[Official 2005 Game Design] Autonomy Discussions [Archive]

mtrawls

06-05-2004, 19:01

Hrm ... maybe I'm crazy and this is just a tad bit radical, but here goes nothing!

I would like to see a return of infrared. Maybe a miniture robot could start moving through the field randomly (or controlled actively by FIRST officials) once some task is performed by a robot. This "mini bot" would have an IR beacon on it, and its release would kick the robots into autonomous mode. The goal would be to somehow capture the mini bot, possibly having to place it in some recepticle. Control could then return to the operators, or maybe there could be some other task to perform.

Now programming a robot to follow another robot and capture it wouldn't be easy, and might present a barrier for some teams, I admit (although I can't think of anything funner than trying to do this!) The twist that I like to this idea, though, and what helps to eliminate that barrier is the activation of auto mode. Maybe a robot has to enter into some zone on the playing field, or knock off a ball similar to this year. A robot which didn't have an auto mode could be designed defensively to stop the activation of auto mode. It would also be interesting strategically ... the best teams would be able to start in auto mode from anywhere, while those still stubborn enough to rely on dead reckoning would want to be sure they were at a certain spot when auto mode is activated (presuming there's some other minor task beside capturing the robot ... although I suppose a dead reckoning bot might also randomly go about trying to capture the mini bot, but then the starting position wouldn't be so important).

Well, I told you it was crazy ;)

Tom Schindler

06-05-2004, 19:04

Autonomous mode has to be a task that is generally easy to complete-- both this year, and last year satisfied that requirement. Knocking a ball off of the post, or hitting a giant stack of bins is "relatively" easy to get a robot to do autonomously.

The game needs to keep this "ease" of play, but add a new element. What if, the alliances were randomly selected by the computer, so you did not know if you were red or blue until the match started. The field was also in a sort of "random" setup. The robots could have a "dead reckoning program", but it might knock off the wrong ball, or hit the wrong stack.

If a game used two different colored balls, use of sensors could allow a robot to detect which color balls you are touching, would make the autonomous task quite a bit more interesting. This would also still allow for rookie teams to design dead reckoning programs that just suck up any color ball at random, and the drivers can later decide what to do with them.

Also--

What about moving autonomous to the end of the match? That way there is no way of knowing where you are starting at the beginning of autonomous. This could still allow rookie teams to use "dead reckoning", but their drivers would have to be disciplined enough to get back to a certain spot on the field before the start of autonomous.

Just throwing a few ideas on the table..

Tom Schindler

Joe Matt

06-05-2004, 19:31

Ben.V.293

06-05-2004, 20:02

I think that for now the automonous mode should be as it has been for the past 2 years, a simple goal at the beginning of the match. Before making it a more critical part of the game i think we should let it develop a little more so teams can become more comfortable with it. There were a lot of teams i saw this year that didn't have any automonous at all. If it becomes too complicated too fast then many teams will be left behind and the teams with experianced programmers will have a huge advantage. I also think that the majority of the match should remain under human controll. As a spectator it is much more fun to see competative human driven robots compete than slow computer controlled ones. I do really like mtrawls idea of having a mini bot on the feild that teams would have to catch. Mayby something like 100 points for catching it during automonous and 50 for getting it under human controll. Although as i driver i would prefer the whole match to be under human controll. I just think that 2 minutes of competitive gameplay is more fun than 1 minute and 45 seconds of it.

Ben Van Selous

Yan Wang

06-05-2004, 20:42

Autonomous mode usually consists of:
A) Robots doing nothing.
B) One robot doing a lot very quickly.
C) The majority of the time consisting of nothing, with very few exceptions.

Thus, either shorten the time for the autonomous mode or lengthen the driver control period back to the 2min length prior to 2003.

In addition, large targets like the wall of bins in 2003 were fun, but it is more interesting for there to be a smaller target (10pt ball in 2004) or perhaps a target that moves???

Steve W

06-05-2004, 20:46

Each team is given a beacon that belongs to the opposition. They can place anywhere on the field. Once auton mode begin the teams must find their beacon and turn it off. Maybe a bumper 4 " off the ground. Turning the beacon off in auton mode = 25 points. Taking beacon to predestined place on field + 25 points. All to be done in auton mode. Team has choice after 15 seconds to turn auton mode off or try and continue to complete task before taking control of the robot.

If you gave us a field layout and description of 2005 game it would be much easier to design an auton mode. :)

George1902

06-05-2004, 21:01

Robots should be able to score points in autonomous mode. For example, in addition to releasing the balls from the chute, 2004's yellow balls could have been worth 10 points for knocking them off of the tee.

FizMan

06-05-2004, 21:25

I personally am not too keen on the idea of having a "mini-bot" for us to capture. Don't get me wrong, it seems like it'd be a cool idea... IF it were feasible. Through the course of a single regional, I can imagine this little mini-bot getting utterly destroyed by the 130 pound behemoths.

phrontist

06-05-2004, 21:56

Hmmm...

They gave us fair warning, I think we should have a really challenging IR element that is not a crucial component of the game but rather a large bonus. This way rookies don't get flustered and those who need the challenge have considerable incentive to do so. It should be a situation where successful completion of the IR objective is very hard, though not impossible, to beat by non-IR-objective bots.

Autonomus this year was essentially useless, and many teams who could do it didn't because it wasn't strategically sound. :(

I like the "capture the little bot thingy" idea a lot. It wouldn't be to hard to make a simple and super-durable robot with a simple IR blaster atop it.

So here is my proposal:
During the last 20-30 seconds of the match (after the obligatory countdown) the drivers lose control and the robots go into auto mode. There should be two ways to score:

1) Something involving a scoring area. You'd have to make it such that teams could not dominate this option by "camping" it during the driver period. Perhaps there would be several scoring areas and exactly which one is THE scoring area is transmitted to the robots.

2) Two options here:

Flipping the mini-bot
Moving the minibot into a certain area (Your side of the feild, a basket, etc.)

The real issue I see with something like this would be time. Sadly people (non FIRST and otherwise) don't get riled up about auto mode that much. You have to make a tradeoff between interesting auto (which takes time), and appeal to the masses.

But hey, moving auto to the end of the round might make it really exciting, a sort of cliff-hanger beyond human control. Yeah, that would be great.

I can't wait till 2005! :D

Pat Roche

06-05-2004, 22:16

You know Im a fan of seeing the multiplier being the target in autonomous, whether it has to be released or captured in autonomous and maybe not have it in the game if its not released. I would also like to see the return of the gyros and such. That way you could have an autonomous at the end of the match also. I think that would through the game for a loop.

-Just some thoughts

Pat

Guest

07-05-2004, 18:25

My only big recomendation for autonomous is that you think about it happening at the end of the game. Think about having an infared on the bar from this year. The bar would start off at 10 feet, but then after auton begins, it lowers to 7 feet. Not only would that give an advantage to attach during auton, but also requires the robots to attach to the bar higher if they do it during regular play. I think implementing that idea, not specificly, but in the same context, would be awsome. Any field features that move, crash, or are tall are cool.
Don't think having the autonomous mode at the end would make for such an exciting game.

The end is when all the "big" things happen. Spectators generally like this part the most. Plus, we don't want to get rid of all that stress/adrenaline/excitement that the drivers have at the end, trying to win a big one! ;)

Not2B

07-05-2004, 21:30

OK, just a few ideas...

- Start in auto mode, get extra points for every second you STAY in auto mode. You can leave auto mode at any time.

- Don't let the drive team see what's going on during auto mode - they don't know where they will be when it stops.

- As much as I have been saying "Auto at the End", keep it at the beginning. This year was "AWESOME BABY", watching the robots go at it at the end for the "HOOK UP BAR, BABY!" (Let's hear it NEWTON FIELD, BABY!)

Astronouth7303

07-05-2004, 21:38

I like the random idea, but I think we should be able to access Alliance/starting position info in code in this case. (of course, this presents the problem of changing it in the middle of a game...)

Andrew

08-05-2004, 14:24

I have come to like autonomous mode. The difficulty for the past two years has been that we had to figure out how the controller would perform, especially with autonomous mode switching (which you couldn't really determine until you put your bot out on the field). By switching between pBASIC to C, we were thrown back to ground zero in both 2003 and 2004.

If FIRST sticks with a C programmable controller and maybe releases the timing diagram for auto mode switching, so that we can exactly match what the field system is doing, we should be able to make lots of advances in the off season, both through 2004 robots and the robo-edu-bot-vision-thing.

Teams are likely to start sharing knowledge over the summer, so, rookie teams and teams which did not accomplish much in 2004 should be able to quickly get up to speed.

What would make AUTO more effective...
MORE SENSORS!!!!!
We used the Analog Devices yaw rate sensor very effectively this past year. If we had gotten our encoders working properly, we could have done a go straight at contant (known) velocity for a known number of seconds. As it was, just feed back on the yaw rate sensor allowed us to go straight and turn to a fixed heading.

We could figure uses for ultrasonic sensors, touch sensors, and force sensors, if they were readily available and didn't blow the electronics budget.

We had a novel use for a strain gage. But, it was not allowable under the rules. If FIRST relaxes the electronics rules or makes specific sensor rules (ie you can buy a sensor from ANY supplier at ANY cost within the overall budget constraints) you will see a lot more creativity in AUTO mode.

Andrew

08-05-2004, 14:38

Another obstacle to AUTO mode is "vision." I know that Botball uses a CMU-cam. I don't know how expensive or effective that is. But, it might be nice to get one of those and try some stuff.

Doug G

08-05-2004, 21:01

Autonomous mode usually consists of:
A) Robots doing nothing.
B) One robot doing a lot very quickly.
C) The majority of the time consisting of nothing, with very few exceptions.

Many teams this past year, disabled their autonomous or ended up keeping it simple, like drive forward and push the moveable goal (or robot) to the other side. Many teams actually didn't want the balls to fall in Auto mode, since it was often more advantagous to move the moveable goal under the ball drop area and score an easy 4-5 balls. This year we worked hard on an auto program that included wheel counting and a yaw rate sensor - but found that it didn't really give us an edge and just kept it disabled for most matches. It seemed to heavily favor those few experienced teams who could accomplish several key tasks in auto mode.

In contrast, I thought the autonomous mode in 2003 was very successful since even the very inexperienced teams could write a simple auto program for dead reckoning the ramp and it proved to be very important which way that stack fell.

Perhaps going back to an auto mode where what is done in autonomous somewhat determines how the match is played. Perhaps a ramp or platform in the center of the field where balls (scoring objects) could be dropped onto at the end of autonomous. If your robot can get up there (or fight for position) during auto mode, it could catch the balls. If it didn't, more of the match would be spent gathering them up off the floor. I know the idea is not that original - but somehow get auto mode to be important (pointwise) and have it change how the rest of the match is played. That way, the matches are always different and fun to play and watch.

Astronouth7303

08-05-2004, 21:08

... If your robot can get up there (or fight for position) during auto mode, it could catch the balls. If it didn't, more of the match would be spent gathering them up off the floor. I know the idea is not that original - but somehow get auto mode to be important (pointwise) and have it change how the rest of the match is played. That way, the matches are always different and fun to play and watch.
Some teams did this, including Digital Fusion (a rookie). And some quite effectively (33, I believe, had a good one).

Billfred

08-05-2004, 23:39

Some teams did this, including Digital Fusion (a rookie). And some quite effectively (33, I believe, had a good one).

If you're talking about getting right under the ball dump, then I don't think you're talking about 33. They had a devilishly effective ball collector, though. I'd hate to go against it.

On the other hand, I can think of one team that consistently got right under the ball dump and made all of our collective lives interesting...(lame pun alert)...now who was that bbat?

Andy A.

08-05-2004, 23:45

Lose automode.

What ever it adds to the game is more then blown away by the gap that is quickly developing between the teams that can manage to build two bots at once and those who can't. I realize that this is perhaps not the best place for this to be brought up, but I honestly feel that autonomy is a bad thing for the game.

I have yet to find any auto period exciting. Most of them are plain boring. It's like watching blind rats try to feel their way across the field. Usally they just end up rammed up against a barrier or accomplishing absoultly nothing. More so, the most effective moves I saw were simple preprogrammed moves. Perhaps this is because of the completely inane restrictions that FIRST puts on additional electronics, but I think its more a matter of teams not having the time to properly program much more advanced moves (with out a second identical bot, that is). In anycase, usally nothing is accomplished, except by the teams that have the resources to replicate their 'bot and perfect the program after the build season is over.

Let auto mode die.

-Andy A.

Billfred

08-05-2004, 23:59

Usally they just end up rammed up against a barrier or accomplishing absoultly nothing.

Well, they do do things...there was at least one burnout done on the Archimedes carpet. (A team got hung up on the platform, and one wheel -just- touched the floor. Love that dead reckoning.)

Actually, that post made me take a long, hard look at autonomous mode--and I do have to say, it does seem kinda long. I mean, a good amount of teams did go autonomousless this year, and those that did were usually done at the ten-second mark.

So for those die-hards who want their autonomous mode, how about we make it a ten-second mode? If we're gonna trigger some ball dumps, then let's do it with speed, dangit!

ZACH P.

09-05-2004, 01:19

Lose automode.

Without autonomous mode, they aren't robots. They are, as I have heard people degradingly describe them, "big remote control cars". Robots are by nature devices that do things autonomously, weither that task is a function of logic, or preprogrammed is irrevelant.

I think we should keep autonomous mode, and we should keep it in the begining of the match. Having it at the end is a real buzzkiller and takes away from the game. And having it in the middle of the game would be just plain frustrating. I think it should start at the begining, last for a specific amount of time, ten seconds sounds good, and then enter control mode. Additionally I like the idea of having the length of the autonomous mode optionaly extendable, with a point incentive.

mtrawls

09-05-2004, 09:00

In anycase, usally nothing is accomplished, except by the teams that have the resources to replicate their 'bot and perfect the program after the build season is over.

I agree with you to a point. It is hard, near impossible to perfect an auto mode during the build season if you rely on your bot being done early enough. But we have Robovision (I really don't think that name is going to stick). Also, for veteran teams you can use past year's bots. And there's always Thursday (practice day) to work it all out! Regardless, just because it has proven difficult doesn't mean it should be thrown out ... rather, something should be designed to allow the teams climb to the challenge. I say it would be more beneficial to give teams the chance to learn how to do this than to throw it away because some teams won't. What's the chance of, after the typical build season, giving an extra week to the programmers to work on software design? Maybe just a more capable Edu-bot (err.., Robovision) would be enough? Sure, auto mode could stand to be improved ... but that's not enough of an argument to get rid of it, for me at least.

Adam Y.

09-05-2004, 09:08

We could figure uses for ultrasonic sensors, touch sensors, and force sensors, if they were readily available and didn't blow the electronics budget.
Actually there are sensors out there that are gaurenteed not to blow the budget and are fairly easy to build. You just have to do a little research. So far I have found four sensors that are very easy to build. The most expensive of which involves buying a C compiler for PIC's.

Andrew

09-05-2004, 09:23

Another important thing keeping us from true autonomy is the inability to determine who our alliance partner is and who our opponents are.

I'm all for unstructured environments, but, three 130 lb moving obstacles makes things a little too interesting.

Classic things to do in autonomy...
1. wander around and explore
2. look for things and cluster
3. avoid obstacles
4. map

I still think a maze would be the most interesting thing that FIRST could do to make autonomy interesting.

For instance, you might have to drive out of a simple maze to start the competition. The maze would always be the same and would have a stripe to follow. Actually, it would just be a few turns, not really a maze.

Andrew

09-05-2004, 10:44

An autonomous maze idea for FIRST...

Have a truly blind maze, occupying say 15'x15' in the center of the playing field. Inside the maze are cameras so that the audience could see what was going on inside the maze.

The maze is a "dungeon" (say with a two foot high ceiling) and on top of it is the part of the playing field that everyone else uses. So, you wouldn't lose valuable playing field real estate.

There are stairs or ramps or elevators to get onto the top of the maze. You could have goals, hanging bars, scoring zones, whatever up there.

The maze would have to require four or five turns to solve it, so that it could not be mapped and completed in one match. It would require multiple matches to solve it.

This would be something that teams would do at the end of the match (say with 20 seconds left) and gradually accumulate knowledge of the maze throughout the tournament. The maze would be different at every tournament. This could be accomplished by constructing the maze modularly with movable panels.

The red team entrance and the blue team entrance (just denoting side of the field, not who can enter) would have a different solution.

At the center of the maze is a blue block and a red block. If you navigate the maze, get your colored block, and return to the outside, you win the match. If you return with the other team's block, they win the match.

This would not be the only element in the competition and would be optional. Most teams would never enter the maze at all.

This would also serve to impose a "high" limit on robot design and maybe a "wide" limit as well. Ie, if you want to try the maze, you must be able to fit inside and be able to maneuver.

Significance of the maze as an autonomous challenge
You could solve the maze through preprogrammed instructions and dead reckoning over many attempts. But, it's not likely and you would lose much competition time in matches (and probably lose a lot of matches).

If you actually use sensors and localization, you might be able to have your robot "learn" the maze a lot quicker (you'd have to store the current state of the learning algorithm at the end of each attempt).

Let's say one team commits the resources to develop a successful maze solver. Once that team "cracks it" at a competition, they cannot be beaten. The only way to beat them is to block the entrance/exit to the maze. And there are two entrances/exits.

If you have the solution to the maze and you can detect and pick up the right colored block (either by knowing its position relative to the entrance or by having a color detector sensor [light sensor]), you could navigate the maze in 30-40 seconds round trip.

A team with a successful maze solver entering eliminations would change the entire complexion and strategy of the tournament in an instant. This would add drama to a tournament as teams track the progress of the "maze solvers" from match to match. You might also add an air of "espionage" as teams attempt to acquire information about the maze from each other.

Although the maze would change for the next competition (and maybe at nationals you could elevate the difficulty of the maze by adding one more turning), once a team solved it at one regional, the "technology race" would be on. Once one team has "done it," every team that wants to be competitive would have to close the gap.

No one could completely ignore autonomy and would have to decide at the beginning of the build phase whether to invest resources in sensors and programming or in the other game tasks. For instance, if you commit to a game task which requires you to be tall, you cannot enter the maze at all.

A rookie team might use the stock drive system and commit all of their resources to autonomy. If they succeed, they could be the 500 lb gorilla at Championships. The veteran team with the mondo drive system and the do-everything manipulator might dominate the early rounds. Then suddenly, the 60 lb weenie-bot solves the maze and becomes the champion.

Audience Interaction
I envision a set of cameras inside the maze with a security cam view around the periphery of the big screen that the audience can watch. The entrance cam would pick up the robot until it made it to the first turning. A couple of other cameras would be focussed on key turnings, and, of course, there would be a top down camera looking at the "trophy room" in the center.

The audience would see a robot disappear into the maze and could watch the camera to the first turning. Then, back to the regular match. If the robot gets lost from this point, the audience will be focused on the regular match and it will be no worse than if a robot tipped over, got disabled on the exterior barrier, etc.

Suddenly, the robot appears on the "last turn" cam. It makes its turn and disappears. Back to the match. Then, the robot appears in the trophy room. Does it get the right block? Now, it's racing back to the entrance. How much time is left? Now you can see the robot on the entrance cam heading back towards the field. Then, bursting out of the maze into general view for the victory.

miketwalker

09-05-2004, 11:30

I really am liking this maze game idea. I think it would be a great idea if you had something on top of this that you could do as well (which would mean teams would have to build under a certain height to fit in this maze.... and I think if the points were setup properly, the maze could be a very interesting twist).

Also, as Andrew said... I'd LOVE to see a changing field. I really enjoyed the dropping balls this year, but I would love to see things on the field change during autonomous everytime. For example, maybe a REALLY valuable object that for points is moved onto the field, but after autonomous it's pulled off and no longer able to be retrieved. Then you could incorporate your whole "IR beacon being forced to be used next year" scenario on this moving object.

I'm also a big fan of multipliers in autonomous. I really would like to see either at the beginning or end something similar to the 2001 game... where the sooner you go into autonomous (if at the end) or the longer you stay in it (at beginning) or maybe even a combination of the two (because you could run auto in the beginning, and see what happens during the match to decide when/if to go back into auto at the end) and this can give you valuable points.

I'd definitly like to see some type of system working with the field possibly to help teams position. Dead reckoning is a pain, and line tracking and IR beacon tracking are slow and tedious usually. I'd love to see some type of system on the field that could maybe act kind've like a GPS system where you read the location of these different beacons and can find your position. Like I said with the moving objects, you could use this GPS-like system to move near where this object would be at (I'm guessing things like that would be mid-field) and then you'd have to swap over to IR beacon to actually find the object's location. It would make autonomous more interesting, and with the GPS-like system... programmers could work AFTER the robot is shipped because as long as they know where their sensor is on the robot, they can code it for where to go without a robot, getting rid of some of the disadvantage that teams who have 2 bots have. This all could be incorporated with a maze-like idea as well, or maybe something else. There are some teams who have come up with how to do this already (I'm referring to WildStang's StangPS and I know several other teams have been making similar systems)... but for many teams it's way too difficult to do. I know I was working on a system this year, but with spacing in the robot I had no room to put the gyro wheels and things I needed for this system. Plus, I couldn't use anything in the kit really to do this, and our team's budget didn't allow for these little extra sensors that I'd need, even if we had had the room.

Overall... I really would like to see autonomous have LOTS of value next year and also be setup to where the robots can't just dead reckon or something. As George said, getting the 10 point ball this year was nearly impossible (Only team I know of that did it was Technokats at nationals one match I believe) and strategically it might not be what you want to do. But give that ball some points you can only recieve in autonomous... you'll see many more teams going after that ball.

My final thought is to allow alliance robots to literally "communicate". Perhaps another radio channel, I don't know. I think that if you had a communication between the robots with something like... maybe position or location of that mobile object. So, say the object is randomly moved around each match during autonomous... both can search for it and when one finds it relay to the other "Hey, it's somewhere in this area, here's my location and where I'm looking with my IR beacon" and the other robot can reroute it's autonomous to go to that area. Perhaps even knowing the location of ALL robots, whether on the same alliance or on the opposing. Robots could actually "think" and interact to the movements of the other teams and would have to constantly do a "What do I want to do." and at the same time the other robots will be doing that, so depending on how the robots react, each one will recalculate what to do... removing the "Wow, autonomous is repetitive and boring." scenario some people are talking about.

I know I just put in ALOT that would require a ton of designing and would probably be quite impractical in a money sense, but I've been thinking about it for awhile. Out of all of that, I've noticed with competitions and all my scenarios that a better positioning system is DEFINITLY needed to know absolute location by some type of system. The StangPS is a beautiful system for this, but it's just not practical for some designs. Like I said before, if we could make a like 3 "tower" system of radio beacons or something around the field to act like a GPS system... teams would be able to actually program after their robot is shipped and see their robot do what they told it to at competition... evening out the playing field for teams that can only build 1 robot.

gburlison

10-05-2004, 00:57

Many teams this past year, disabled their autonomous or ended up keeping it simple, like drive forward and push the moveable goal (or robot) to the other side. Many teams actually didn't want the balls to fall in Auto mode, since it was often more advantagous to move the moveable goal under the ball drop area and score an easy 4-5 balls.

Our Programming team worked on ideas for autonomous ball release while the robot was constructed. By the time we had robot constructed, the team decided that dropping the balls in autonomous was not worth the possiblity of crashing headon into another robot. We decided to use the strategy of moving the goal and waiting for the balls to drop. At regional competition, we noticed that very few robots had reliable autonomous, so we decided to put more emphasis on dropping the balls in auto. We never really got it reliable at the Championships during practice and during qualification matches we only had one match where the strategy worked out with our partner caused us to attempt to release the balls during auto. Contrast this with the 2003 game where there was not a strategy that involved letting your opponent get to the top of the ramp first.

Documentor

10-05-2004, 09:31

I agree with those that say that currently autonomous mode is generally blah, with the exception of a few teams. To correct that and to make it more viewer friendly, at the very minimum make it worth something. It should be a strategic necessity to have a viable and funcitoning auto mode. Did someone say POINTS for extra effort?

However, in order for those teams that have limited capacity to achieve and effective auto mode, don't make it tremendously difficult.

I did like the idea of 2003 that required the human player to be in place at teh irght time to activate auto mode as well as 2004 mode activating some aspect of the game. Perhaps a combination of some sort. Just a thought.

Remember, FIRST is in a transition period. The game must be challenging enough for veterans and accomedating to rookies. Until there are seperate leauges/divisions there must be the balance. Hey, perhaps a seperate division for regional winners? Now there is and interesting idea for a new twist and discussion...........

Greg Perkins

10-05-2004, 10:22

I have doubts about autonomy...

For instance this year, to make the game more enthusiastic to the fans and spectators, say a bot removes the ball in auto. as soon as the ball is released have drivers take control. not wait another 3-5 seconds for the balls to fall. Limit the time to 10 seconds. This way there is more excitement for outside viewers.
Not to say this year was an awesome year with teams like WPI(190), The Riot Crew(58), and teams like Buzz(175) had awesome auto. modes that were exciting to watch.

I think FIRST should step back and evaluate the good that auto is doing. Gauranteed It was always a Build/driver robot, and the controls teams usually did'nt have that much of a part in it. However, its been two years, and I have yet to see some major accomplishments in the programming.

just my $.02

jerry w

13-05-2004, 11:21

my goal is to eliminate the driver!
i have stated this many times to my team.

i look forward to a game with 60 seconds of autonomous mode.

the game should include a whole variety of tasks that can be done in autonomous. many of these should generate points directly.

the reason for inaction in the past, was the lack of choices in autonomous tasks. give us a gaggle of tasks at the start of the game, and we can show how an autonomous machine can get some of them done.

Jerry W

Andrew

13-05-2004, 18:05

Here's a weird idea.

Have a switch of some kind. Autonomous mode will continue until a robot pulls the switch or until the match ends.

Steve W

13-05-2004, 22:44

For those auton mode purists that want drivers gone. If you are going to do it then lets push the envelope. Let's have 25 differentsenarios chosen randomly by the computer. You do not know what the senarios are and won't until you see them in competition. You start the clock and try to accomplish the goal to get the most points or complete a task. All in auton mode.

Really let's not remove the best part of the games and that is the human interaction with the robots. Humans are much more adaptable and interesting when it come to problem solving.

ahecht

14-05-2004, 11:30

Honestly, I think that Autonomous mode is too short. 15 seconds is not enough time to do anything really significant or clever, and leads to way too many teams ded reckoning. There were only a handful of teams that actually followed the line using sensors or used the IR beacons. Even just expanding it an additional 5 or 10 seconds would help.

Also, open up the allowed electronics list, and make it more like the mecanical stuff (you can get anything under a certain dollar amount, except for certain items). Let teams use the CMUCam for object tracking, or digital compasses to find their heading. They're not expensive, just unavailable from the "approved suppliers." As it is, line or beacon tracking can be quite tedious.

The LPS (Local Positioning System) idea isn't bad, although it may be a bit pricey, but there are other ways of doing it that may be easier and cheaper (for example, RoboCupJr uses a field that is a giant grayscale gradient, so by looking at the floor, robots know how far down the field they are).

Eventually, I'd like to see the opposite of what we have now, with the first 1:45 being autonomous mode, and only the last 15 seconds being human controlled. We should either get away from the "130 pound RC cars (except for the first 15 seconds)" mentality and build real robots, or do what MIT's 2.007 competition does, and call it a design competition instead of a robotics competition.

I know people will say "think of the rookies" or "a typical view from team with one of the best autonomous modes," but I can assure you that if teams devoted the same amount of time to electronics and programming as they did to mechanical stuff, and designed the whole robot with autonomous function in mind, everyone could do it. Heck, I just went to a RoboCupJr competition where middle school kids built autonomous soccer playing robots with little to no adult help. If they can do it, surely we can too.

Andrew

15-05-2004, 09:06

If they they let us use the Robovision in the competition and gave us an autonomous challenge (such as a maze) where only a really small robot could succeed (opening into the maze is 12"x12"), then we could have the main robot under Remote Control and the Mini-me under Robovision control.

This would potentially (under the current 2v2) put 8 robots on the field at the same time. If Mini-me ends up in a blind corner, bumping into the walls, there's still plenty of action on the main playing field.

Keeping the 130 lb limit and the 30"x36"x60" limits would require teams to make the choice...5 lb autonomous mini-bot or extra manipulator thingy.

Some teams might also use the Robovision on their main robot as an extra processor. Maybe the two could communicate via the program ports.

If you look at the maze idea that I posted earlier, the main robot could drive to the entrance and deploy and activate mini-me. If mini-me can reach the center of the maze and depress the right switch, 50 points for your team. Or, it could activate some area of the playing field (like the ball drop), that would benefit your alliance greatly. Or, you could get 1 QP for the team whose switch was pressed (4 switches) (QPs being the same as this year win = 2, tie = 1).

Jim Zondag

29-05-2004, 21:36

In general, I am not a huge fan of Automony in FIRST games. It tends to to a bit boring since nothing happens much of the time. I after 2 years I still have yet to see a robot do anything worthwhile in the final 5 seconds of the autonomous period. Making it longer is not a good idea.

I do think that Autonomy gives great advantge to teams with good programmers. I think that autonomy can have a nice place in FIRST games if properly applied.

I think that FIRST should make autonomy optional in the following way:
Each driver station has a button which causes the robot to exit autonomous mode when it is pressed. At the beginning of the game, robots will automatically enter autonomous activation. For each second that a team remains in autonomous, they recieve a bonus. As soon as they press their button, normal driver mode begins and the bonuses stop acruing. This way, teams that have great programmers may be able to rack up a big bonus right away, other teams who have no programmers may be able to forgo any bonus in order to utilize this time in some other way. I think this would add an interesting element of tension to the opening seconds of the game. The length of the total allowable autonomous period could be limited if desired to limit the maximum bonus.

In terms of sensors....we do not have enough budget or allowable electonics sources to do all we desire to do. In 2004 I bought a gyro, two encoders and a few potentiometers and I used up my electonics budget. Good parts cost more than we can afford. Why not just include electonics under the $3500 cost umbrella and not have a separate cost limit? It's not as if spending $1000 on electronics will help you win, you still have to know how to apply the technology and have a good robot to use it on. We have source deregulation on mechanical components, why are we restricted to only 3 electronic sources. They are good sources but they really don't carry any robot specific hardware. Amateur robotics is actually quite a large industry and there are many companies which make things which would be perfect for FIRST teams, if only we were allowed to buy them. Check out
www.robot-electronics.co.uk , www.totalrobots.com, www.active-robots.com

A few key parting points:
1. Autonomy does not have to mean driving around. Any machine function which is self regulating is "autonomous". Some of we old timers have had autonomous features on our robots for many years, long before the past two years of "forced autonomy". Often, automating a function is the best engineering solution as it eliminates the variablity of the driver and can make up for limited practice time. Whether balancing a bridge, climbing on a puck, or knocking a ball off of a Tee; automated ways of performing such actions is and always will be the best choice whether "forced autonomy" remains in the game or not.
2. Time based movement is NOT autonomy. In order to be deemed autonomous, robots must be making decisions on what to do all by themselves using inputs from sensors and control routines. Simply turning on the drive motors for a few seconds in order to run some sort of pattern is basically "point and shoot". No decisions are made by the computer once the routine is begun, thus it is not "autonomous".

crazyone

30-05-2004, 00:51

What about moving autonomous to the end of the match? That way there is no way of knowing where you are starting at the beginning of autonomous. This could still allow rookie teams to use "dead reckoning", but their drivers would have to be disciplined enough to get back to a certain spot on the field before the start of autonomous.

Tom Schindler
I, personally like this idea, but what if this mode was randomly started. I maen no one knew when it would start. I could start right off the bat or start it could be the last thing that happens in the match. This would definitly be nerve-racking for teams, but it would also open up more possiblities for programming (ie. sound recognition).

OR..

we could have a shield that blocks the view of the drivers, and allow them only to see what the robot sees via camera and the shield drops only after 10 seconds after auton mode ends, but if the driver does not respond within those 10 secs. auton is extended for another 10 seconds. :D

Matt_Kaplan1902

30-05-2004, 01:04

Steve W

30-05-2004, 11:26

Most teams are having problems with autonomous mode now. Why does everyone think that having it at the end would be any good. What we have now is an exciting finish to most games. If we move autonomous mode to the end it would become very boring.

crazyone

30-05-2004, 11:45

I personally think it would be interesting if you can switch between autonomous and driver mode. If you can complete and task in auto mode it could be worth more than if done in driver (like if you capped in auto last year, you would get 3x or something like that).

I agree with that too that each team be required to run auton at least once, but at time of their choosing. Sure the length of auton would be standard, but by having multiple auton phases with driver control to separate the auton runnings this would bring the lego league and First robotics closer together, because when you think about it Lego Leauge competitors have only auton to work with there is no driver, just build and modify for each task. where as in first we build for the desired task and use auton if it is only nessecary.

mgreenley

16-08-2004, 13:58

Ok, I seems to have taken over the 15min limit before CD logs out user that don't use cookies, so here is the shorter version:
I approve of the ideas of an autonomous that is longer and seperate from the driver time (3 min matches with a 1 min auton?) and I think that something you cant sacriface for the auton in any way is a central location worth a massive amount of points that you can end up on (Stack attack was, I think, the most "TV-worthy" of all the games that I've seen because it had some level of mandatory contact and it was easier to explain than this years). I think that the option of remaining in auton mode for points is in interesting idea, but needs some polishing.
Ideas that I had include a 3 or 4 beacon system of IR sensors all on different channels/frequencies so the robots can triangulate their position on the field and then with a gyro determine angle. you would need lines or something else though, so teams that do not want to use the beacons have an alternative. I really liked the way that teams could have different objectives and sensors, instead of all needing one type of sensor to be able to do a particular task. If you have a method available to determine location and orientation, you make it possible to move autonomous to anywhere in the match, though I personally think that the beginning is the best (otherwise teams will have operators that step back maybe slower than others, just because they're a little slower (a.k.a me as the off-seson arm operator) and that would lead to putting the refs in the unenviable position of determining if a -5/-10 point deduction should be made. having *me* step into the booth a little late just means I'm a little late, not coasting the team any points or the refs any more stress than they already have (I dunno how they do it, but someday, I'll figure it out and volenteer too, and I know I wouldn't want to have to ref that particualar because its too vauge in most cases).
Things that I personally would not want to see leave FIRST include, the autonomous mode and the rest is for a different thread ;) .

~Michael "Greenleaf, Pokey, The Crate Guy" Greenley

P.S. I'm sure I forgot something important in there...no, that's not it...right...42.

Rickertsen2

16-08-2004, 16:51

Things I like/would liek to see:
* Have MULTIPLE autonomous objectives of different difficulties. This would mix things up a bit and add some strategy to autonomous. Some teams might only be able to complete only one objective while other might be able to complete multiple objectives. Perhaps completing different objectives might give teams an edge in different ways during the human control that would be useful against different types of opponents.

*Continue the tradition of relatively simple autonomous objectives, but give a reward for doing them faster.

*If Multiple autonomous objectives were to be introduced, it might be a good idea to extend autonomous a bit.

Things I don't like/wouldn't like to see
*Autonomous at any time other than the beginning of the match. Teams have a hard enough time with autonomous as it is. If it were placed at any time other than the beginning of the match, nobody would do anyhting. We would get bored watchign robots sit there and do nothign round after round.

*Autonomous time counting toward game time

seanwitte

16-08-2004, 17:22

I would like to see autonomous become such a central and important part of the game that people dedicate as much time to it as they do the rest of the robot. I think those first 15 seconds could be just as exciting as the rest of the match.

MattB703

16-08-2004, 17:54

This isn't totally about Auton mode, but I would really like to see something added to the field/kit to help teams make robots that know were they are on the field. This could really open up the possibilities for many teams.

Also, I really like the idea of the team haveing control of when the Auton mode ends and getting more points for the long you stay in Auton.

Matt B.

Ryan Foley

16-08-2004, 21:12

Also, about putting autonomous at the end of the match. Most of the time the end of the match is the most exciting, during this year, a team is fighting to get onto the bar in the last 15 seconds and such and such. Putting autonomous at the end could ruin that part. But then again, it makes things harder, and makes dead reckoning even less appealing (which to me, is good, I like robots that take in information through sensors and use it to navigate)

my second point is about the concept of people who stay in autonomous get time bonuses. Now theoretically, couldn't the robot just sit there in autonomous or wave a flag (so it is doing something)? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose? It could work, but it needs more thought on how it could work. Good idea though.

Oh yeah, don't get rid of the driver, its what makes this all fun. If you took out the drive you just took out most of the excitement. Having human drivers keeps things spontaneous, changing all the time, and allows the ability for a quick change of tactics. It wouldn't be much fun without the driver. But that's just my opinion.

Billfred

16-08-2004, 21:33

Simple solution: If the robot is moving, bonus.

And then make it so that it's unappealing to be doing donuts for the whole two minutes.

kacz100

17-08-2004, 09:07

1) Getting rid of the driver elimates half of FIRST...can anyone tell me the last "sport" they watched where nobody was in control of the sport.er?
2)Starting the match off with autonomous mode needs to be rethought. Everthing is static so deadrecogning is easy and effective. If they pushed not a given time but rather an element of the game that had to be done in autonomous mode. For example, to hang or get on the platform when you cannot be in active control of the robot.
3)If there is going to be autonomous mode, think of the rookies, that puts some of them at a huge disadvantage so anything more than 15 sec maybe 30 secs really shifts the weight of winning to the veteran teams.

FIRST until recently has been pretty rookie friendly but putting a long autonomous mode can create great a big problem. I was in FIRST for the designing, building, and driving, which isn't the whole game, I understand that, but putting so much emphasis on autonomous mode can detract from other aspects of the game.

Ben.V.293

18-08-2004, 19:59

In this thread i have seen a lot of discussion about having all autonomous matches or having autonomous at the end of the match and other things but in my opinion i don't think that it should be any more than it is now. I believe that FIRST competitions are so energetic and fun because the competitions have always been intense and fast paced. Robots zoom across the field knocking down stacks and herding balls while other robots are doing everything thing they can to do it better. This fast paced action is because there are people controlling these robots. Teams are cheering for the machines and the people controlling them and each robot has its own personality due to the human drivers. Imagine a slow paced game where robots slowly roll around bumping into things and each other. Now I'm not saying that all robots would be slow and boring because there are some amazing teams that would definitely do amazing things but the majority of teams have trouble enough with 15 seconds of autonomous. In an all autonomous game its programmer vs. the field but in the matches as they are now its drivers vs. drivers and it makes for a much more exciting game. Also imagine building a robot for an all autonomous game. All it would have to be is a simple rolling platform with sensors. It would not need to have a powerful drive train or be built like a brick wall because an all autonomous robot would not be in pushing matches with other robots and it would not be trying to play defensively or offensively. There are lots of other great robot competitions that are all autonomous like botball but i believe that FIRST should not be one of them.
I also don't think that autonomous should not be at the end of the match because that would just kill all of the excitement that has built up in the last minute and 45 seconds. Imagine watching the super bowl where the players were blindfolded for the last 15 seconds of the game. Can anyone say anticlimactic? Personally i would like to see FIRST matches all human controlled because they are much more exciting but autonomous does give an interesting challenge to the programmers.

Ben Van Selous

Justin Stiltner

01-09-2004, 01:34

Everyone seems to want some element of randomness in the autonomous mode... how about have 2 IR beacons (I was originally thinking just colored lights, or just beacons, but having a colored light on top of the Ir beacon would make it audience friendly) the 2 beacons switch back and fourth between red (1 frequency of Ir) and blue (2nd frequency of Ir) and at the start of autonomous they assume a color randomly, and have something that needs to be done to that light, say a ball knocked off it, it bumped, or whatever, but have it be at a disadvantage for your opposition's light to be activated. This way you have randomness but still an element of simplicity. Have this and goals in autonomous mode... enough that it would be a combination of 2 different autonomous modes that result in maximum benefit so that it would be very difficult/ imposable for one robot to do both.

A second idea is to have 2 pressure pads, or activation elements that both of your teams robots need to activate at the same time (that is check that both are pressed concurrently, not at the exact same time) as in both robots have to find their designated area and press a button, knock off a ball (or bowling pin) etc.

emersont49

02-09-2004, 16:13

For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology.

A autonomous requirement creates significant problems requiring science and technology. A competition without an autonomous mode would just be another "robot" competition where the term robot is a loose interpretation.

My concern is that rookie teams are skipping this all together. Some that I've spoken with have stated that they only got the robot for a short period of time and that was just before competition.

Perhaps this is more a matter of planning and less a matter of complexity. My asumptions are:

1. Programming techniques can be learned on any platform (ROBOvation, main robot, last years robot etc.).
2. Learning new programming techniques can be done year round.
3. Integrating sensors into the program can be tested and learned on any platform.
4. Using an alternate platform, program development should occur in parallel with mechanical/electrical development.

Salik Syed

04-09-2004, 20:58

Billfred

04-09-2004, 22:03

i think autonomous mode should be important like it was in 2003, but also there should be more then one route to go.. and each route should have a large large impact on the game...! like the bins in 2003
also if wanted allow autonomous to continue as long as the user wants.... but every point scored in autonomous has like triple value or something...
I'm sure it's been posted somewhere, but there is one gaping problem with it. Ever since Ramp 'n Roll way back when (and ever before, for that matter), FIRST has always scored everything when the field comes to rest. In Ramp 'n Roll (according to FIRSTwiki), teams scored by getting a big ball over a set of goalposts. The big problem was that some teams were so adept at this that the judges couldn't keep up.

Thus real-time scoring worth anything became sort of like a 4v0 match--we tried it, it wasn't as hot as we thought, we move on.

Of course, it would be theoretically possible to track scoring objects using either video tracking or some sort of I-last-was-moved timer. The former route has its problems in that referees would have to officially entertain a video replay, something FIRST has shunned thus far (and rightfully so, in my humble opinion). The latter option would likely prove expensive, since FIRST would have to build more than a few of them, somehow power them, and make sure they remain consistent (presumably through a Robovation controller).

The idea is good--it's just that FIRST would have a very hard time implementing it.