View Full Version : Can Wireless Video Cameras Be Used?
Hello,
I just have one question, can our team use a wireless 2.4 ghz video camera on our robot as a visual link between the driver and the robot, the video would then also be used for our end of season video, I have been searching all night and cannot find any rules against the use of this kind of camera, nor can I find anything in the support of it.
Billfred
10-01-2006, 22:29
I don't have any manual to cite, but historically the rule has been as follows:
1) The feed must go to the video board. No feeds to the driver's stations.
2) The camera must be cleared by FIRST Engineering.
If you are using it to provide feedback to the driver, I think that's illegal--can't remember where. Probably in Section 8 or Section 5 where it talks about controls. If you are just recording video, it's an NFD (I think). Q&A could tell you what the official answer is.
Adam Richards
10-01-2006, 22:36
<R103> Any decorations that involve broadcasting a signal to/from the robot, such as remote cameras, must be cleared with FIRST Engineering prior to use. Teams may not use 900 MHz camera systems.
Conor Ryan
10-01-2006, 22:41
Theres more than one issue here I think
<R59> Custom Circuits may not:
• Interfere with the operation of other robots
• Directly alter the power pathways between the battery, fuse blocks, speed controller/relay, and motor.
Custom high impedance voltage monitoring or low impedance current monitoring circuitry connected to
the robot’s electrical system is acceptable, because the effect on the robot outputs should be
inconsequential.
• Directly affect any output devices on the robot, such as by providing power directly to a motor, supplying
a PWM signal to a speed controller or supplying a control signal to a relay module
• Be used for wireless communication, such as sending or receiving a signal to and/or from the alliance
station
• Connect to the radio or tether ports on the Robot Controller
mechanicalbrain
10-01-2006, 22:48
OK I have a history with this question and I think I have that answer. Yes a wireless camera can be used on your robot, provided it does not transmit on the 900 MHz band (many transmit on the 2.4 GHz range), to transmit anywhere but the player station. As soon as it transmits to the player station it's a sensor and not a decoration thus following the custom circuit rule of not being allowed to transmit to the player station. It's kind of a funny loop of two rules. I plan to use one but I'll be picking up the feed on my PC in the pits for website content. FIRST has been asked about this and their response in previous years has been what I said above, feel free to ask but I don't see any indication from the rules that they have changed their minds. If you still want a camera go to www.supercircuits.com They are literally the best place on the web, even Discovery channel interviewed them when they wanted info about spy cameras.
dhitchco
11-01-2006, 12:51
Hi mechanicalbrain,
thanks ever so much for that link to supercircuits.com for their 2.4GHz "spy" camera to mount onto the robot. I want to get one instead of clamping my vidfeo camera to our 'bot during build season......
Having an on-board camera could be a great training aid as well as a fun view to use for our highlights video.
However, as someone else pointed out, cameras DURING actual FIRST events need to be pre-approved.
<R103> Any decorations that involve broadcasting a signal to/from the robot, such as remote cameras, must be cleared with FIRST Engineering prior to use. Teams may not use 900 MHz camera systems.
Personally, I would like to see this clarified to NOT allow any sort of camera at all DURING any official match, even if it's being transmitted to a DVR in the stands for training. Use during the build season is fine, just not during matches. As an example, what if a driver was to wear "stealth" video sunglasses that DID capture & show the video that was "meant" to go to the stands....Or what if someone in the stands was watching the on-board video and then yelling instructions to the drivers.....
Not fair nor in the spirit of FIRST......My opinion alone.......
mechanicalbrain
11-01-2006, 16:00
Hi mechanicalbrain,
Personally, I would like to see this clarified to NOT allow any sort of camera at all DURING any official match, even if it's being transmitted to a DVR in the stands for training. Use during the build season is fine, just not during matches. As an example, what if a driver was to wear "stealth" video sunglasses that DID capture & show the video that was "meant" to go to the stands....Or what if someone in the stands was watching the on-board video and then yelling instructions to the drivers.....
Not fair nor in the spirit of FIRST......My opinion alone.......
Well I would be shocked to no end to see any team so grossly violate the rules but if a team is going to go such extremes to cheat nothing would stop them from hiding a camera their robot rule or no rule. Camera's have been used before, mostly for TV stations. If a team did violate the rules as you mentioned it would be quite obvious (even the best glasses Ive seen are obvious). The point is if a team is willing to go to such lengths to cheat then why would putting down rules like that stop them? Again I have trouble imagining another team doing something like that. Anything is a possibility and I seem to remember hearing things but mostly that was teams being confused about the rules.
dhitchco
12-01-2006, 11:13
mechanicalbrain,
I agree with you, that the use of on-board cameras during a few matches would be great for the audience, for TV stations, etc.
In that case, the camera should be supplied by the TV station or by FIRST and could be "strapped-on" to a random number of robots just before their match; assuming a team gives permission to be the token "camera-bot".
Or...better yet, maybe like NASCAR in-car cameras, somebody will actually PAY MY TEAM to carry their camera, and I could fund the whole venture....
Kodak is in my home town, bring on a sponsorship! Love the idea.
No...I don't think that a team really would "grossly violate" the rule, but the rule in place is pretty simple to NOT open-up Pandora's box of "what-ifs"...
I believe....I believe.....I believe......in Gracious Professionalism
Excelsior
16-01-2006, 17:12
I think it'd be great to have a camera recording that for future reference. Those kinds of videos would be tons of fun for websites and various awards meetings afterwards.
How much fun would that be?
Al Skierkiewicz
16-01-2006, 17:19
I think it'd be great to have a camera recording that for future reference. Those kinds of videos would be tons of fun for websites and various awards meetings afterwards.
How much fun would that be?
Yes, that video is very cool and that is why the robot rules allow teams to use wireless cameras under certain conditions and those requests need to be cleared before competition. I seem to remember a team that actually provided the video to the arena as another camera position.
Before the Greater Toronto Regional last year our team asked permission to use a wireless camera on our 'bot just for entertainment purposes (ie. to be shown as a different camera angle on the "big screen" during matches) and were permitted to for a certain number of matches. It was of no benifit to our drive team (turning around to look at the screen wasn't exactly practical during a match) but it did make the view for the audience much more exciting. In a game like this years' where more is played at ground level I think it would be even more exciting.
At the Las Vegas Regional, Team 1425 and Team 8 both had recording cameras mounted on their robots during some of the matches on Saturday.
There was some controversy on Friday about the permissibility of the cameras on the robot since the lead inspector, who had approved our camera on Thursday was not available. Saturday morning, we were given permission to use the cameras.
In this case, neither of the cameras were capable of broadcasting. The cameras recorded to on-board media and the video could only
be viewed after the match. Team 1425's camera was an action cam made for this sort of thing by Oregon Scientific. I'll try to find a way to post some of the video.
The game officials did say that they would be discussing the issues raised by our requests and their decisions with FIRST and that hopefully things would be clearer for the events in Atlanta.
dhitchco
03-04-2006, 16:58
Wow,
this is an old thread re-surfaced!
1) You can do almost anything you want to do during off-field practice runs and even during Thursday practice days.
2) You can duct-tape a mini camcorder to your robot to get 'shooter-eye' view video for use later on (for strategy or just for fun as highlights video). My team did this with my Sony mini-DV camcorder and the robot almost face-planted onto the camera before tipping back upright! Yikes. It was hilarious. We had another camcorder running, so I'll do the split-screen video for the highlights footage.
3) If you try-out some sort of wireless "spy-cam" be aware of the following.
a) It surely CAN'T be used to provide any feedback to the drivers
b) The receiver also can't be in the stands where you shout to the driver "turn left" .....or something like that.
c) Any onboard camera will be susceptable to machine vibrations as well as on-board interference from motors, etc. I was told that the nanny-cams that run at 2.4GHz are problematic at best.
d) The FIRST control system operates on 900MHz spectrum I believe and there are also a lot of stuff that will create havoc with the 2.4GHz spectrum. Some of the newer pinhole spy cameras operate at the 1.2GHz spectrum
4) THEREFORE.....at the 2006 nationals, our team may play with an on-board 1.2GHz camera during practice rounds just for fun.
But, absolutely NO CAMERAS should be on-board during actual matches for ANY reason. It just opens up too many "what if" possibilities.
dhitchco
03-04-2006, 17:00
By the way, what would be even better than "on-board" cameras for the 2006 Aim High, would be two small cameras mounted above the high goals pointed downwards like basketball games. Even hockey games now have "wired-up" the goalies from their perspective.....
I did get to witness the on-board camera used in Toronto during 2005 regional, but still think that it should NOT have been permitted at all during an actual match......
Having two "fixed" camera angles plus the two high-goal camera angles will give the video producers plenty to do to get the point of th egame across to the audience.
By the way, what would be even better than "on-board" cameras for the 2006 Aim High, would be two small cameras mounted above the high goals pointed downwards like basketball games. Even hockey games now have "wired-up" the goalies from their perspective.....
I did get to witness the on-board camera used in Toronto during 2005 regional, but still think that it should NOT have been permitted at all during an actual match......
Having two "fixed" camera angles plus the two high-goal camera angles will give the video producers plenty to do to get the point of th egame across to the audience.
I'm curious about your reasoning for being so adamant about "no cameras for any reason" during a match. Our camera was a record to SD card device so there was no issue with interference or alternate controll mechanism. My thought is that it falls into the category of "decoration" with respect to its mounting on the robot during competition.
Al Skierkiewicz
04-04-2006, 07:31
If on board cameras to internal media were mounted during competition matches, they should have been included in your robot weight. No matter what wireless frequency or modulation is used, the system must be cleared with FIRST before the competition. AND the main battery and the backup battery can be the only electrical power source on the robot.
<R51> The only legal main source of electrical energy on the robot is the 12VDC non-spillable lead acid battery
provided in the Kit of Parts. That 12V battery is the Exide type EX18-12. The ES18-12 battery, purchased
through your local Exide supplier as a spare, is identical and may also be used. You may use other equivalent
type 12V batteries, but only during the Thursday practice rounds.
The 7.2v “backup” battery is considered an integral part of the Robot Controller, and may not be used for any
other purpose.
Jack Jones
04-04-2006, 08:28
If on board cameras to internal media were mounted during competition matches, they should have been included in your robot weight. No matter what wireless frequency or modulation is used, the system must be cleared with FIRST before the competition. AND the main battery and the backup battery can be the only electrical power source on the robot.
<R51> The only legal main source of electrical energy on the robot is the 12VDC non-spillable lead acid battery
provided in the Kit of Parts. That 12V battery is the Exide type EX18-12. The ES18-12 battery, purchased
through your local Exide supplier as a spare, is identical and may also be used. You may use other equivalent
type 12V batteries, but only during the Thursday practice rounds.
The 7.2v “backup” battery is considered an integral part of the Robot Controller, and may not be used for any
other purpose.
If that is the way the rule is to be interpreted, then it is yet another example of how rules become needless roadblocks to creativity.
If an on-board camera, wireless or otherwise, is used to record and later promote a FIRST event, then where is harm or foul in it having a self contained battery? Those batteries would not be an adjunct to "the only legal main source of electrical energy." The rule is about integral parts of the robot; the ones that provide power and have direct impact on the competition. It is certainly a stretch to apply it to anything else.
The forward to the General Design & Safety Rules says:
“When reading these Rules, please use technical common sense (engineering thinking) rather than a lawyer’s interpretation. Try to understand the reasoning behind a rule.”
We could have them remove the AA batteries and use a custom designed supply that draws power from the the Exide. But what would be the purpose in that other than to make them lawyer their way into getting it done? It would, in fact, be contrary to this engineer's thinking in that it adds a frivolous layer of complexity.
I can see how we'd not want to see a bunch of C cells duct taped together to power some non-functional neon under glows; but to prohibit a few AAs in a palm sized DVD recorder makes no sense at all.
Dave Flowerday
04-04-2006, 08:37
If that is the way the rule is to be interpreted, then it is yet another example of how rules become needless roadblocks to creativity.
I agree with you that the rule does put up a roadblock to creativity, however there is no interpretation necessary. It's spelled out clear as day on the inspection checklist (though I guess you could argue about whether or not it's a "non-functional decoration"):
If the decorations require electrical power, only the robot’s Exide12V battery can be used. The decoration must be protected via either 20A or 30A circuit breaker and cannot interfere with other control system components.
Jack Jones
04-04-2006, 08:43
I agree with you that the rule does put up a roadblock to creativity, however there is no interpretation necessary. It's spelled out clear as day on the inspection checklist (though I guess you could argue about whether or not it's a "non-functional decoration"):
I knew that. And, IMO, the inspection checklist misinterpreted the rule.
Al Skierkiewicz
04-04-2006, 09:13
Jack and Dave,
I brought this up simply because it was interpreted that way in the past. Cameras being non-functional decorations, that is. I personally would love to see more video coming from a robot camera for crowd appeal. Often cameras are used in kit form and the power supply is pretty suspect. It is still necessary for inspector to see how the camera is mounted on the robot. As you know, parts that are not securely attached become missiles in a defensive game. So we need to know that parts on robots are securely attached and will not injure participants or damage other robots.
Consumer grade cameras are now often supplied with Nickel Metal Hydride batteries which pose a serious fire threat if damaged and exposed to the air. For that reason, I would defend the single supply rule in most cases. I know this sounds a little strange, but why would anyone want to subject an expensive component to the abuse suffered during a normal match if it's only purpose was to bring back "cool" pictures. Recording media that uses spinning mechanical systems (video heads and hard disks) as part of the record process, suffer from centrifugal force issues that affect the recording process.
dhitchco
05-04-2006, 14:19
An on-board camera with it's own on-board power source and on-board internal storage media could be "interpreted" as a robot "decoration".
I just think that, at the current time, this "creativity" hasn't been well-thought out by FIRST, and untill a real rule is put in place which comprehends all the scenarios, it should not be allowed.
After all, what's the purpose of an on-board camera?
a) for fun in the highlights video?
b) For aiming strategy for the 3-point goal?
In either case, this can all be done on the practice field or during practice rounds, not full competitive matches.....
Obviously, if FIRST really "chews" on this problem, then
a) the weight of this on-board device must be included in the robot
b) the device will need to be inspected to ensure that it really is not providing feedback to the drivers during the match....
By the way, there's a separate thread on this forum about NOT changing the on-field video screen except for a field overview view (no close-ups, no on-board views, no tops-down views).....Then how come a football game switches camera angles about every 7 seconds!
Can you say "Pandora's Box"......? Just my humble opinion as a videographer.
Godzilla!
13-04-2006, 15:37
The issue of having a camera on the robot has been extensively discussed so here's my comment:
The question is a good one and you may be suprised at the answer. What is the answer? - You may never know unless you ask! By asking I mean going to the official Q&A fora and state all the parameters of your question!
I may have missed something but I just looked at the site and there is not a single question concerning this issue so it just begs to be asked.
Teams?
Ron Webb
Head Ref Atlanta
<UPDATE> The question has been asked!.
The issue of having a camera on the robot has been extensively discussed so here's my comment:
The question is a good one and you may be suprised at the answer. What is the answer? - You may never know unless you ask! By asking I mean going to the official Q&A fora and state all the parameters of your question!
I may have missed something but I just looked at the site and there is not a single question concerning this issue so it just begs to be asked.
Teams?
Ron Webb
Head Ref Atlanta
Ron - I'll get our official rep to do that. The Chief Inspector in Las Vegas said that they would be running the issue up through the first hierarchy because it was an issue that caused much discussion there.
Team 1425 and Team 8 requested, and eventually received permission to use cameras recording to SD memory cards.
The robot's point of view can be very interesting.
Eric,
If you have the videos I'd love to see them. Send them to me at work if possible.
Ellery
Is the FIRST QA forum down? How do we ask?
I got the QA Forum information for our team and logged in to ask my question in the Robot rules section. The forum let me start a new thread and seemed to accept my question. However, the question never showed up in the forum. Am I missing something? Does the question need to be reviewed by a moderator before showing up? Could there be some problem with my post such that the forum is silently rejecting it?
The issue of having a camera on the robot has been extensively discussed so here's my comment:
The question is a good one and you may be suprised at the answer. What is the answer? - You may never know unless you ask! By asking I mean going to the official Q&A fora and state all the parameters of your question!
I may have missed something but I just looked at the site and there is not a single question concerning this issue so it just begs to be asked.
Teams?
Ron Webb
Head Ref Atlanta
We cleared a camera- wirless system at The West Michigan Regional. The team member who set it up asked the a/v crew if they would access to the feed. Over night this friend of mine put a video together, putting three camera views on one screen in sink with each other for the launch break on Saturday.
Is the FIRST QA forum down? How do we ask?
I got the QA Forum information for our team and logged in to ask my question in the Robot rules section. The forum let me start a new thread and seemed to accept my question. However, the question never showed up in the forum. Am I missing something? Does the question need to be reviewed by a moderator before showing up? Could there be some problem with my post such that the forum is silently rejecting it?
Your question will not show up on the FIRST Q&A forum until it is reviewed by a moderator and the folks at FIRST write the answer. Given that they are all preparing for Atlanta right now, it may or may not get answewed prior to the Championships.
Godzilla!
21-04-2006, 13:47
If you want to insure that your question gets answered - please go to the moderated section of the fora and there is a thread for questions for the Championships.
Ron
If you want to insure that your question gets answered - please go to the moderated section of the fora and there is a thread for questions for the Championships.
Ron
The question finally got read and answered and the reply was that it would be OK, but it would need to be powered from the Exide 12V battery.
This reply is understandable, but a bit disapointing, since there seems to be some precedent for allowing such self powered decorations in the past.
Modifying the camera's power supply to get what it needs
from the onboard 12V battery makes the rig more complex,
more prone to failure, less reusable post competition, and less portable.
I was hoping for some answer that was in line with this note from the 2006_Welcome_to_Robot_Inspection-Rev_D.pdf (page 5):
Energy Sources: No energy sources are permitted other than a single Exide ES/EX18-12 battery, 7.2V backup battery, compressed air supplied by the Thomas compressor (either on or off the robot) and stored within the pneumatics (all components from the kit), dropping of robot’s center of gravity and "safe" deformation of robot components (e.g. springs). No flywheels. Teams may use additional batteries to provide power for decorations but the batteries and circuitry must be completely isolated (electrically) from the robot control circuitry. In addition, the Exide battery must be securely attached within the robot.
not withstanding the fact that the same document states just the opposite on page 6:
Decorations: Cannot affect outcome of match, cannot broadcast using wireless communication without clearance from FIRST Engineering, cannot employ 900MHz cameras, cannot use electrical power unless drawn from Exide 12V battery via either 20A or 30A circuit breaker
Any way, we will have the parts in Atlanta and time will tell if we can configure them acceptably for use during the competition.
AV_guy007
25-04-2006, 17:58
my team has a wireless pinhole camera that transmits in UHF and uses a 9v battery. it is very strong and small making it ideal for this kind of use.
we thought one of the best times to try it would be at a off seson event instead of an actual regional.
i dont know if it will happen now because of the fact that it must be powered by the 12v batt.
Al Skierkiewicz
25-04-2006, 18:19
Any way, we will have the parts in Atlanta and time will tell if we can configure them acceptably for use during the competition.
Eric,
If you need help come and find me. I will be at one of the inspection stations, likely Newton.
Al
Looking forward to the 2007 season, I have not seen any more discussion about rule changes that would allow for batteries to power cameras like the one we used last year. I really want to thank all the officials who granted us exceptions to enable our camera use last year, and I fervently hope that the rules will have been adjusted to make it easier this year.
Ericgehrken
03-01-2007, 19:09
I think every robot at least at the nationals should have an onboard camera that is a source of video feed to the big screen. I think it would show what the players (robots) see while competing which would make FIRST more like a real sport because you can watch the game from the bleachers and then you look at a screen and you could see what the robots see. It would just be like in NASCAR where every car has an onboard camera which sends video feeds to the big screen at the track and to the television broadcaster.
dtengineering
04-01-2007, 14:55
I have noticed that the CMU Cam has a composite video output. Certainly in pre-ship date testing having this wired up to a transmitter might help the programming team to figure out just what, exactly, the camera is looking at. Just remember to pull the transmitter before you ship.
Secondly the RC does return digital data to the OI. It would be difficult... but not impossible... to compress the CMU Cam's image, fire it back to the OI, have the data dumped to a Laptop over the dashboard connection, have the laptop uncompress the data and show a very laggy, pixellated version of what the CMU Cam sees to the driver station during a match without violating any rules, express or implied.
It might not be particularly useful, but it would have to be considered for one of the design or control awards just for the sheer coolness of it.
Jason
Al Skierkiewicz
04-01-2007, 15:13
Jason,
As I understand this, the data link RC to OI cannot pass enough data to display even occassional video images. And feed back of this type I do believe would have violated the rules in previous years. On Saturday we will know for sure on the rules and if the control system has been modified. Stay tuned...
Transmission would be nice, but adds lots of complexity. All I want is to be able to record to a SD card for later review....
Tim Arnold
04-01-2007, 19:09
In 2005, our rookie year, we were denied to be allowed to use a wireless camera at UCF as they didn't have time to approve it (or something). We asked around, and every time they just had a "what the heck is that" look, and said no.
I suppose they have a right to be concerned about interference, but it was verifiable that the camera ran on the 2.4ghz frequency.
Oh well, old news. Just figured I would toss this in to remind teams to get it approved before matches start, even before practice. Things simply become too hectic and busy for the staff to analyze things that require time and have little benefit.
Nawaid Ladak
04-01-2007, 19:53
actually, if we could us cameras on the robots, it would sort of be like what nascar does to it's racecars, make it a more enjoyable sport i mean on the video screen, insted of having those veiws of the feild, we would have a veiw on the feild, like last year, with the camera next to the top goal.
speaking of camera's
Imagine Nationals in HD. Oh man would that be something for the people who won't go.
In 2005, our rookie year, we were denied to be allowed to use a wireless camera at UCF as they didn't have time to approve it (or something). We asked around, and every time they just had a "what the heck is that" look, and said no.
I suppose they have a right to be concerned about interference, but it was verifiable that the camera ran on the 2.4ghz frequency.
Oh well, old news. Just figured I would toss this in to remind teams to get it approved before matches start, even before practice. Things simply become too hectic and busy for the staff to analyze things that require time and have little benefit.
orrection, you guys DID use th camera for one match, because was watching the match from it. i remember but you guys didn't get a god signal at all.
RedHeadRobotics
07-01-2007, 20:23
I think that it would help a lot if we were allowed to use cameras. Afterall, it's going to be hard for the driver to see on the other side of the spider rack. Oh well, we can't change the rules.
Here is some onboard footage from team 348's 2006 robot at the NYC regional.
http://media.putfile.com/nyc-regional-1
The first minute is pretty boring, but it picks up when the game starts
Matt Krass
07-01-2007, 20:35
Jason,
As I understand this, the data link RC to OI cannot pass enough data to display even occassional video images. And feed back of this type I do believe would have violated the rules in previous years. On Saturday we will know for sure on the rules and if the control system has been modified. Stay tuned...
Actually I believe that the rule prohibited the use of a secondary transmitter to send feedback of that nature to the alliance stations, I thought it would be legal to use any feedback that could be transmitted over the existing data link.
That said, it does seem technically infeasible to send video, even low frame rate and low resolution, but you can send the tracking data back and use an application like the Java CMU app or LabView to show what the camera sees in relative terms. Or perhaps a heads up display on the drivers safety glasses, we did that last year with great success.
Tim Arnold
07-01-2007, 20:40
orrection, you guys DID use th camera for one match, because was watching the match from it. i remember but you guys didn't get a god signal at all.
Yeah, I forgot about that. We used it in one practice match with nearly dead batteries; we didn't know we were supposed to get it approved before use... whoops.
RedHeadRobotics
07-01-2007, 21:02
OK, now I'm confused. If we wanted to get video feedback from the robot during the game for the driver, would it be allowed? I know it would have to probably be on a laptop and so on. But would that be ok? Please help!
Guy Davidson
08-01-2007, 01:08
At the Las Vegas Regional, Team 1425 and Team 8 both had recording cameras mounted on their robots during some of the matches on Saturday.
There was some controversy on Friday about the permissibility of the cameras on the robot since the lead inspector, who had approved our camera on Thursday was not available. Saturday morning, we were given permission to use the cameras.
In this case, neither of the cameras were capable of broadcasting. The cameras recorded to on-board media and the video could only
be viewed after the match. Team 1425's camera was an action cam made for this sort of thing by Oregon Scientific. I'll try to find a way to post some of the video.
The game officials did say that they would be discussing the issues raised by our requests and their decisions with FIRST and that hopefully things would be clearer for the events in Atlanta.
Our camera was just a private camera there. It didn't even transmit. We just recorded video.
Guy Davidson
08-01-2007, 01:10
OK, now I'm confused. If we wanted to get video feedback from the robot during the game for the driver, would it be allowed? I know it would have to probably be on a laptop and so on. But would that be ok? Please help!
Illegal, as per <R63>:
<R63> Custom Circuits can not:
...
Be used for wireless communication, such as sending or receiving a signal to and/or from the alliance station.
...
Al Skierkiewicz
08-01-2007, 07:36
Just for the record,
I approved the 1425 camera at Nationals based on several factors. Number one, was that it was so self-contained it did not derive power from the robot, nor did it transmit during the match. It was secured inside the robot so that it could not fall out and become a hazard to other players and it met all other rules on the robot like weight and size. And one of the most important to me was that Team 1425 chose a device that would not cause any harm to field or volunteers should it be destroyed during a match. Effectively it could fit into the non-functional decoration specifications.
Cameras transmitting live video would be cool for the audience but their use for driver feedback, I believe, would be disallowed. There are many practical reasons why you would not want video from the robot for driver interaction. Just the shift in fields of view would be very difficult for the driver to adjust to in the heat of battle. There are some very bright lights on the field so your display would need to be very bright and non-reflective. Your OI is size constrained by the rules so it will fit on the shelf. And last but not least, any meaniful video image would need to be transmitted by a separate transmitter. It reguires some sophisticated equipment to be able to predict if such a transmitter would interfere with the game. The equipment and the operators would make it impossible for First to provide such service at events.
Was there any discussion in the off season regarding rule changes that would make use of a self contained camera, (record only) such as we used last year, more permissible, or will it be a case by case basis. The main problem last year was the issue of power to the camera.
Al Skierkiewicz
08-01-2007, 14:02
I have had a lttle discussion, most with other inspectors. I think for now it will remain a case by case due to the huge number of possible combinations that could appear at competition. There have actually been less than 10 teams that I am aware of that actually got to the hardware stage.
team540pr2007
08-01-2007, 15:44
if this is done then you have to tell FIRST b4hand and then show them that the reciever is IN THE PIT. if it is anywhere near the competition location then it raises too many questions
We have our camera on our robot again this year. We captured 6 preliminarly matches at PNW and 3 championship matches. We will also be at the San Diego and Las Vegas Regionals, and will be recording video there as well.
We made a change this year to the camera setup, in that we built a part to replace the battery tray. Instead of having 4 AAA batteries (as we had last year) we have a solid block of plastic with supports for two wires with pads that interface where the batteries would have. The wires go to a 5volt supply from the robot. We have a custom circuit providing the power, but we have also run it off the analog I/O pins.
I think the changes we have made have eliminated all the rule issues with our camera. It has no internal batteries or motors and does not transmit or emit any light or signal. It is essentially a passive sensor that records to an SD card (rather than feeding back info to the RC). Thus is passes inspection with out the need for any special dispensation.
Paul Gudoins was at the PNW regional and I was able to show him our setup and some video when he stopped by our pit area.
I have had a lttle discussion, most with other inspectors. I think for now it will remain a case by case due to the huge number of possible combinations that could appear at competition. There have actually been less than 10 teams that I am aware of that actually got to the hardware stage.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.