaorl]

Originally posted by Kyle Fenton
The EDUBot is an Isaac16 (the ones used in Battlebots)

And the ones we used is an Isaac32

That's the Robot Controller, the OI is the one we will be using for competition this year.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15388

[Joel J]

Originally posted by Gadget470
ok. it's 1:30am, I have mspaint, I have thoughts.

Nothing good can from this.

Follow-up to my thoughts on the game (above, note the FIRST symbols were hand made.) Yes! Thats how I envision it.. however, I think the alliance members will start together at opposite sides of the field.. this setup may warrant a change in the shape of the field, or it might not.
This is the image that kept hanging out in my mind, but I am sticking with my post for the guess.

[RebAl]

I noticed that the control system manual wont be coming out untill jan 5 (day after kick off) wounder if this means the control system plays a more important role this year and they cant give out the manual cause it would give it away. Here (http://www.innovationfirst.com/FIRSTRobotics/documentation.htm)

[Joe Matt]

Somehow I have a feeling that no goals will be used like in previous versons of the game, but they will be used in a differnt way. Kinda like how a hoop is in basketball versues a soccer goal.

[JVN]

Is it possible to do a lot of autonomy with the current controller?
I'm more of a mechanical person, so I don't know what's possible.

All I know is my SparkE's are screaming for more sensors so they can do cooler stuff. I hope FIRST comes through.

I like the idea that for the first 30 seconds of each match the robots are on their own. Now THAT would require innovation.

[RebAl]

Originally posted by JVN
Is it possible to do a lot of autonomy with the current controller?


Not really, it could be done but there is not much space to do it in

___

although this is in the OI manual:

When the Disable LED is blinking, the Robot Controller is in an Autonomous Mode. The following
functions are still active when the Disable LED is blinking:
• Operator Interface inputs (joystick, buttons, etc.) are transmitted to the Robot Controller in their
default state(analog inputs at neutral and digital inputs disabled).
• PBASIC code is executing.
• PBASIC input, local inputs (switches, pots, etc), including Operator Interface default inputs are
read in by the PBASIC processor.
• PBASIC output commands are sent to, and executed by the output processor.
• Robot Controller feedback is transmitted to the Operator Interface.
• For more information on Autonomous Mode, see the Programming Reference Guide.
Thus the Robot can move and function only from PBASIC code commands and will ignore any human
input from the Operator Interface.

[RebAl]

Originally posted by Kyle Fenton
Hmmmm????

Another thing that is weird though is that the OI still has only 3 digit display, while there is 4 digit teams this year.


Actually that wouldent be required if a team number is over 999 the dispaly goes to - - - and the processor can handle a huge number of teams since it has 12 places for the binary code (thats 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 + 64 + 128 + 256 + 512 +1024 + 2048 = a max team number of 4095)

___

as per the oi manual:

The SELECT button is used to change the 3 or 4 -digit display. Pressing SELECT will cycle the display
between Robot Voltage, User Mode, Team Number, and Channel. The data displayed can be
distinguished by the format used.
3 digit 4 digit
Team Number display 000 0000
Channel display c40 c40
Robot Voltage display 12.0 12.0
User Mode 00.0. u000
Any Team Number greater than 999 will be displayed as “---“on Operator Interfaces with only a 3-
digit display. The Operator Interface with a 4-digit display can show any Team Number up to 4095.
Refer to page 16 or the Programming Reference Guide for more info on the User Mode function.

[Aaron Lussier]

Well what ever the game is I'm sure that it will surprise the hell out of all of us. Be it Goals or Footballs or multi level platforms or a funky shaped field, It will be something that none of us expected.

[Johca_Gaorl]

Originally posted by The wheelman
Well what ever the game is I'm sure that it will surprise the hell out of all of us. Be it Goals or Footballs or multi level platforms or a funky shaped field, It will be something that none of us expected.

Most definitely, it's kinda pointless to try and guess.

[Gadget470]

fun though. fun is good.

and Joel J. there was no image in your post

[Not2B]

I agree with everyone who thinks the robot will run in autonomus mode for a while. The EDU robot default code makes reference to autonomus mode. It seems to be turned on and off from the FIRST computer at an event. It looks like sensors have become more popular lately.

I just don't know how it could be done...
Could it be.....
- first X seconds are auto
- last X seconds are auto
- You switch it into auto mode and score more points for every second you are in auto mode
- Do field elements emit signals?
- Will robots be required to carry signal emitters (like an inferred beacon)

What kind of sensors will we get? Gyro, IR, touch, stuff to build our own? (line followers, proximity, distance, etc...)

Lots of fun...

[Ryan Foley]

Originally posted by Kyle Fenton
Hmmmm????

The EDUBot is an Isaac16 (the ones used in Battlebots)

And the ones we used is an Isaac32

The Isaac16 were most distinguishable by having gold ports, and the Isaac32 has silver ports.

It was originally stated that the Isaac16 was incompatible was the Isaac32

The website says however that they are both compatible. Weird.

Another thing that is weird though is that the OI still has only 3 digit display, while there is 4 digit teams this year.

Our team still hasn’t receive our edubot, so I don’t know

The operator interfaces for both the Isaac 16 and Isaac 32 systems are EXACTLY the same, only the robot controllers are different

[Joel J]

Originally posted by Not2B
I agree with everyone who thinks the robot will run in autonomous mode for a while. The EDU robot default code makes reference to autonomous mode. It seems to be turned on and off from the FIRST computer at an event. It looks like sensors have become more popular lately.

I just don't know how it could be done...
Could it be.....
- first X seconds are auto
- last X seconds are auto
- You switch it into auto mode and score more points for every second you are in auto mode
- Do field elements emit signals?
- Will robots be required to carry signal emitters (like an inferred beacon)

What kind of sensors will we get? Gyro, IR, touch, stuff to build our own? (line followers, proximity, distance, etc...)

Lots of fun... If so, I am gonna say they are using retro-reflective tape and it is during the last phase of the match.. perhaps a robot has to find its way to their "end position."

[DaBruteForceGuy]

Originally posted by Joel J.
If so, I am gonna say they are using retro-reflective tape and it is during the last phase of the match.. perhaps a robot has to find its way to their "end position."

I agree! If FIRST does attempt to make a period of autonomous"ness" then to have it at the beggining of the match would be chaos! Whatever the robot would be programmed to do could be greatly affected by the other robots and what they are doing. i.e: If all the bots are programmed to go to the same place. There is no way for the bot to sense another robot and in turn adjust it's task or wtvr... If we would have that then the other bots would require retroreflective tape or something to know where eachother are. AND even if that is.. then since it is retroreflective then how would the sensors be able to distinguise between them or goals, obsticals, balls... with retroreflective tape on them. AND.....(I will stop now b/c there is an even more imp. reason why this isn't likely..)

IT'S TOO COMPLEX! Rookies would be totally excluded from the time we are automatically flowating around the feild. I think that it would be very, very hard for a rookie team who has never used code, or sensors before to pull off. I know that the majority of the teams didn't use sensors last year (even though thy weren't a necessity), and the bots were still outstanding.
Autonomous would be an awesome idea but it would have to be an "extension of the match". In other words, certain robot functions can go on for a said amount of seconds (robots jockying for position) after the said match was over. This merely makes it so that is a team did decide to go the extra yard to do this, they would get the extra time to do stuff hile others, well, don't.

[JVN]

Originally posted by DaBruteForceGuy
I agree! If FIRST does attempt to make a period of autonomous"ness" then to have it at the beggining of the match would be chaos!

I think that's the idea!
It's just one more challenge for everyone. They would most likely provide us with new and enhanced sensors such that the robots could sense each other. Those bots that are best programmed to "sense and evade" will perform the best.
Someone above mentioned it being a requirement for all the robots to emit some form of signal, and to have playing field objects emit a similar signal. This would allow the robot to sense what is happening in real-time, and depending on it's program, react to it.

Here's a new idea...
Imagine if the robots move autonomously during the first 30 seconds, and after that aren't allowed to move.
The rest of the match would be based on stationary robots, and whatever arms/shooters/whatever they have on them.
No drive controlled drivetrains at all.

It would certainly fulfill the announcement that there will be stricter rules about drivetrains.

[patrickrd]

When dean gave a lecture at my college in october i had the pleasure of talking to him for a few minutes, and he said the following:

- We will really like the game this year
- The game will either have balls or not have balls

Dean also acknowledged that 1999 was a great year... maybe hinting something?? :)

[Dave Flowerday]

- We will really like the game this year
- The game will either have balls or not have ballsDean gives out this exact same quote every year :cool:

[dlavery]

Originally posted by patrickrd
When dean gave a lecture at my college in october i had the pleasure of talking to him for a few minutes, and he said the following:

- We will really like the game this year
- The game will either have balls or not have balls

Dean also acknowledged that 1999 was a great year... maybe hinting something?? :)

Based on that, I can conclusively say that we will either have autonomy, or we won't have autonomy.

- dave

------------------------------------

This theory which belongs to me is as follows. Ahem. Ahem. This is how it goes. Ahem. The next thing that I am about to say is my theory. Ahem. Ready?All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much MUCH thicker in the middle, and then thin again at the far end. That is the theory that I have and which is mine, and what it is too.

- Anne Elk (Miss)

[sanddrag]

What was 1999's game?

Also, is there somewhere I can find out what all the past games were?

[Jeff Waegelin]

1999 was the "year of the floppy" which was a funky gamepiece item that I can't really explain. It was also the first year of Alliances. I'm thinking Dean's hint refers to the alliance aspect (some sort of change to the 2v2 model), but it could be about the gamepieces, too.

[Johca_Gaorl]

http://www.nhgs.tec.va.us/first/99first/FIRST99/TheGame.pdf

It's in there in the first couple pages.

[Matt Reiland]

Anyone notice in the user manual that the new operator interface can display 'Team Number (4 digits were sent out to teams that have 4 digits says the manual), Channel, Voltage, & TADA User variable that you can set in your robot code. COuld be really useful if you have a special value you need to know such as a potentiometer!!!!

[Chris Nowak]

Originally posted by Not2B
I agree with everyone who thinks the robot will run in autonomus mode for a while. The EDU robot default code makes reference to autonomus mode. It seems to be turned on and off from the FIRST computer at an event. It looks like sensors have become more popular lately.

I just don't know how it could be done...
Could it be.....
- first X seconds are auto
- last X seconds are auto
- You switch it into auto mode and score more points for every second you are in auto mode
- Do field elements emit signals?
- Will robots be required to carry signal emitters (like an inferred beacon)

What kind of sensors will we get? Gyro, IR, touch, stuff to build our own? (line followers, proximity, distance, etc...)

Lots of fun...

Running it in autonomous mode would make scouting and strategizing very intense because you would actually know how the robots would perform if you knew how they had performed in previous matches...the skilled scouter who knew the sensors and programming of the robots in the match might be able to predict the outcome if its totally autonomous or how the robots are going to end up when the leave autonomous mode. If this is the case, this is going to be extremely interesting.

[Not2B]

I did some more thinking..... and that's all it is... just me thinking...

BUT

Why wouldn't they let us have the default code until Jan 5th? Does that mean something FUNKY is going on in the default code? Something that HAS to be in the code, say, a FIRST event computer controlled item...... (like the light, or program start/stop)

Just doing my job to spread an autonomus panic among the programmers on my team and yours. :D

[Brandon Martus]

Anybody care to press their luck?

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/ventures.php?s=&action=eventdetail&eventid=4

We're testing out the Ventures System again. This test event may be of interest to those of you who participated in this thread. :)

I promise not to accidentally delete the data this time :)

[Ricky Q.]

Originally posted by Matt Reiland
Anyone notice in the user manual that the new operator interface can display 'Team Number (4 digits were sent out to teams that have 4 digits says the manual), Channel, Voltage, & TADA User variable that you can set in your robot code. COuld be really useful if you have a special value you need to know such as a potentiometer!!!!


We got a 4 Digit Display, and we are only 3 numbers, so I dont know if thats fully accurate, or if they just messed up :p

[Matt D]

I just saw my team's OI for the first time today. THough we are only a 3 digit team (254), it has 4 digits.

[Joe Matt]

Originally posted by Matt D
I just saw my team's OI for the first time today. THough we are only a 3 digit team (254), it has 4 digits.

That's for the 4 diget teams such as 1089 :) .

[Eric Bareiss]

I have been thinking about what this years game will be, and I haven't decided exactly what it will be so I won't guess. I guessed last year and i was quite wrong. But there have been some main characteristics that have held true over tha past few years.

1. Robots start at point X, from there they move to point Y which is where the task is accomplished be it the moveable goals(2002), the bridge(2001) or the stationary goals(2000). Point Y is typically in the middle section of the field. From there, they must end the match at a certain point, Whether it be point Z or original point X, they must finish the match there.

2. There have been, for the most part, two types of robots per year.

*Power Robots, ie, hanging robots(2000), Balancing Robots(2001), and Goal Robots(2002)

*Finesse Robots, ie Ball Robots(2000), Big Ball Robots(2001), Ball Bots(2002)

As you can see FIRST does not want the same thing every year, but they do like some form of consistency in the games from year to year.

[Trashed20]

this is purely speculation but.....

do you think that having the championship in a football stadium might have something to do with it? How bout a football like obsticle course that you would have to have your robot do automatically? probably not probable, but most certainly possible.

oh, and i want to see bowling pins in a competition...

have your programmers started to panic yet?

[Brandon Martus]

Originally posted by Trashed20


oh, and i want to see bowling pins in a competition...



You're not alone. My dad says the same thing every year:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=75580&highlight=bowling+Martus#post75580
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=85607&highlight=bowling+Martus#post85607
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=67800&highlight=bowling+Martus#post67800

:)

[Joe Matt]

Originally posted by Brandon Martus
You're not alone. My dad says the same thing every year:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=75580&highlight=bowling+Martus#post75580
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=85607&highlight=bowling+Martus#post85607
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=67800&highlight=bowling+Martus#post67800

:)

Is the whole Martus clan in FIRST Brandon?

Not to throw this off track.

[Brandon Martus]

Originally posted by JosephM
Is the whole Martus clan in FIRST Brandon?

Yes? :)

[Joe Matt]

Originally posted by Brandon Martus
Yes? :)

Ok, cool :cool:

*Now back to your regularly scheduled post*

[Rich Wong]

Here is hint #1:

"The field component is HUGE!"

(yip, it's really, really huge)

:D

[DaBruteForceGuy]

^ok lets not push it right? :rolleyes:
Hint #1 eh? *waits for another*
also... jw, how do you know this?

[Rich Wong]

Here is Hint #2:

The playing field component(s) is really simple.
(and so is the game)

:D

[marlon_jbt]

Whatever it is, I just hope that we can use our current (2002) robots, with tiny modifications. Basically, what I'm saying is, I hope we can use the frames, to minimize on build time and engineering.

[Rich Wong]

Here is hint #3:

There are NO moving parts on the field component.

:D

[Madison]

Originally posted by marlon_jbt
Whatever it is, I just hope that we can use our current (2002) robots, with tiny modifications. Basically, what I'm saying is, I hope we can use the frames, to minimize on build time and engineering.

You're really not supposed to reuse entire mechanisms from previous years robots. . . you can use the design again, however. A lot of teams have standardized chassis designs that drop together quickly.

My team isn't one of them ;)

[JVN]

Originally posted by marlon_jbt
Whatever it is, I just hope that we can use our current (2002) robots, with tiny modifications. Basically, what I'm saying is, I hope we can use the frames, to minimize on build time and engineering.

Minimize build time and engineering?
What's the fun in that?!? :D

I hope FIRST does something drastically different, and forces everyone to throw the "old" ideas out the window. I'd like to see something radically different (even if I did love last year's game).

[marlon_jbt]

Oops, sorry, I meant (The design, not the entire robot)

Maybe the drivetrain, etc. if the new playing field allows, at least, that's what the engineers are telling us to do. I don't like it, and I hope that we do have to build from the ground up, because this is my first year. (I want to learn something, and have a little fun in the process)

[Rich Wong]

Here is probably the last hint:

"what is common between the 2000 FRC field
and 2002 FLL field?"

:D

[Joel J]

Originally posted by Rich Wong
Here is hint #1:
"The field component is HUGE!"
(yip, it's really, really huge)
---
Here is Hint #2:
The playing field component(s) is really simple.
(and so is the game)
---
Here is hint #3:
There are NO moving parts on the field component.
---
Here is probably the last hint:
"what is common between the 2000 FRC field
and 2002 FLL field?"

:D Are you toying with us, Rich Wong? If you are not, then the only pieces of information I can gather from these clues are there is only one "field component" or goal, its most likely stationary, and it--resembles a bridge or ramp? ... ???

[Moshingkow]

Rich is not toying with you, he is a judge now, formerly affiliated with my team, so he knows the game. and no, we've tried torture and it wont get it out of him... (we almost had him with the thumbscrews... :) but seriously, the only way you will get to find out the game before everyone else would be to voulenteer at one of the kickoffs. Thats what im doing. The kickoffs all do there own thing, but at the NYC kickoff, they will be building a lego model of the field and probably a few robots, so naturally, helpers will be needed :)

[Gadget470]

Here is probably the last hint:
"what is common between the 2000 FRC field
and 2002 FLL field?"


2002 FLL Field:
http://www.firstlegoleague.org/sitemod/upload/Root/danny/img-mission-frontpage.jpg

2000 Field overhead attached at bottom.


The only similarities I see is the fact of there being a bridge that "needs to be crossed"
in FLL, the bridge needed to be fixed so the people could cross it, in FRC, the bridge needed to be crossed to get to balls on other side (or get under the bar's under trough).

Possibly also, but kinda farfetched, is FLL's "modular housing" (in the field picture it's middle left close-up). if looked at straight, all you see is 4 lines going across, this somewhat resembles a straight view of the trough.

My 2¢

[Ryan Foley]

Originally posted by Rich Wong
Here is probably the last hint:

"what is common between the 2000 FRC field
and 2002 FLL field?"

:D
it has to be the bridge from the 2002 FLL field and the ramp from the 2000 FRC field. If you look at the other hints, a ramp can be huge, its simple, and has no moving parts

[Moshingkow]

im thinking that the only parallel between the 2002 FLL game and the 2000 FRC game would be that there is an incline on the field. not necessarily a ramp that needs to be crossed. this year, the whole field could be on an incline, that slopes in the middle, or possibly slopes all to one side...

[DaBruteForceGuy]

Originally posted by Rich Wong
Here is Hint #2:

The playing field component(s) is really simple.
(and so is the game)

:D

I like how in this hint he indicates that there could be plural feild "component(s)", but he used the word "is" instead of are or is/are!:rolleyes: :D

[shaddoe]

Maybe the game is sort of like last years with the field being one or two huge slopes that robots have to move themselves or something else around on into different zones. So the field itself would be the one big ramp component.

[Mark Pettit]

I was expecting a game similar to the one being played on the EDURobot Powerup Video. A square field, 2 on 2, alliance partners starting at opposite ends of the field with a large square barrier in the center (the barrier, a pillar in the Powerup video, might also be used for some type of special scoring goal like the larger balls in 2001). The object seemed to be to get the soccer balls (in place of the golf balls in the video) into your alliance's scoring zone by the buzzer. Seeing how the scoring zone was only demarked by tape, part of the team's strategy will need to be to hold the balls in place so that they do not roll away or so they can't be taken away by the opponent. The game would require most everyone to be a ball handler and would make strategy a real challenge.

[Rich Wong]

Originally posted by DaBruteForceGuy
I like how in this hint he indicates that there could be plural feild "component(s)", but he used the word "is" instead of are or is/are!:rolleyes: :D
----------------------------------------

"DaBruteForceGuy, YOU are good!"

All you guys are just TOO good at investigations.
It is too difficult to keep all of you guessing!

(This is really, really tje LAST comment I can make on this topic)

:D :p:D

[Ian Mathew]

I do not think it will be an obstacle course, I think it will take more of a 2v2 effect, where teams are actually trying something against eachother. I think this would make it easier to score, and television friendly. An obstacle course, especially one with 10 different obstacles, each with different point amounts, and variations(possibly a little exaggerated) would confuse most audiences who know little about robotics, and some who know a lot about the competitions. FIRST seems to want things clean, and simple for viewing, and this seems like the best solution to me.

[Moshingkow]

maybe there is a button at the top of a giant upside down cone which encompasses the entire field, which, when pressed, will release a ball from the sky, right on top of the button. the goal would be to get as many balls into your side of the cone before the clock strikes 2:00.

hows that for speculation

[Gadget470]

dabruteforceguy, this was established before that.


Here is hint #1:
"The field component is HUGE!"
(yip, it's really, really huge)
---
Here is Hint #2:
The playing field component(s) is really simple.
(and so is the game)
---
Here is hint #3:
There are NO moving parts on the field component.
---
Here is probably the last hint:
what is common between the 2000 FRC field
and 2002 FLL field?


Hint 1 labeled it as a non-pluralized component, as later did hint 3.

i still think my picture may be close =)

[DaBruteForceGuy]

I know that! DURRRR, lol. I just wanted to point out just how hard Rich has been trying not to give away too much info.

[Ken Delaney]

If this guy Rich is part of FIRST then why is he dropping all these hints? I would think that if he is aware of the game he would be held to some level of secrecy. Using these hints, if people assume correctly, could lead to teams getting a huge jump on the rest of the field. If they are false, could cause a team to waste a huge amount of time chasing a red herring. Either way I find that someone with official FIRST status should show some more restraint. I always view the information here with a bit of skepticism, but I wonder how many people are taking this information to heart?

[Madison]

Originally posted by mrd_udhs
If this guy Rich is part of FIRST then why is he dropping all these hints? I would think that if he is aware of the game he would be held to some level of secrecy. Using these hints, if people assume correctly, could lead to teams getting a huge jump on the rest of the field. If they are false, could cause a team to waste a huge amount of time chasing a red herring. Either way I find that someone with official FIRST status should show some more restraint. I always view the information here with a bit of skepticism, but I wonder how many people are taking this information to heart?

Not to speak for Rich, but, he's involved with the NYC Regional. . . and I don't know to what greater extent. So, while I don't know that he's on FIRST's payroll, he does hold a unique, administrative sort of position.

If team's want to make assumptions about what he's said and run with them, that is their responsibility - not Rich's. If they want to hold back and wait, they can do that too.

Everyone is getting excited to see what we'll have to do this season. Rich is just sitting back and enjoying himself a bit, too.

There's nothing wrong with that, as best as I can tell.

[Gadget470]

the hints he has given say nothing of what to build on. Zero measurements have been given and no strategy can be formed by what's been said.

"The field component doesn't move" means nothing, what does move (besides the bots)?


There is no head start or jump that any team could make based solely on Rich's comments

[dlavery]

Originally posted by M. Krass
Everyone is getting excited to see what we'll have to do this season. Rich is just sitting back and enjoying himself a bit, too.

There's nothing wrong with that, as best as I can tell.

There is nothing wrong with that UNLESS he signed a non-disclosure agreement with FIRST and promised to keep his mouth shut about the contents of this year's field design and game.

The Regional Directors, who have unprecedented access to the field design this year in order to allow them to build the complete field for the remote kickoff events, are supposed to keep ALL game design information confidential (including all suggestions, clues and hints). The reasons for this are obvious - FIRST doesn't want any special subset of teams to gain access to information that would give them an unfair advantage for the competition.

So it seems we have a conundrum. Maybe things are not at all what they appear to be - is Mr. Wong making up a lot of hints with the specific intent of providing mis-information? Or is mrd_udhs on to something?

-dave

[Joe Matt]

So here's another question. How sever is Rich's NDA with FIRST? (If he has one)

[Moshingkow]

Originally posted by mrd_udhs
If this guy Rich is part of FIRST then why is he dropping all these hints? I would think that if he is aware of the game he would be held to some level of secrecy. Using these hints, if people assume correctly, could lead to teams getting a huge jump on the rest of the field. If they are false, could cause a team to waste a huge amount of time chasing a red herring. Either way I find that someone with official FIRST status should show some more restraint. I always view the information here with a bit of skepticism, but I wonder how many people are taking this information to heart?
Richard Wong is a judge at the NYC regional, and was our mentor last year. He cannot be affiliated with any teams at this point because of his judgeness. Last month, he told me that first hadnt even finished and finalized the game yet, and the hints that he told me of ideas they were tossing around are totally different then what he is telling this board now. If in fact the game IS finalized, he probably knows it, because they now have to build a field to show at the NYC Kickoff at Polytechnic University. So dont brush off his comments like some crazy man with nothing better to do, he has a plan!

tenkai

PS His english is not 100%, so he may have just made a mistake when the said "is", or he could have meant it... Oh, and he is sworn to secrecy so dont try to pry any more info, his lips and fingers are sealed.

[ChrisH]

Originally posted by dlavery
The Regional Directors, who have unprecedented access to the field design this year in order to allow them to build the complete field for the remote kickoff events, are supposed to keep ALL game design information confidential (including all suggestions, clues and hints). The reasons for this are obvious - FIRST doesn't want any special subset of teams to gain access to information that would give them an unfair advantage for the competition.

So it seems we have a conundrum. Maybe things are not at all what they appear to be - is Mr. Wong making up a lot of hints with the specific intent of providing mis-information? Or is mrd_udhs on to something?

-dave

In one of Mr Clancy's books there's a quote something like this "The probability of a secret being revealed is proportionate to the cube of the number of people who know the secret." I find it to be a reasonable approximation. I also know, having worked in the "dark world" on programs that didn't exist, how difficult it is to NOT say anything about something that is supposed to be a secret. Just the fact it is a secret, makes you want to tell, and the more people you know who want to hear it, the more you want to tell it.

So I think Mr. Wong had better cool it a little for a while. Either that or learn how to say "I can neither confirm nor deny..." with a straight face.

I notice that Jason Morrella has been pretty quite lately (no posts since 11/14 and that was on the great Championship Hoax), and so have a few other prominent FIRST people who used to be active here. Though I think Jason has been logged in a time or two when I was.

I would guess that there are some radical changes in the works. Hopefully they will be kept secret better than the Championship location was. Unless they are deliberately leaked to "soften the blow" so people aren't too upset when they find out the rumor is true after all.

BTW anybody heard anything about an advance Bill of Materials for this year?

[Jason Morrella]

Hey Chris,

I wish that my lack of posting was due to some top secret info, but it's just due to lots of work and travel in the last 3 or 4 weeks. But seeing yourself and DaveL reply to this thread gives me the urge to throw in my 2 cents.

While not in the "circle" of those who have signed confidentiality agreements with FIRST regarding the game or field, I do know that those select few "trusted" by FIRST with this info have indeed given their word and signed such an agreement. This fact leads me to a few thoughts:

# 1 - if anyone affiliated with FIRST through judging or remote kickoff setup DID know the game, that would mean they were given a great deal of trust and respect by FIRST. WHY I ASK, would anyone in such a position betray this trust and divulge any actual aspects of the field or game either directly or through hints in a public forum?

# 2 - knowing this, I would assume that anyone who actually does know the field or game would have three options regarding the Chief Delphi forum and posting on it regarding the 2003 game/field:

A) they would most likely just keep the info to themselves and never make any reference or hint toward the field or game - this is the option I would assume most would take.

B) they would purposely make fun and provocative posts to get people thinking but also leading them in the wrong direction - not posting anything directly related to the game or field. This is what I would assume Mr. Wong and any others have done - (except Dave Lavery - I think he may have let something slip with his "seven Carter's Little Goal Pills and one Alludium Q36 Explosive Space Modulator" rumor - so this is what I am going to spend the next 3 weeks preparing for)

C) they would betray the trust of FIRST, go against the word of their confidentiality agreement, risk ruining one of the best parts of the kickoff for all of us - which is the anticipation and surprise of seeing the game unveiled on Jan 4th - and would basically be telling FIRST "NOT" to share any information with them ever again and "NOT" to have them involved in judging or remote kickoffs in the future. I don't see many people choosing this option.

To close....what I take from this thread is the following:
I think 98% of the people on CD know nothing about the field or game and are just guessing and throwing out ideas - which is interesting and I enjoy reading. I think a couple people who post on here may know some things, but they don't post anything related to the actual field/game and have fun misdirecting people. Even IF anyone did post anything accurate about the game, I wouldn't know what to believe anyway and I also know that Dean/Woody have changed the game MANY times even a week before the kickoff, so there's always the possibility they would do the same thing here if things were leaked - so it's all a mystery until the kickoff regardless.

For what it's worth, in the interest of fairness, sharing, and since I have signed no confidentiality agreement - I have been told by someone involved with a remote kickoff that Mr Wong is playing with some people here and that there are indeed multiple field parts/obstacles/goals which are tall and indeed movable. Besides adding that building the field objects is a bit more expensive than the past couple years, this source wouldn't tell me shape, size, weight, number, or anything more, so I've taken him off my xmas card list. :)

The one person whose post seemed strange to me was Dave Lavery, who I noticed started putting some strange footer to his posts of "Y = AX^2 + BX + C". I started to contemplate what this could mean and if it was some kind of hint about the game, but started to get a headache and realized I should have studied math more in high school - which knowing Dave tells me it may be some clue because it would give him great joy to know it was causing me mental anguish. Can anyone tell me what that equation means????

ChrisH - does that make up for my month of inactivity. :)

Hope everyone is doing well. Less than three weeks to go - unbelievable! Didn't the 2002 Championship just end????

[Doug G]

Y = AX^2 + BX + C" ... Can anyone tell me what that equation means????

Looks like a 2nd order polynomial... If plotted x-y, it would yield a parabola. You could try to interpret it as relating to an object in free-fall where y is the height, x is the time, A is half acceleration due to gravity, B is the original velocity, and C is the initial height. Having fun yet???

[Jason Morrella]

uuummmmmm....thanks, I think.
headache.....getting.....bigger.....

Is it good to combine Advil, Tylenol, AND Aleve???

[Ken Leung]

Originally posted by Doug G
Looks like a 2nd order polynomial... If plotted x-y, it would yield a parabola. You could try to interpret it as relating to an object in free-fall where y is the height, x is the time, A is half acceleration due to gravity, B is the original velocity, and C is the initial height. Having fun yet???

The parabola pretty much plot out the course of something you throw into the air and drop back down. Hmm... Would this year similate the game of baseket ball just like how last year similate football?

When you shoot a basketball into the air, it drop back down just like an upside down parabola curve. Hehe, that would be pretty cool. Imagine goals in the field you have to shoot basket ball at, with optic sensors aiming at where the goals are. Then you get points for hanging on the goal while holding a ball in the middle of the hoop.

Even better, there are multiple hoops on the same goal, one higher than the other, each with a limit switch sensing if a ball got through or not. The higher you shoot the ball, the more points you get. The higher you can hang up, the more multiplier you get.

The goals of course will be in the middle of the field, on top of a hill with ramps on 4 side.

That's my guess anyway.

[RebAl]

Y = AX^2 + BX + C can be solved using the quadratic equation :

Y= (-B +or- sqrt(B^2 - 4AC))/2A

only if you know some of the values though

[Andy Baker]

Originally posted by Jason Morrella
... so I've taken him off my xmas card list. :)

Jason has a Christmas card list? That would be suprising. :)

Originally posted by Ken L
The parabola pretty much plot out the course of something you throw into the air and drop back down. Hmm... Would this year similate the game of baseket ball...?

Basketball!!! Woohooo!!! That would be a dream come true. The media would finally "get" the game, and it would be really fun to demonstrate locally.

However, although the equation Dave posted (Y = AX^2 + BX + C) does describe the movement of a projectile in flight, it could lead to another game...

Maybe Rich Wong's "Huge, simple" field component is a smallish sized castle... and our design challenge is to come up with trebuchets and other midevil seigeing devices. On top of the platform would be the opposing team leaders and we would be launching cream pies at them. The students on each team get to pick their leader (victim) and laugh when the opposing team splats them with a pie. Teams score higher when these victims scream louder.

The game is simple and this would allow teams to give rewards to those dedicated team leaders by force-feeding them some pie.

Sounds like fun!

Andy

ps... I also heard the rumor that this (these?) field component(s?) are expensive to build and teams are going to need to really dip into their budgets if they want to build this stuff. Man... I wish that FIRST would put out a BOM.

[Amy Beth]

Originally posted by Andy Baker
Jason has a Christmas card list? That would be suprising. :)


lets all send jason christmas cards so he feels bad

[Jason M]

If U look at Mr. Wong's hints he says somehting to the extent of there are no moving parts of the feild its self. He also says look for resemblances in the 2002FLL feild and the 2000first feild. From this I concluded that it is possible...and this again is me guessing---but could U have the same bridge idea but with possibly a multileveled ramp (insted of tetter totterish bridge cuz that moves rite?). You could then have something on the next level where mabey the balls are stored or kept so in essance U have a good ol race to the balls. This would then bring back the 2000 play exept with 2x2 alliances and have the objective be get to the balls as fast as U can and get as many balls into the goals as you can.

I really doubt that there will be scoring zones like last year because I know that confused alota fans (my parents included)



Just my thoughts on The game....only 2 1/2 weeks left tell we really find out tho!!

[Not2B]

Originally posted by Ken L
The parabola pretty much plot out the course of something you throw into the air and drop back down. Hmm... Would this year similate the game of baseket ball just like how last year similate football?

When you shoot a basketball into the air, it drop back down just like an upside down parabola curve. Hehe, that would be pretty cool. Imagine goals in the field you have to shoot basket ball at, with optic sensors aiming at where the goals are. Then you get points for hanging on the goal while holding a ball in the middle of the hoop.

Even better, there are multiple hoops on the same goal, one higher than the other, each with a limit switch sensing if a ball got through or not. The higher you shoot the ball, the more points you get. The higher you can hang up, the more multiplier you get.

The goals of course will be in the middle of the field, on top of a hill with ramps on 4 side.

That's my guess anyway.

The more I read this post, the more I like it.
FIRST wants... no, NEEDS to make a more visually friendly game. Something that can score real-time. Baskets with light or proximity sensors would work well. And something that sensors could "aim" at. More for my stratagy team to daydream about...

[Robert B]

I would like to see a version of "King of the Hill". It could be 2 vs 2 or 3 teams with every robot for itself. This would be a simple game anyone could understand that would combine strategy with hard hitting action. I don't know about the points issue, but the game would be exciting.

[DaBruteForceGuy]

Yea, it would be cool (i especially like the haging part;)) but WOW! If FIRST still wants to keep the scoring complexity to a minnimum, this is outragious! Not that the actually scoring, points wise, would be hard, just the idea of having sensors gauge the balls as they go thorough the hoops. This would NOT be a good idea, considering that it is very easy to say a computer messed up, or even having a computer mess up. it would add more complexity to the feild assembly and shipment.... Even if it were possible to construct and ship without fault, there would have to be a "human" judge(s) counting the balls and trying to accuratly count the amount going thorough. (bad)
i think it would be more likely to see a leveled trough goal. Where at one end of the feild there is multiple levels of bars, close anough to the wall or another bar behind it to be able to balance the balls on top. (the bars would run the legnth of the feild) And there would be multiple hights of troughs on top of eachother, the higher up the more points. AND there would also be a point value for Hanging on one of the bars....<<<a more likely speculation.

[Animator]

Since there is probably going to be an autonomous part of the competition, there will probably be a white line on the field that the robots are going to have to follow using the light sensors.

[Gadget470]

who said anything about 'probably' being an autonomous part? Previous posts said it would be a neat idea.

And DaBrute: that's a bit to close to 2000's game for FIRST to be choosing it.

[T967]

If you all remember the letter stating that regionals will be cutting back on costs due to economic stress. Well Whats to say they weren't trying to save money for something completely different? New field? yeah. Off the wall objective? yeah. Evil rules that give us all headaches and tremors? Definitly. And a twist, like the 180 lbs. goals, or 4 vs. 0, whatever it may be, definetly off the wall.

[Johca_Gaorl]

Originally posted by T967
And a twist, like the 180 lbs. goals, or 4 vs. 0, whatever it may be, definetly off the wall.

They already had a 4 player co-op thing if I recall. It is not exciting to watch and from what I heard not near as fun to play as 2 on 2 things.

[DaBruteForceGuy]

Originally posted by Gadget470
And DaBrute: that's a bit to close to 2000's game for FIRST to be choosing it.
I guess u';r right about the hanging part, but i guess i could see varying levels (hights) of trouphs to place things in.....it would def be more complicated, more expensive and less drive train dependable...... I don't think autonomous would be any more cost affective than not either.

[Jon K.]

Straight from FIRST
http://www.usfirst.org/robotics/2003/kickoffpreview.htm

[Stephanie]

Quote:
But Flowers was willing to offer a single, cryptic clue.

"y = ax(2) + bx + c," he said solemnly, before adding with a chuckle, "Just don't ask me about the rumors about the gerbils and the thousand pounds of Jello."
/Quote

hmm... somthing's going to be parabolic. maybe the field? think skatepark ;)

[IVIaxor]

I think that this can not mean anything other than controlled projectile motion. It does not seem logical to make parabolic elements in the field because they are very difficult to manufacture. I think it is very possible that we will have to shoot balls thorough multiple targets in one toss. Possibly moveable targets.

This would almost certainly mandate automation of the aiming system of the robot (FIRST seems to try to make the competition more automous every year) because it would be very difficult for a driver to set that up visually.

Just my 2 cents....

[Moshingkow]

if projectiles are first's new thing, then I guess they've moved away from safety... but anywho, i guess whiffle balls wouldnt be to harfull. speaking of projectiles, maybe there is a goal hanging above the field, like a disco ball, and everyone has to shoot it (ill bet its first's way of saying disco is dead!). the team who hits it most, wins! simple as that. but the catch is, its covered in diamond tape!!! mwahahaha. an auto aiming system would be craaazyyy. im already thinkin up some railgun ideas...


TENKAI

[DanL]

That actually would be pretty fun to create a automatic launching mechanism.... ala pnuematic potatoe cannon. y = ax(2) + bx + c THIS!! ;-)

[Marc P.]

Parablolic motion does not necessarliy mean projectile motion, but something a bit more twisted than that. What if the field were shaped like a half pipe? Or a more curved ramp approach, or parabolic shaped goals (in 3 dimensions, try balancing one of those with stuff in it). Unless the field were completely enclosed (e.g. caged in) I don't think projectiles would be possible otherwise (for liablilty reasons, etc). Just my two cents.

[Adam Y.]

Does anyone else find it odd that first decided to put the two in parenthesis and not use the proper notation or am I just a nitpick and is pointing out a small typo?:) Mathematically the equation on the first site isn't quadratic.

[ChrisH]

Originally posted by wysiswyg
Does anyone else find it odd that first decided to put the two in parenthesis and not use the proper notation or am I just a nitpick and is pointing out a small typo?:) Mathematically the equation on the first site isn't quadratic.

You are correct, the equation as printed is not quadratic. However, I would attribute it to the probably non-technical PR person at FIRST being unfamiliar with the accepted method of rendering such equations into a typed line.

We are probably assuming the quadratic version because Dave Lavery started it and used the correct format.

Seeing as the equation can be applied to any motion in any uniform field, you could apply it whether there are projectiles or not. The acceleration term could just be the acceleration of your robot for example. Nothing new or exiting there.

So it may be just Woodie's way of letting us know he's watching and enjoying our speculations, and spreading a little dis-information at the same time. It is barely possible that Dave was giving us a subtle hint ahead of time, which Woodie simply repeated to fuel the fires.

We'll know in a couple of weeks.

[IVIaxor]

Originally posted by Marc P.
Unless the field were completely enclosed (e.g. caged in) I don't think projectiles would be possible otherwise (for liablilty reasons, etc). Just my two cents.

All projectiles means is anything moving through the air (and i know thats not a technically correct definiton).

We had projectiles last year: the soccer balls. I don't think anyong was hurt by flying soccer balls, or at least I didn't hear about it.

[Raul]

My predictions:

1) The field will still be rectangular or at least use the same border structure that FIRST invested so much money in last year.

2) The robots will drive on carpet. There may be some other structure that require climbing other materials, but let's face it, other floor materials are either too expensive or too difficult for rookie teams to deal with.

3) They will limit what type of material can contact the carpet! No explanation needed - right?

4) The game scoring will not be too complex. They want an average spectator to easily be able to figure out who is winning.

5) If the game strategy requires complex actions to get a good score, it will also include a very simple task to at least get some score. FIRST does not want teams to feel worthless and let the alliance down if their robot is not working well. Just like last year, a simple task like just driving to your home zone (or just staying there) made a significant difference in the score for your team.

6) Scoring items will be a simple shape. Or, they will provide some form of "handle" if it is not a simple shape.

[Johca_Gaorl]

Originally posted by IVIaxor
All projectiles means is anything moving through the air (and i know thats not a technically correct definiton).

We had projectiles last year: the soccer balls. I don't think anyong was hurt by flying soccer balls, or at least I didn't hear about it.

However, the soccer balls were being thrown by the human players, not the robots. If there are projectiles this year being thrown by the bots, they can be thrown much much faster and can become dangerous if launched into the crowd. If we get projectiles, I see us getting a BattleBots type closed in field.

[Adam Y.]

It depends on the projectiles though. If its a foam ball then I'd doubt that anyone would get hurt by getting hit by one but if its a soccer ball then I'd be ducking. :(

[srawls]

Originally posted by Johca_Gaorl
However, the soccer balls were being thrown by the human players, not the robots. If there are projectiles this year being thrown by the bots, they can be thrown much much faster and can become dangerous if launched into the crowd. If we get projectiles, I see us getting a BattleBots type closed in field.

Wrong. The soccer balls COULD be thrown by the robots. At the kickoff last year, they showed exactly that, a robot that would shoot the balls into the goals. I think they wanted more teams to do that, that's why they showed it at kickoff. I only saw one or two teams actually do it, but it was done.

And you assume the soccer balls didn't go out of the field last year. They did. So, I really so no problem with projectiles, because FIRST will of course put safety rules in. Just because a robot could throw a soccer ball 90 mph doesn't mean they will be allowed to (and it may not even be helpful to the game!).

But, again, this is all wild speculation ... I'll wait till kickoff (or at least the BOM) to worry about the game.

Stephen

[Johca_Gaorl]

Well they could be thrown, but as you said, they weren't really. And they probably weren't being thrown very quickly correct? I'm thinking projectiles like playing dodge-ball with the robots (that would be fun!) so that's where the closed field comes in in my thinking.

[srawls]

I doubt FIRST would have robots play dodge ball (but I could be eating those words in a few weeks!). If the projectile motion means throwing balls into goals, then there is absolutely no need to throw them in very quickly. In fact, that would be detrimental to scoring (just think ... do basketball players beam the ball into the hoop, or do they gently toss it in?). So, assuming some sort of goal that the balls must be thrown in, there is no need for a closed field.

Stephen

[Johca_Gaorl]

True true, I just tend to think of speeds that are very fast, cause it's fun that way :D

[Gadget470]

Much like some of the ball shooters last year.

33 Comes to mind, they could shoot the balls up to about 6 feet with a pretty decent arch to it or they could shoot it about 3 feet with a high arc. depending on their alignment to the goal.

I don't think I saw any team that would shoot the ball horizontally in effort to split the PVC, would be too inefficiant and impossible from a range over 6 feet or so.

[Mongoose]

"y = ax^2 + bx + c," he said solemnly, before adding with a chuckle, "Just don't ask me about the rumors about the gerbils and the thousand pounds of Jello."

Aha! That means we're supposed to make herding robots which will herd a flock of gerbils into a pen containing a thousand pounds of Jello of which the shape is modeled by ax^2 + bx +c, and the first team to get their flock of gerbils to eat all the Jello wins!

[team222badbrad]

I want to who was spreading the rumors????????

If anybody has anything to say about this years game they had better get their ideas posted... exactly 14 days left till kickoff

[Ian Mathew]

Originally posted by Johca_Gaorl
Well they could be thrown, but as you said, they weren't really. And they probably weren't being thrown very quickly correct? I'm thinking projectiles like playing dodge-ball with the robots (that would be fun!) so that's where the closed field comes in in my thinking.


Dodgeball with robots would be fun :) But I don't see them doing that. I think they want to steer away from Battlebot-type competition. I think there will be bumping and competing with force, but I doubt there will be projectiles that the robots are supposed to throw at eachother, or an objective to make your opponents robot a heaping pile of srcap in the middle of the floor.

Also, the floor is probably carpet, but hopefully a carpet that won't snag as easily.

[Gadget470]

I think that Dodgeball style is out of the question. To hazordous. FIRST has never been about smashing something people have spent a lot of work on. On the hazordous part, the field would have to be made to have no holes the size of the ball so as to prevent injury from the balls. (There is currently not because any launching of balls has not been a fast, horizontal launch that could injure. The launcher that shot about 30 ft at Kickoff last year had a high arch thus being slower and more noticeable by the crowd.)

Last year's inspection I assume had checked for fast, powerful, horizontal launching mechanisms for safety reasons.

Besides that, if you got an intentionally busted peice of your machine, you'd be angry. Something that you worked your butt off on getting creamed because some driver is ticking sucks. (It happened to 247 last year)

- I know which team did it, but I won't say.. At Great Lakes Regional, they was attempting to push our telescoping tether out of scoring position, after they did they rammed full speed bending it to become unfixable material. Luckily, our engineers had made replacement pieces for it and brought it with them to the pits. About 5 or 6 of us had to disassemble and rebuild the arm before our next competition (which was in roughly an hour). We got it done and were exhausted because it was a 2 hour process crammed into about 45 minutes. For the rest of that competition, and later in the Canadian Regional we hated the team that did it to us, because it was an obviously malicious act.

-- back to subject --

If FIRST were to become a malicious-based competition I think a lot of kids would not get the benefits they do now. Sure, hands-on engineering skills, but not that good ol "Co-opertition" that hides it's real value.

[dlavery]

Originally posted by Gadget470
I think that Dodgeball style is out of the question. To hazardous. FIRST has never been about smashing something people have spent a lot of work on.

You must not have been around for the competition in 1997 and prior years. Anyone else remember the famous "Rule T-5" which not only allowed, but encouraged, flipping over opposing robots during matches? For several years, tossing robots was an expected part of the game. Dean's and Woodie's speeches during the kick-off each year included the warning "build 'em robust, because there will be 'vigorous interactions' with other robots" (their polite way of saying "your robot may get thrown on it's head"). During a discussion with Dean, he said "if a robot gets damaged when it is turned over, then someone didn't do their homework and make a rugged enough machine."

Eventually, this rule was changed as the robots became larger and more energy was involved in throwing the machines around, and thus the risk of accidents became greater.

FIRST has evolved and changed a lot over the years. Folks should be careful when making absolute statements like "FIRST has always done..." or "they have never done..." About the only thing that has been constant is the amount of change from one year to the next, the unpredictability of the game and rules, and the deviousness of Dean's imagination when it is time to create the game!

-dave

-------------------------------

Y = AX^2 + BX + C

[DaBruteForceGuy]

Has anybody suggested that maybe he was merely the ongoing work of a mechanical genius who said something allowede by accident, as he contemplated the world???:rolleyes:

[Adam Y.]

Errr how can dodgeball be dangerous???? I mean we play it as humans and don't really get hurt. Unless I'm playing then I usually end up breaking my glasses. The only way the robots could break playing dodgeball is if we play with medicine balls.:D First can always use foam balls which someone also spread a rumor about being used next year(I can't keep track of all these rumor topics) which can't hurt anyone even if they are flying hard. I personally want to send those balls flying. I tried to get my team to try that last year but my idea was poorly designed. If I can build it correctly this year then we will have balls flying all over the place.

[Johca_Gaorl]

Originally posted by wysiswyg
Errr how can dodgeball be dangerous???? I mean we play it as humans and don't really get hurt.

Yah, but what's a human's limit on throwing a dodgeball? 25-30mph (and that's probably being nice) We could easily build robots that can throw them in excess of 100mph

[Moshingkow]

mmmmm speeed. im already thinkin up a killer pneumatic rail gun with dual stage pistons and bosch tracks. aaaauuaaguhauaguahag :drools upon self: 100 mph? set up your pneumatics right, these babys can go faster then bullets. (but will they be to spec? meh....)

[Madison]

Originally posted by Johca_Gaorl
Yah, but what's a human's limit on throwing a dodgeball? 25-30mph (and that's probably being nice) We could easily build robots that can throw them in excess of 100mph

I won't say it can't be done, because I know there's got to be someone else out there like me who'll do it just to prove it possible. . .

but, I'd be impressed. Very, very impressed. Scared, too.

Now - in the history of FIRST, has anyone successfully guessed what the game is?

[srawls]

Originally posted by Johca_Gaorl
Yah, but what's a human's limit on throwing a dodgeball? 25-30mph (and that's probably being nice) We could easily build robots that can throw them in excess of 100mph

I'd definately go with M. Krass on this one ... I can't see how we can easily build a robot that can throw a soccor ball in excess of 100mph!! Not with the kit of parts from FIRST anyway. Now, I won't say it can't be done either, but I sure don't see it being done easily.

But if (and I do doubt it) we play dodge ball, there will certainly be safety rules. For instance, if beaming a ball in excess of 100 mph will damage the playing field, or possibly cause an injury, it won't be allowed. Just because something could be done doesn't mean it will be, or that it will be allowed. Dodgeball doesn't have to be dangerous. I personally don't see a graciously-professional FIRST team building a robot that is a hazardous to others.

Stephen

[Wayne C.]

Something to be worried about regarding fast moving soccer balls is their effect on computers and scorekeepers at the judges table. It was a problem this past year.

What would be fun however is a field with nerf ball cannons along the sides where randomly chosen observers from the crowd get to shoot nerf balls at the robots and either help or hinder them. It would certainly make the game more interesting for the viewers since they would be a part of it and never know if they were going to be picked until the last minute.

Then of course the math formula everyone is assuming is about projectile motion might be the formaula for the curvature of a field surface.....

might be the shape of half a football...

or a half pipe shaped field.....

or a pedestal with curved sides ......

or a conical pit or goal where the ball at the bottom gets the highest points....

[Mark Hamilton]

Woodie said " 'y = ax(2) + bx + c,' he said solemnly, before adding with a chuckle, 'Just don't ask me about the rumors about the gerbils and the thousand pounds of Jello.' " My theory is this: we need to launch a gerbil, on a parabolic trajectory over a wall, into a tub of jello.

[Brandon Martus]

....with little or no splash, a-la olympic diving.

[Ricky Q.]

No, can't do that...dont wanna upset PETA :p

[generalbrando]

If Woodie's comment (which I think everyone is obsessing about just a little too much) is sooo cryptic, then may he's referring to the Quad in Quadratic. Just imagine the insanity of a square field (mind you, a square is a rectangle, so this isn't going to happen according to some). It's split into 4 quads. How would the game be set up then? Would everyone have to stick to their own quad? Does everyone has a goal? Would there be alliances?

I'm ready to hear the real game. There are a lot of promises that it will be shockingly new. Can't wait!

[jrgrim12]

could this formula be hinting toward more alliances or maybe even knowing who you will be teaming up with. Don't the revolving lights have a parabolic mirror inside. Maybe we are going to be teamed up ahead of time and each team build a robot to do half the challange.

[Greg Ross]

Originally posted by Ricky Q.
No, can't do that...dont wanna upset PETA :p
Upsetting PETA would be more fun than launching the gerbils. :D

[Andrew]

However, the soccer balls were being thrown by the human players, not the robots. If there are projectiles this year being thrown by the bots, they can be thrown much much faster and can become dangerous if launched into the crowd. If we get projectiles, I see us getting a BattleBots type closed in field.

Last year, our robot picked up the soccer balls and shot them. It had a maximum range (with little accuracy) of about 30 feet. Our main limit is the height of the ceiling. Our limit on fire rate was the ball pick up speed.

The two safety issues on firing balls are: firing into the crowd and firing into a player station.

We considered firing into the opposing player station to disrupt them. We chose not to because of the safety issues and because of gracious professionalism.

We chose not to fire into the crowd because it would make no competitive sense. Further, by the time a ball might get to the crowd, it would have spent most of its energy and would be fairly easy to catch.

From a practical stand-point, as you increase range, you have to invest more resources in your shooter. Most designers are going to pick the maximum sensible range figure (probably 30-40 feet) and design around that. Any further range would be a waste of resources.

Given variability in ball characteristics (size, pressurization, surface texture), accuracy becomes extremely problematic beyond about 15 feet. Improving accuracy means investing more design resources.

In the past three years, there have been "shootable" balls available. However, very few teams have invested in developing a ball shooter. Most teams that handle balls have gone with the basket bot strategy.

I anticipate that there will be objects on the playing field that can be handled and delivered by robots. In part, this is because of the human player aspect. (Maybe that is one of the groans that Woodie was talking about...no more human player.) As long as there are small,movable playing field objects, then shooting/hurling them will be a viable option. Whether it is the best option will depend on the other game elements.

I, for one, hope that the playing field will be more interesting this year than last year. I also hope that soccer balls or basket balls make an appearance. I really hope that the game goes away from a tug of war game and towards a more skill game. It would also be nice if offense and defense were equally valuable in the qualifying rounds. Maybe this will be the second groan...no more 3x loser's score.

Andrew
Team 356

[Greg Needel]

I can't remember who said it but i think that people need to look further then the parabola........think in real life what are parabola's used for, well light and sound for the common applications. What if the FIRST crew this year wanted things to be completely different? What if the robots had to go and manipulate sound or focus light beams using lenses. I think that that would be fun don't you??

Also I have an instinct to tell me that the football will be the ball of choice this year......don’t ask it just makes sense to me.

As far as the kit I have some ideas.....
1) The only guaranteed motor in it this year will be the seat motors
2) The kit may include a frame
3) Don’t expect the same limitations on parts (maybe just a cost limit)

Well we shall see soon.........

[Ryan Foley]

Has anyone other than myself noticed that the full size robot controller default program has still not been released yet. Perhaps this years game has some sort of new programming element to it.

just a thought

[Hailfire]

Well, you can bet that there will probably be lifting involved. Our team got an email with a hint saying that we should bring a large roller cart. Probably two crates full of stuff. But then again, we are rookies this year.