New FTC Platform

[StarGazer]

Well, I have been really excited about the growth of the vex platform. In particular, I think the new WiFi control system is going to allow some amazing designs. However, I now see this about the new FTC platform:

http://firsttechchallenge.blogspot.com

-StarGazer

[Rick]

This looks pretty cool. New metal, new brain, aluminum gears. Should make for some interesting machines.

[Gdeaver]

This is a partial confirmation of what I suspected was going on. Notice that there is no mention of IFI. Seams this confirms the split. I believe NI did the development work for LEGO this explains the thread on NI this past fall. Now the question is do you do a VEX competition or a FTC competition?

[Billfred]

Color me perplexed that FIRST would announce something as major as a platform change for one of their competitions on a Blogger account that I can't find linked to anywhere on usfirst.org. The information presented seems to jive with everything we've been hearing through the grapevine (and heck, the guy in the video is doing a pull-up on a field-spec overpass), but I'm holding out a little bit longer to be certain. (Can someone more familiar with the building confirm whether that paint scheme on the wall is seen in FIRST Place?)

Now the question is do you do a VEX competition or a FTC competition?Whichever better inspires your team. In my mind, either can be a viable option.

[fredliu168]

I think a main concern for teams is the cost of the new kit. A lot of teams poured money into VEX thinking it will last them a long time. Now that a new kit is the platform for FTC, many smaller teams will not be able to afford enough parts. Since FIRST is working with several providers for the parts rather than IFI Robotics, I think it shows that it would cost a great deal more than the $300 VEX starter kit.

Another concern is the use of machining and powertools. VEX was great because you could build your entire competition bot with a wrench and two allen keys (which I did), and can still be extremely competitive. If the new platform requires a lot of machining like in FRC, this will put teams without access to the proper tools at a huge disadvantage.

Another thing I'd like to point out is the time issue. Many students do FTC rather than FRC because it is a lot less time consuming. This is an especially big factor for seniors. With VEX I've always said you can build a competitive robot in one day (and I've proved this). If this new kit is a lot more time consuming, many teams will choose not to do it.

There are my three points about the new platform. Of course, I don't know anything about the new platform I just based this on

"We're making the change to give our teams the raw material they need to solve real robotics challenges that exist today. The new kit is a true robotics prototyping platform. It includes a variety of components from sensors, to motors, to metal, that represent current technology."


One thing I have to point out. I love the aluminum gears as well as the extremely powerful aluminum.

As of now both IFI and FTC Competitions look appealing.


Color me perplexed that FIRST would announce something as major as a platform change for one of their competitions on a Blogger account that I can't find linked to anywhere on usfirst.org. The information presented seems to jive with everything we've been hearing through the grapevine (and heck, the guy in the video is doing a pull-up on a field-spec overpass), but I'm holding out a little bit longer to be certain. (Can someone more familiar with the building confirm whether that paint scheme on the wall is seen in FIRST Place?)

Wow, I never even considered the idea that this could be a hoax. If it is, its got to be the best hoax I've ever seen XD

I've just noticed that stargazer, the CD member who posted this blog has 1 post and just joined. Could mean nothing...

[KathieK]

It is not a hoax. It is a blog being written by Ken Johnson (Program Director) to provide information to FTC teams about the change in platform. It was released to Affiliate Partners and Regional Directors yesterday. An official announcement will go out to teams early next week.

[basicxman]

hey we might get to use pneumatics :D

but seriously i run a small team on a 1K budget, if i need power tools, thats my budget gone, wheres the kit!? i'd rather stick with FIRST but i think they're forcing me to go with a vex competition

[Akash Rastogi]

hey we might get to use pneumatics :D

but seriously i run a small team on a 1K budget, if i need power tools, thats my budget gone, wheres the kit!? i'd rather stick with FIRST but i think they're forcing me to go with a vex competition

If you need help with powertools, you could just find an FRC team in your area.

[basicxman]

If you need help with powertools, you could just find an FRC team in your area.

true but only (i think i havent found anyone else) team here in burlington is my FTC team and Rambotics (m.m. robinson high school which is half an hour from my house :D my brothers go that school but i wont) but i doubt ill really be able to borrow power tools

[ManicMechanic]

Next question: How is the split going to affect this forum? At the moment FTC/FVC is a sub-folder of Vex. I hope that questions regarding Vex can still be posted and answered here, even if it's not a formal FIRST program.

[Barry Bonzack]

Last I heard, Intelitek was planning on having a program for the new platform. PITSCO is the maker of ROBOLAB, the old RCX program. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe they also made the NXT Software, based off of LabView. Will we be able to program in multiple languages for the new FTC platform I wonder?

Metal gears will be nice, the plastic ones breaking and slipping get on my nerves. I am curious how this will affect cost.

You'll recognize the packaging, it's based on the LEGO NXT controller but will do a lot more than your standard NXT. More on that to follow.
Does this mean it will look like an NXT, or will the "brick" look different?

[fredliu168]

Next question: How is the split going to affect this forum? At the moment FTC/FVC is a sub-folder of Vex. I hope that questions regarding Vex can still be posted and answered here, even if it's not a formal FIRST program.

You can always try www.vexlabs.com. They have a great forum and questions usually get answered extremely fast.

I'm hoping a team will step up and make a forum like CD deticated to FTC. There are around 800 teams (I think) for FTC now, it would be nice to have another forum. Also a bluealliance or SOAP (video archiving) for FTC would be nice as well. I don't have the skill or time to do this =S.

[StarGazer]

...or it could be that I am a regular forum member who didn't want my name on the post :)

While it hasn't been officially announced, I was told that it could be communicated at this time.

Everything isn't settled yet as they are still looking to get feedback on kits that have been distributed before they settle on the official kit contents. I am particularly interested in the controller. I was told that the system is based on NXT with 10x more memory and around 40% faster than the vex (processor speed?). If it uses an ARM processor like the LEGO NXT it could be quite capable. Their cost target for a kit is $1000 (I don't know what they plan to include and what extras will be available).

The cost of $1000 is going to be a real issue for some programs.

-StarGazer

[Jeff Waegelin]

$1000? That's pretty steep for FTC. I know a lot of the teams here in RI could never afford something like that. Even the Vex kits they have were purchased and donated by the state, and I don't know if they'd be thrilled with spending 3 times as much after only 2 years on the old system.

[Kevin Kolodziej]

While this is very sad to hear (but not unexpected), there will always be a home for Vex teams in the Milwaukee (and beyond) area, with either the Milwaukee Vex League or IFI's Vex competition.

[basicxman]

I'm hoping a team will step up and make a forum like CD deticated to FTC.
your wish is being answered :D

[artdutra04]

There are a lot of teams who have invested a lot of money in to Vex kits.

FTC was supposed to be the low-cost robot competition, in order to get FIRST into more high schools.

This new platform only causes teams to go out, and replace everything they already own with $1000+ of new stuff. That's not cheap.

I don't know about you, but I know of several teams who are more willing to stick with their financial investments (in Vex) than they are with FTC. Especially with free Vex competitions like Savage Soccer (http://users.wpi.edu/~savage/) and Bridge Battle (http://www.vexlabs.com/vex-robotics-bridge-battle.shtml) that utilize the Vex kits, and provide as much challenge and inspiration as anything from FTC.

I do not see any reason why the current Vex platform is outdated, unnecessary, or otherwise needs to be replaced with a new system. Some parts might be upgradeable, but it does not need to be outright replaced. Therefore, this represents an intentional decision to force FTC teams to purchase an entirely new system and take on the financial burden.

That is not the right decision for a program that's supposed to be the 'low-cost competition'.

FIRST is still great, but if they continue to make misguided decisions and hope everyone will just blindly swallow them to stay with FIRST, they are mistaken. We all love FIRST, but we all have other assets and the like to look after. And in the end, the decisions we make will be for our students, for their inspiration.

I'll still be involved with volunteering and being involved at FTC events, but I really can't put my heart behind this decision for new kits.

[Lowfategg]

You can always try www.vexlabs.com. They have a great forum and questions usually get answered extremely fast.

I'm hoping a team will step up and make a forum like CD deticated to FTC. There are around 800 teams (I think) for FTC now, it would be nice to have another forum. Also a bluealliance or SOAP (video archiving) for FTC would be nice as well. I don't have the skill or time to do this =S.

Its still to early to do anything yet but me and basicxman have been talking about this on the vex forum.

[Rick]

It is a good thing they are starting to tell us about the expensive kit now. Time to fundraise!

I hope with the new kit, the tournament gets altered. Regtangular field, teams on both sides of the field rather than on 2 joined sides. More FRC-like. It is so hard to see the action on an FTC field.

FTC is still an in-expensive option for competing. $1k is still much less than starting up an FRC team. FTC is in-expensive, but VEX is now the "value" competition.

[Ben Mitchell]

Right now this is mostly in the realm of theory with not a lot of concrete info to make an informed evaluation.

When this goes official I will explain my thoughts on this in great detail.

It should be interesting.

[basicxman]

FTC Lab is up and running, free for users to sign-up
http://ftc.theroboticsuniverse.com

[Joe G.]

Wow. We just recieved a donation of 3K+ worth of vex parts. Hope we can still use them.

I hope that the system is close to vex, with some upgrades. The new controller sounds nice, but it also sounds like the coding will be much further from FRC than vex's is. The new hardware looks strong, but it also looks like there is more machining involved.

I see what looks like legos in the background of the gear picture. This suggests that FTC will become "open" with materials, as FRC has. Quite honestly, I see this as moving in the opposite direction from what FTC should be: An alternative to FRC for teams without the expertise, tools, or finances avalible to them. The base kit can be great, but if it is completely open, then financially well off teams will have an advantage. It would be like giving enough kitbot parts in the KOP to theoretically build a robot, with the versitality of vex, and then only asking nicely for teams to not CNC a robot from scratch.


I hope that FIRST knows what they're doing here :(

[yongkimleng]

hmm this sure shows some cause for alarm. The teams we have had already spent more than a decent 5 digit sum on vex parts over the last few years.

Besides the point, a slightly more open relaxed restriction on materials (like metal bars, etc) would be great. Like we would all be limited to using vex electrical system and motor count limit, but we should be able to use our own alu/steel plates and bars. Makes no sense to keep purchasing overpriced metal.

If better motors and gears are provided as an upgrade option, I'm all out for it coz the current inventory does limit ones' possible designs. A wider range of sensors and better rotational encoders would be great too. Remember seeing low cost encoders around USD$30 each .. provides greater resolution too. Another possible thing would be mountable potentiometers and long range (1m?) IR rangefinders.

I hope the WiFi link does support computer communication. How about Ethernet? :D My embedded x86 platforms are rotting on the shelves.

[Andrew Bates]

Several people have mentioned that this new kit will make it more like the FRC. Now I thought the FRC and the FTC were catering to different groups of people. The FTC is not supposed to be mini FRC. It is meant to be simpler cheaper and just as inspiring. Right now it is. I hope it still is in the future but I am doubtful.

[Ken Delaney 357]

I have a hard time with the wording of the announcement.

"The new kit is a true robotics prototyping platform. It includes a variety of components from sensors, to motors, to metal, that represent current technology. This is not a toy."

Not a toy? Is this a bash on Vex? Last I checked VEX has motors, sensors and metal. They may not be the most complex but I believe this to keep the cost down. Are you saying that I have not been doing any engineering for the last three years and instead have been playing with toys?

"Stronger metal allows teams to build robots that can withstand a lot of abuse - consistent with real world applications" Why is it that we abuse our robots? In the FRC I have seen to many robots become "defensive" by smashing into other robots. Where is the engineering in being a driving brick? I like the fact that Vex does not have the power to become this robot.

I find this announcement lacking in gracious professionalism and off the mark of FIRST's mission.

[GaryVoshol]

...or it could be that I am a regular forum member who didn't want my name on the post :) So it could be that you violated CD forum rules by creating an alias account, just so you could scoop the FTC official announcement. GP at it's finest.

[KathieK]

So it could be that you violated CD forum rules by creating an alias account, just so you could scoop the FTC official announcement. GP at it's finest.
I agree about violating CD rules about creating an alias account, however, the APs were told we could make an announcement to all of our teams on Thursday, and that the official announcement would be made next week. So I don't think this was any kind of scoop, really.

[MentorDanK]

First of all I really like the First organization and competition format. They stand for a the right stuff. I don't want to be too judgemental until I hear more about the new fomat. BUT,

I agree with the concerns of additional costs and time requirements of students that are already taxed with school work. We had a constant problem getting students to build meetings because of other commitments. Many just don't have the time to commit to an FRC type format.

In a time of school budgets that are being reduced the cost of the new new format will discourage schools from getting involved. Also in our area many students are being put into portable class rooms with no access to any special power tools. That was one of the attactive features of the Vex format. We had 2 teams design and build there robots using minimal power tools, in a portable class room.

For several years the company that sponsors my FTC teams sponsored an FRC team. Because of the expense, the dificulty of getting a facility with the proper tool, space requirements and mulitple schools to form a single team with enough students, the teams would work for a year or two and then folded. Another problem they had was attracting teachers to sponsor the teams. We only have one teacher willing to stay after school and put in the hours required.
Now the company sponsors 4 teams from 2 schools and was planning on expanding to 1-2 more schools next year. With the added expense of the new format they may only have funding for 1 team for each of the existing 2 schools. I'm sure that our sponsors will step back and take a hard look at supporting the Vex run competition. Its just sounds like more bang for the buck.

Something that I have not seen any comments about was team size. In the new format will the team size still be restricted to 10. I would hope that it would increase to 20 because the tasks will be more involved.

I think that the improvements in sensor and gears would be nice, but I'm not sure they will be worth the cost.

[MentorDanK]

First of all I really like the First organization and competition format. They stand for a the right stuff. I don't want to be too judgemental until I hear more about the new fomat. BUT,

I agree with the concerns of additional costs and time requirements of students that are already taxed with school work. We had a constant problem getting students to build meetings because of other commitments. Many just don't have the time to commit to an FRC type format.

In a time of school budgets that are being reduced the cost of the new new format will discourage schools from getting involved. Also in our area many students are being put into portable class rooms with no access to any special power tools. That was one of the attactive features of the Vex format. We had 2 teams design and build there robots using minimal power tools, in a portable class room.

For several years the company that sponsors my FTC teams sponsored an FRC team. Because of the expense, the dificulty of getting a facility with the proper tool, space requirements and mulitple schools to form a single team with enough students, the teams would work for a year or two and then folded. Another problem they had was attracting teachers to sponsor the teams. We only have one teacher willing to stay after school and put in the hours required.

Now the company sponsors 4 teams from 2 schools and was planning on expanding to 1-2 more schools next year. With the added expense of the new format they may only have funding for 1 team for each of the existing 2 schools. I'm sure that our sponsors will step back and take a hard look at supporting the Vex run competition. Its just sounds like more bang for the buck.

Something that I have not seen any comments about was team size. In the new format will the team size still be restricted to 10. I would hope that it would increase to 20 because the tasks will be more involved.

I think that the improvements in sensor and gears would be nice, but I'm not sure they will be worth the cost.

[GaryVoshol]

OK, I withdraw my comments about "scooping" a FIRST official announcement. But I still wonder, if StarGazer had permission to publicize it, why a surrogate account was needed.

FIRST did this a couple years ago with FLL, switching from RCX to NXT (which was promted by the LEGO Corp decision to change controllers). At that time a transition period was implemented, allowing either controller to be used. Teams and schools that had a significant investment in LEGO parts based on the RCX were allowed to continue using it. In fact, a point bonus was given to RCX users the last two years in recognition of the NXT's superior capabilities.

Will there be any transition period in FTC so that either VEX or the new components can be used?

[Joe G.]

FIRST did this a couple years ago with FLL, switching from RCX to NXT (which was promted by the LEGO Corp decision to change controllers). At that time a transition period was implemented, allowing either controller to be used. Teams and schools that had a significant investment in LEGO parts based on the RCX were allowed to continue using it. In fact, a point bonus was given to RCX users the last two years in recognition of the NXT's superior capabilities.

Actually, in more cases than not, the RCX-NXT transition backfired. Most "elite" FLL teams ran to the NXT all excited during the first year of it, and found it horribly inferior to the RCX. Teams were making drastic changes to their robots just to change it back to RCX parts, and there were a great number more RCXs in 2007 than 2006. I know that the teams that I have been involved with, and many others, have not invested in NXT parts at all since the initial release, and plan to continue using RCXs for as long as they are allowed to. The free points is just an added bonus.

[TheOtherGuy]

From the announcement:


The structure of the new platform is metal. Specifically 12 gauge aluminum. The photo above shows a piece of the kit with two 25lb. weights, one tied to each end. The video below is one of our engineers hanging from an overhead bar using a piece of the new kit. Stronger metal allows teams to build robots that can withstand a lot of abuse - consistent with real world applications. You can keep using the metal you have from the previous kit as well.
(emphasis mine)
It seems that you can at least still use the metal from previous years, which may end up being of some use to a lot of teams. Please don't make assumptions that teams will be spending tons of money on parts just yet. We still know very little of this new system, or the rules of the robots for that matter. :rolleyes:

[Lowfategg]

New info just posted on the blog about answering some questions people here on Delphi and vex forum had.

[Ryan Dognaux]

"The new kit is a true robotics prototyping platform. It includes a variety of components from sensors, to motors, to metal, that represent current technology. This is not a toy."

Not a toy? Is this a bash on Vex?

Ding Ding Ding! I think we have a winner here. From this statement, it seems to me that FIRST's thoughts on VEX are that it is essentially a jazzed up toy. Tell that to the many, many students learning from VEX or the school systems that have invested ten thousand(+) in VEX for their school systems.

All this is going to do is split people. You have the hundreds of current FTC teams using VEX that have invested a lot into this platform. They're not going to change when events are still prevalent and honestly just cheaper to run because they're not going through the "FIRST Machine."

Why the switch? Probably because FIRST just wasn't happy with the results they got from VEX. I don't know why though, plenty of students were being inspired using that system. Perhaps it wasn't attracting the fan base they thought it would. Either way, I don't think I can support any kind of platform that has been designed and developed to replace a perfectly valid solution that obviously works.

[Andrew Bates]

The switch has also likely been influenced by the apparent break-up between FIRST and IFI.

[davidfv]

I pretty much put up all the money myself for the VEX team that I was sponsoring. It was a small team from our FRC team. I hope that I can find sponsors that do not take too much away from the FRC team. The kits need to be out in the summer so we can actually see the costs and know what type of fund raising we would need to do.

I am going to look for more VEX only competitions to keep the kids interested.

I am saddened by this change, but people will adapt. I wonder if FIRST will lower the cost of entry fees to help offset the cost of the new platform for teams?

[chaoticprout]

Without siding on either side in this post (even though I personally love Vex and what it does), does it not seem apparent that chances are the new control system for this platform will be one and the same with the new FRC control system? (Edit: Or highly similiar)

[Rick TYler]

does it not seem apparent that chances are the new control system for this platform will be one and the same with the new FRC control system? (Edit: Or highly similiar)

I expect so. I also don't think it makes much difference except for the FRC teams that look upon FTC as an entry-level program to train freshmen. To the FTC-only teams commonality with FRC only helps if it makes parts cheaper.

EDITD: Chaotic makes a good point. Didn't mean to sound like I was minimizing the comment -- I think he's right on.

[Bongle]

Looking positive:

Good Things (confirmed)
-Stronger Metal[0]
-Stronger gears[0]
-Re-use of VEX metal is allowed[1]
-Same-scale field, so the robots aren't getting substantially larger (and the venues required aren't, either)[3]

Hopeful Things (possible based on evidence so far)
-Same battery voltage (7.2v) points to possible VEX motor re-use[2]*
-VEX sensors appear to simply output electrical signals (analog or digital) not tied to any particular controller, so if the new controller has PWMs as inputs, then re-use of those may be possible as well*
-VEX always had "just the controller" package[4], perhaps this one will too. If that is true, AND motor/sensor re-use is allowed, then existing teams may be able to just buy the controller.

*Both of these, however, would require FTC to allow motor and sensor re-use in their rules.

Sources:
0: http://firsttechchallenge.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-ftc-platform.html
1: "You can keep using the metal you have from the previous kit as well." from [0]
2: "Batteries used with Vex will work" from http://firsttechchallenge.blogspot.com/2008/03/questions-and-concerns.html
3: "FTC will continue to use the 12' x 12' playing field" from http://firsttechchallenge.blogspot.com/2008/03/questions-and-concerns.html
4: http://www.vexlabs.com/vex-robotics-programming-kit.shtml

[yongkimleng]

How disappointing to not hear about improvements for the sensors and motors... yet.
- Better Encoders
- Potentiometer
- IR Rangefinder
- limit switch with wheel/ball
- Larger variety of motors (e.g. high torque, linear, high speed, 360deg servos, etc
- digital compass

[Rick TYler]

How disappointing to not hear about improvements for the sensors and motors... yet.
- Better Encoders
- Potentiometer


There is a Vex pot now, and the newer encoders are quadrature. Were you thinking of something else?

EDITED: There are parts still missing, but these two showed up some time this season.

[Gdeaver]

Now if they would only repackage some IR range finders.

[yongkimleng]

Now if they would only repackage some IR range finders.

or even better, just change the rules to allow a certain model of IR rangefinder. Used some sharp GP2D12s on a home made bot.. the pins and voltages are similar.

[Bongle]

Bump: There's a new post up describing the new modem/control system. Short version: bluetooth allows for more simultaneous matches, and the use of a wider variety of controllers (video game controllers).

[Gdeaver]

Bluetooth? Hmm. That 2.4 band is getting crowded. This needs to be tested so everyone that's going to Atlanta, make sure you have your cyborg bluetooth headset on and go over to the FTC area while they're using the new system and make a bunch of calls. Then to realy test it lets have some people set up some pre n networks and see if the bluetooth can take it.

[yongkimleng]

Bluetooth? Hmm. That 2.4 band is getting crowded. This needs to be tested so everyone that's going to Atlanta, make sure you have your cyborg bluetooth headset on and go over to the FTC area while they're using the new system and make a bunch of calls. Then to realy test it lets have some people set up some pre n networks and see if the bluetooth can take it.

Personally i'd favour 802.11g instead of bluetooth. Longer (reliable) range, higher power, a larger range of channels to use (14+ channels). And much faster data rate.. you could actually run an Ethernet cam on ur bot.

[Gdeaver]

Vexlabs is going with G so we do have a choice. Will be interesting to see which aproach works best in a competion.

[yongkimleng]

Vexlabs is going with G so we do have a choice. Will be interesting to see which aproach works best in a competion.

cool :P I have a half hacked Fon router with serial output meant to couple serial devices to wifi.. but oh well thats gonna be redundant soon

[MarkJ]

I can't believe FIRST is even thinking of moving away form Vex. If Vex had been around a couple years earlier, I think my original school would still be in FIRST. I've been using and working with some Vex teams the last two years, and the students love it. It's pretty cheap, still challenging, doesn't need a machine shop, the school can do it with teachers and students without needing engineers, and they don't have to spend the year fundraising. If everyone seems to like it, and all the teams I talked to at the LA vex event december seem to really like it, why would FIRST switch. I don't get it. The school I work with already spent a lot of money on it, and the students get a lot out of it, so we won't be switching to something else - there's no reason to.
Plus, I'm much more excited about the wifi system Vex announced than the bluetooth system announced hear. I'd trust wifi over bluetooth any day. I don't get it, bad decision FIRST, just doesn't make sense.

[Rick TYler]

You know, MarkJ, you started me thinking -- I don't believe I've heard or read anything from an FTC team about wanting to replace Vex as the platform. I've heard requests for more-powerful motors and certain sensors, but never, "this platform is awful, we need to ditch it." I wonder where the idea to completely replace Vex came from? So far, the response on the forums has been about 10- to-1 against.

[Andrew Bates]

Remember there are some high level politics involved with this decision. For those who don't know FIRST is not using IFI's robot control system in the FRC after this year. IFI is also the owner of VEX.

[Ben Mitchell]

See my post in the general forum for my thoughts on this subject.

[ManicMechanic]

I wonder where the idea to completely replace Vex came from?

I'm as much out of the loop as anyone but have been trying to process this in a way that makes some sense to me, wanting to believe in the best of both FIRST and Vex. I am basing my conjectures on observations of FVC/FTC events vs. independent Vex events (i.e. Bridge Battle).

Fact: "Divorces" often occur over disagreements about money.
Fact: FIRST (FTC/FVC) registration costs $275/team. In contrast, there is no registration cost for the Vex Bridge Battle Competition (other than individual tournament fees).
Fact: FIRST has offered steep discounts on Vex kits ($375 bundle kit in 2006, 2 X $219 starter kits in 2007). In contrast, Vex at this time is not offering any quantity discounts (I asked), unlike Radio Shack, which offered at least 10% off on quantity purchases.

Conjecture: I am guessing that Vex would like FIRST to discount (decrease) its registration fee, while FIRST would like to see Vex offer discounts on equipment sold to registered teams, and this might be one of the causes of the break-up. Of course, this could be completely off; I could be in the dark about some huge elephant which is being kept in the closet.

On one hand, I can see why Vex might not want to discount its equipment – it sells quality products at a reasonable price, and the FVC/FTC discounts, along with the 50% Radio Shack sale a few years ago have produced continual expectations of unrealistically low prices. On the other hand, I understand why FIRST charges such steep registration fees. In addition to maintaining the full-time staff and having a budget for program development, the Affiliate Partner infrastructure costs something (conference calls, training), even though AP's are volunteers. This ensures that the quality of official FIRST events is high and somewhat uniform. I have coached FLL and FVC teams for 5 years and feel that what we paid in FIRST registration fees has been more than worth the money.

I have participated in a low-budget robotics program, and know that you often get what you pay for. For example, at one event, the competition field was specified to be 40" long in the official manual but was only 30" long at the event we attended. There were field objects that were supposed to weigh 7 ounces; the actual weight was 64 ounces. My team had a good experience at this event because I had warned the team ahead of time not to compare this event to a FIRST event (and perhaps because they took home 2 trophies). However, had there been more teams and higher expectations, this could have been a disaster.

It had always been my hope that FIRST and IFI would "kiss and make up" at the 11th hour, but this hope was dashed with the announcement of the new system. FVC was a partnership of the best program with the best system (IMHO), and the breakup will hurt them both, and the students most of all. But I also believe that both FTC and Vex will survive, and so will the students. Now there will be more choices, and I suppose that will be a good thing. But I will miss everyone in Atlanta.

[yongkimleng]

Well I guess there are many reasons for the split..

Keeping an open mind, I personally won't mind a more powerful processor if the features justify the price. Anyone dreamed of using a full x86 processor for higher level logic, Java programmable, handling vision processing, and using common storage like USB drives and SD cards, with multiple user-programmable co-processors for low level PIDs? Intelligent motors with integrated encoders and monitoring functions? Maybe even a prototype Field Positioning System functioning like an in-door gps for competitions?

My take is that while FIRST pushes things to higher levels of complexity, offering wider choices of things to use, etc etc, the demand for low-cost robotics competitions is still there. Especially in times like now when the economy isn't exactly doing very well.

IFI could further leverage on the current situation by seriously ironing out existing quirks with the Vex system, and/or lowering cost of the steel and plastic stuff (ok I don't know if its right to say that, but these parts manufactured in China is pretty low cost right). Credit goes to them for choosing WiFi, hope they pull it off nicely (P.S. where to get Vex proto boards?)

As for FIRST, my only guess why they are inclined on bluetooth is the ease of integration. I've played with serial-BT devices before and they are like, a drop-in replacement for a point-to-point serial link. Coz the interface on those bluetooth endpoints are just TTL serial. The drawback, though, is the limit on transfer rate. We'll still be stuck with like what, 115kbps streams (lol). Unless its native bluetooth, then yeah the cap is increased and we've more possibilities.

Metal gears and such definitely allows more possibilities. Thats if they are putting it together such that, we can make FRC-sized bots out of a kit. Otherwise with small vex sized bots (thats subjective, but to be specific I meant 18"x18"x18" bots), I think plastic is cheaper and (when properly engineered) as reliable as metal parts.
(P.S. There are actually gears of higher density than current vex gears right? anyone come across?)

Whatever their decisions are, I guess its up to the school / students to have their take on who they would support (like, BluRay vs HD). Who knows, maybe years later, FIRST still has FRC being popular and Vex allows lower barriers to entry for those starting out to learn more about robotics?

[Daviddavid]

As for FIRST, my only guess why they are inclined on bluetooth is the ease of integration. I've played with serial-BT devices before and they are like, a drop-in replacement for a point-to-point serial link. Coz the interface on those bluetooth endpoints are just TTL serial. The drawback, though, is the limit on transfer rate. We'll still be stuck with like what, 115kbps streams (lol).

Metal gears and such definitely allows more possibilities. Thats if they are putting it together such that, we can make FRC-sized bots out of a kit.

I'm much more excited about the wifi possibilities. About metal gears and stuff, why? It's not needed. Why would we want to build FRC-sized bots in FTC, isn't that what FRC is for? The reason I got a school to agree to start a vex team next year is because it was small enough to do in the room, they didn't need a machine shop, it was pretty cheap and it was safe for kids to work with. Bigger and stronger robots just moves away from that, which is why I hope FIRST realizes Vex is perfect for classroom use and keeps it.

[wilsonmw04]

I'm much more excited about the wifi possibilities. About metal gears and stuff, why? It's not needed. Why would we want to build FRC-sized bots in FTC, isn't that what FRC is for?

The Field is going to be the same size so you can assume that the robots will be roughly the same size as VEX.

The reason I got a school to agree to start a vex team next year is because it was small enough to do in the room, they didn't need a machine shop, it was pretty cheap and it was safe for kids to work with. Bigger and stronger robots just moves away from that, which is why I hope FIRST realizes Vex is perfect for classroom use and keeps it.

You aren't going to need a machine shop with the new kit either. I don't see anything in the limited information given to us that would not make this new kits just as easy to use in a classroom.

[yongkimleng]

And just to note, vex just released quad encoders (are they as faulty as old encoders?) and potentiometers. like FINALLY they have potentiometers...:D

[Bongle]

New post up on the blog.

Highlights:
-The 7.2V batteries will be wired in series to give 14.4V (the new motors run at 12V)
-A robot constructed with the new equipment will be robust enough to tow an office chair (see video).

Well, there goes my optimism that you'll be able to use VEX sensors and motors. Hopefully they'll still allow complete vex kits to compete a la RCX units in FLL.

[Ken Delaney 357]

This does not look good. They are using an NXT controller with an add on. I looked at NXT sensor prices they are pretty steep. I can build my own sensors if I want. Do you know any electrical engineers who want to mentor my team? I know we are supposed to get engineers to help support the team but their schedules and mine don't coexist. I run the team after school because I have family commitments. We will meet sometimes during weekends but that presents other issues. I really enjoyed FTC/FVC because it gave me a taste of FRC without it taking over my life. I really do not like where this is heading.

[Daviddavid]

Someone on the FTC blog site brought up a really great point I hadn't thought of about the new FTC kit having bigger motors and metal gears - it's now a much more dangerous kit than the Vex platform is.

The new kit sounds more like FRC. But for classroom use, the Vex kit is clearly the safer and more proven option. I thought FVC was meant to be a bridge between FLL and FRC, now it seems the new platform is really a possible cheaper alternative to FRC, not a low cost bridge to it. I can't recommend the new platform over Vex to middle schools or high schools I want to work with. Vex is cheaper, is safer, is high quality, is proven and really seems ideal for the classroom. Plus I like Vex a lot, so there's no reason to change unless something better and cheaper comes out - which the new platform is not.

[Joe G.]

This does not look good. It seems they are both stepping up the mechanical/mahcining requirements, while at the same time dumming down the software/electrical system, unless of course you have access to electrical engineers.

I will state again that I have had considerably less than satifactory experiences in FLL with NXTs. Their memory capabilities are quite low, even for FLL. I cannot imagine running an FTC/FRC style robot off of one.

Once again, they have dissed vex. I don't have access to our robot now, but I do have a similar chair, and would be very interested to see if our 4 motor, direct driven chassis can do the same. I'm betting it does so easily. Vex motors and hardware have already been proven to be able to easily lift FVC robots. What "challenges not possible in the past" are they possibly planning? Bowling balls?

Someone on the FTC blog site brought up a really great point I hadn't thought of about the new FTC kit having bigger motors and metal gears - it's now a much more dangerous kit than the Vex platform is.

Great point. When working with Vex, I feel a sense of saftey that if my fingers go somewhere bad, they will stall the motors. This kit looks like the chain incident at the Florida regional waiting to happen, if it is marketed to the same audience as FTC currently is.

I'm losing my sense of optimism with each blog post :(

[Billfred]

This does not look good. They are using an NXT controller with an add on. I looked at NXT sensor prices they are pretty steep. I can build my own sensors if I want. Do you know any electrical engineers who want to mentor my team? I know we are supposed to get engineers to help support the team but their schedules and mine don't coexist. I run the team after school because I have family commitments. We will meet sometimes during weekends but that presents other issues. I really enjoyed FTC/FVC because it gave me a taste of FRC without it taking over my life. I really do not like where this is heading.This leaves me thinking a little differently about the matter:


The NXT is the brain – but we’ve added expansion capability to the NXT. Specifically the new kit will include a controller that extends the capability of the NXT to handle more sensors, DC drive motors, and servos. The additional controller is a product supplied by HiTechnic and plugs directly into one of the NXT sensor ports.

DC motors, servos, and sensors can all be wired directly into the HiTechnic FTC Controller terminal block – greatly expanding the capability of the robotics kit.

The range of sensors available includes touch sensor, compass, light sensor, color sensor, accelerometer, gyroscope, ultrasonic, and there will be more in the future. Additionally, there is a prototyping kit that allows the inventive users to create sensor modules for the NXT controller. The sensors we’ll include in the kit will depend on the feedback we get from teams and the game designs we’ll use in the future.

It seems like you're not going to have to depend on NXT sensors, unless FIRST is playing fast and loose with the definition of "terminal block".

Of course, as with everything else dealing with this platform switch, I'm withholding judgment until I see these things playing Quad Quandary in Atlanta.

[yongkimleng]

Which means, people have to start off with an NXT brain I guess. Plus an additional coprocessor.

I believe its cheaper and less costly to have just 18Fxxxx devices. Its easyC compatible too. Not to mention free samples for prototyping..

[Andrew Bates]

Of course, as with everything else dealing with this platform switch, I'm withholding judgment until I see these things playing Quad Quandary in Atlanta.

They are going to play QQ with the new FTC kit. I will have to see this.

As I said over on the VEX forum this concerns me even more. Especially with it sounding like we are using a Stock NXT brain. I would like to see some more of the structure of these robots too.

As far as it being more dangerous, you're probably right but at the same time it can only get so dangerous. I find it really hard to hurt myself with VEX, besides the nicks to my hands etc. But I don't think you will really be able to hurt yourself with the new stuff.

As rocketperson said, I really do believe that the VEX kit is more powerful from what we have seen. Either that or the people who built the demonstration robot did not build it for pulling around chairs. If so then what did they build it for?

[SteveJanesch]

Without siding on either side in this post (even though I personally love Vex and what it does), does it not seem apparent that chances are the new control system for this platform will be one and the same with the new FRC control system? (Edit: Or highly similiar)

I'm in total agreement here: is the point of the FTC and FRC changeover to more closely (maybe not perfectly) align the FLL/FTC/FRC controllers and sensors to make the sensor/software/control side of things more similar? That way as the kids move up from FLL they won't have to completely relearn the programming end.

This is my third year as an FRC mentor and I can attest to how intimidated FLL veterans were by the thought of programming an FRC robot. (I feel like I'm just getting a handle on it now.) Kids who wrote programs to do pretty complicated things in FLL just won't attempt programming in FRC even with similar sensors because there's so much to learn about the controller.

[Andrew Bates]

Currently the jump from FLL programming to VEX isn't that big. EasyC uses blocks like Lego and is pretty self explanatory. Also with VEX you can use other programs like MpLab to progam the controller to get more of a C coding feel. It's the same with FRC so the jump from FTC to FRC with respect to coding isn't that big. It just gets a little more complicated.

[wilsonmw04]

I like the idea of the three systems becoming a bit more seamless. It will be nice for the many many kids coming up from FLL to FTC. They will see parts that they are familiar with. I can't tell you how many parents can to me with questions about jumping from FLL to FTC when we did a demo at the Virginia competition at James Madison University. Growth for FIRST isn't going to come from teachers and admin asking for a team, it's going to come from parents demanding a team at the high school. If we can keep more of the students in FLL through FTC and eventually to FRC we will see exponential growth.

[ManicMechanic]

ROBOTC, which is now available for NXT, Vex, and was offered free to FRC teams this season, could have been the glue that bound the 3 programs together. I am trusting that it will be usable by the new system -- if not, shame on the system.

[fredliu168]

FIRST should take the world champion team from QQ to face their new system of robots built by the new FTC kit, and see who would win.

I'd be willing to bet, unless they play unfairly, the new FTC kit wouldn't stand a chance.

[Gdeaver]

I believe there is now enough pieces of information now to fill in a few more details on the new FTC control system. From the blog and pictures it now seams certain that an off the shelf Lego Mindstorm NTX is the base. To add more sensor, digital IO's, hobby PWM servo outputs and motor control FTC will use an expansion board from Hitechnic.http://hitechnic.com/index.html?lang=en-us&target=d20.html
The First community has been complaining about expansion, This appears to be their answer. One channel of I2C. I don't believe more than 1 channel is available. No mention of SPI. No mention of TTL serial. The one channel may become a bottle neck given that allot will be going through it. They mention a 4 to 400 ms latency. On the software side I'll bet on labview with a plug in to be the base software platform with Carnegie-Mellon C IDE as an option for those who want more control. What I want to know is how are they going to handle the motors? Do we get current and thermal protection? Feedback? How about full protected intelligent motor-driver? This could be not bad but until they are available for testing who can say.

[Rick TYler]

Growth for FIRST isn't going to come from teachers and admin asking for a team, it's going to come from parents demanding a team at the high school.

Respectfully, I disagree. Growth for FIRST at the high school level is going to be in FTC, and is going to be driven by mentors and teachers with a passion for the program. Parents are, for the most part, passive participants. (Of course there is some tautology here. Once a parent becomes passionate about this, they become mentors.) I've never been in any youth program (sports, Scouts, robots, math teams, chess teams) where the parents had more than 10 or 20% involvement. It's about the volunteers and the kids.

[Scott Carpman]

I'm just throwing this out here:

What if this is an elaborate prank?

Think about it:
We have very limited information on the new FTC platform, with only one gear being shown in public. We are getting details from a blog, not an official press release.

What if this is Mancherster's April Fools to all FIRSTers?

[Lowfategg]

That is highly unlikely and if it was it would kill every FTC team respect of the FTC program.

Its no joke,

Theres the new motors (or very close to them),
http://www.lynxmotion.com/Product.aspx?productID=250&CategoryID=11

and here is the metal (or something very close to it),
http://www.lynxmotion.com/Product.aspx?productID=524&CategoryID=96

All the info so far matches up. I think FIRST is pulling together parts from different companies much like FRC. That is my theory so far.

[Andrew Bates]

It definitely looks like this kit is thrown together from many sources. This also has me worried, because while you may go to one place for support on one part you will have to go somewhere else for support for something else. The problem with this is that people will get confused as to where to go for support with each component making everything more complicated. Another thing is getting it all to work together correctly will probably not be as easy as with VEX.

[Lowfategg]

I think FIRST will make it work just fine. Support will be a bit of a problem but I am sure FIRST is smart and will over come this.

[wilsonmw04]

Respectfully, I disagree. Growth for FIRST at the high school level is going to be in FTC, and is going to be driven by mentors and teachers with a passion for the program. Parents are, for the most part, passive participants. (Of course there is some tautology here. Once a parent becomes passionate about this, they become mentors.) I've never been in any youth program (sports, Scouts, robots, math teams, chess teams) where the parents had more than 10 or 20% involvement. It's about the volunteers and the kids.

You don't seem to understand how schools work, well, at least in my area. If a teacher, such as myself, asks for funding for a program, it will be politely passed up the chain and then buried. If parents ask for the same funding and they are passionate and vocal enough, it will happen. The parents are indirectly involved in the actual program, but directly involved is steering funding. New programs thrive or fail based on parental support.

[KathieK]

What if this is an elaborate prank? This is not a prank. I am an FTC Affiliate Partner and the information that is being released on the blog is valid. Ken Johnson, FTC Program Director at FIRST, is the person releasing the info.

Releasing the new platform via the Showcase at World Championships next month mimics the release of the original FIRST Vex Challenge Program several years ago.

[Daviddavid]

Seemd all the people I talked to at the Davis event today who do Vex sure wish it was a prank. Seemed like they all want FTC to keep using Vex and most will keep using Vex instead of switching to the new platform. I wish FIRST would announce it's all been a bad joke on April 1, that would be cool.

[Rick TYler]

You don't seem to understand how schools work, well, at least in my area. If a teacher, such as myself, asks for funding for a program, it will be politely passed up the chain and then buried. If parents ask for the same funding and they are passionate and vocal enough, it will happen. The parents are indirectly involved in the actual program, but directly involved is steering funding. New programs thrive or fail based on parental support.

I DO understand, and you have my sympathy. My mother the teacher refused to teach in our home district because, "in our district I want to be a parent, not an employee." The trick is not to expect money from the school. Dealing with school bureaucracy is the number one reason we started an Explorer Post and delivered a turnkey robotics club to the students at the schools we draw from. The schools are our partners, but they do not have ANY control or input to our funding or activities (as long as we are off campus). Fortunately for us, there is a semi-autonomous theater program attached to a high school in the district that paved the way. The schools are friendly, but don't demand to run things. In some ways, they are even more friendly because we ask so little of them.

As for money, I don't want school money. It comes with too many strings. A school told an FRC team I know of that the students had to return their t-shirts at the end of the school year because they were purchased with donated money given to the school on the behalf of the team, and that all school uniforms have to be turned back in. The school did not provide ONE DIME of funding, but attached a bunch of pretty stupid rules on all the money routed through the school. We joined an educational 501(c)(3) organization that allows us to accept charitable donations that don't get routed through a school. The organization is VERY helpful, and does not expect payment for helping us manage our charitable donations, and I know how fortunate we are. It takes a little faith to climb out of the school pond, but it's pretty cool out here on dry land.

[JeffJ]

Like I said in the FTC blog, we've been planning on starting a Vex/FTC team next year, and now we're really stuck with not knowing what to do. Does anyone really know why FIRST is switching if it sounds like most of the teams and schools don't want them to? It doesn't make sense and it's really hard for us to submit a budget for something that doesn't exist yet, isn't proven, sounds too expensive and sounds like it's still got Lego stuff in it. We've got until Apr 1 to submit our budget for either FTC or Vex, and right now we only know the prices and parts for Vex. Any advice from people who use Vex? Should we just go with that if we have to make a call by next week and have a fairly slim budget?

[Rick TYler]

JeffJ, do FTC with the new platform, budget $1,500, and use your existing Vex parts to compete in the IFI series. That's what we are going to do (except that we would like to field four teams, so our budget is going to be more like $5,000).

Good luck and let us know how it goes!

[Daviddavid]

We're in a similar spot, but anything over $1000 for a robot and registration is just too much for us. We want to have a few robots and we want to enter a few teams, but we don't want ot have to raise $5k to do it. We can get 4-8 Vex robots for under $5k in Vex, and that's much better for the local school to get more kids involved. Plus if the Vex competitions are going to be cheaper than the FTC ones like it sounds, then that's even more money we save if we enter a few teams. We need something good and we need it to be affordable. I can't tell if the FTC platform is good yet, but it sure doesn't sound like it's going to be affordable for schools, at least not like Vex is.

[ManicMechanic]

Any advice from people who use Vex? Should we just go with that if we have to make a call by next week and have a fairly slim budget?

Jeff, We're going to stay with Vex and partner with another school holding events in Turlock (we're in Modesto). I notice you're from Sunnyvale (CA, I assume), which is ~ 2 hours from us. I strongly suspect that you would find Vex events closer to you than us, but if not, y'all come. Even if you don't want to spend any money on Vex stuff, borrow yourself a Squarebot (or borrow one from us) and join the fun.

IFI has a vested interest in promoting Vex competitions, so I doubt that there will be a lack of events to attend. The game and the equipment can be counted on -- the quality of the events is the unknown. With FIRST, the quality of events is given, but the equipment is the unknown.

How we all wish that FIRST and Vex would have stayed together, but now that the new system has been announced, there's no going back. We can wonder what caused it, but I can't imagine that there's any way the decision can be undone. All that's left to do is make the best of what remains.

[Bongle]

New post is up. Still no hard info on cost, and it seems that it hasn't been entirely nailed down yet.

However, the good bit:
The kit we'll roll out at Championship will be a complete "competition" kit as opposed to a commercial base kit requiring multiple additional components to compete. ... We'll have more information for you later this week.

[Akash Rastogi]

What should my team's new budget be for next year? I'm thinking about raising at least 5 grand just incase. I want to push it to 7K if I can.

Suggestions for a budget?

[Rick TYler]

What should my team's new budget be for next year? I'm thinking about raising at least 5 grand just incase. I want to push it to 7K if I can. Suggestions for a budget?

For how many teams? What do you include in your budget?

Without travel, I'm figuring $5-6k for three teams.

[Akash Rastogi]

For how many teams? What do you include in your budget?

Without travel, I'm figuring $5-6k for three teams.

Not including travel because local events are reached by car and if either of the 2 teams i will be mentoring reach Atlanta, they will be coming with MORT anyway. We have old kits and everything (tons of them) but for the final robot we like to purchase new parts each year. For next year I would also just like to have more fund raisers to get the kids involved in something more than just the robot as well. Thanks for any help Rick. It will be much appreciated. Also, if I could get some tips and advice on mentoring 2 ftc teams that'd be awesome as I am only 16 and have never mentored more than 1 FLL team.:)

#1 Rule-I obviously know that it is their robot not mine.

[ManicMechanic]

Also, if I could get some tips and advice on mentoring 2 ftc teams that'd be awesome as I am only 16 and have never mentored more than 1 FLL team.:)

#1 Rule-I obviously know that it is their robot not mine.

Some mentoring tips can be found in "A Clueless Coach's Companion to FTC":
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2019

Some of the material is obsolete, because it was written for Vex, but some is still applicable. It was also mainly designed for coaches who have never seen any competitive robotics of any kind (which applies to most of the local coaches I recruit), so some material may be too basic for you.

[Billfred]

A new blog post has gone up here (http://firsttechchallenge.blogspot.com/2008/04/showcase-robot-drive-train-development.html), with video of S.H.I.R.T.'s drivetrain with the new platform. It seems a little bit zippier than most Vex robots I've seen, but not by all that much.

[Akash Rastogi]

Some mentoring tips can be found in "A Clueless Coach's Companion to FTC":
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2019

Some of the material is obsolete, because it was written for Vex, but some is still applicable. It was also mainly designed for coaches who have never seen any competitive robotics of any kind (which applies to most of the local coaches I recruit), so some material may be too basic for you.

Cool, thanks a lot. :)

[Daviddavid]

[QUOTE=Billfred;734750]A new blog post has gone up here (http://firsttechchallenge.blogspot.com/2008/04/showcase-robot-drive-train-development.html), with video of S.H.I.R.T.'s drivetrain with the new platform. QUOTE]

I've got to steal a line from another post on a forum for my reaction to the video - just looks like a 2nd rate knockoff of Vex.

As I said in the FTC blog though, a 2nd rate knockoff/copy is normally cheaper. Somehow this knockoff is going to be more expensive? Just don't get it. Not impressed FIRST, this is a mistake. I know my team that we're putting together will not pay more for a Lego based robot than we will for a Vex robot.

[wilsonmw04]

I've got to steal a line from another post on a forum for my reaction to the video - just looks like a 2nd rate knockoff of Vex.

As I said in the FTC blog though, a 2nd rate knockoff/copy is normally cheaper. Somehow this knockoff is going to be more expensive? Just don't get it. Not impressed FIRST, this is a mistake. I know my team that we're putting together will not pay more for a Lego based robot than we will for a Vex robot.

I'm not sure where you are coming from. This kit does not look cheap at all. I also don't know where this idea of a "Lego based robot" is coming from. The only thing the is Lego based is the controller. You aren't going to be seeing any other Lego parts from what i've been hearing.

Remember, no one is forcing you to change. You can always go play with your VEX parts in the new VEX Competition.

[Bongle]

I've got to steal a line from another post on a forum for my reaction to the video - just looks like a 2nd rate knockoff of Vex.


For all the hits against FIRST regarding how they released it and the continued lack of information about cost, packaging, and availability, I think it actually looks like quite a competent kit, at least on par with VEX. Or at least based on the grainy video and tiny pictures we've seen so far.

Could you elaborate on what is second rate about the components? We know the metal is better, motors are stronger, gears are stronger, processor is more powerful, etc. Component-wise, it is genuinely better. Whether you NEED that improvement or not and despite the lack of info about pricing, the kit itself seems like it is good quality.

[Gdeaver]

There are many good things about the Lego controller. There are many programming environments. Robot C has built in debugging, the Labview plugin can introduce students to labview and instrumentation. The distributed architecture can allow students to lean processor to processor communications. The platform is expandable. IFI limited the VEX platform by not exposing and supporting comunication busses. The only question is can FIRST put everything togeter in an economical package.
What I would like to see is NI develope a State machine block. I've been playing with Cypress PSOC Express and I'm impressed with thier implementation of a graphical state machine tool. This would allow the students to think in terms of robot behavior and the state machine concept with out the complexitity of the low level implementation. The First platform has the potential to be better as long as its not a budget buster.

[Andrew Bates]

I think a lot of this discussion comes back to the idea that this kit in "unnecessary" considering there is already a competent kit out there, VEX. However we need to keep in mind that the reason a new kit is required is because of the apparent split between IFI and FIRST. So for the short amount of time that has passed so far FIRST has produced a pretty decent kit. If you look back at when VEX first came out it wasn't much better than this, however IFI continued to develop it. The question right now is how will this kit grow over the years?

[TechieSam]

I haven't done FTC, but I do have a Vex kit, which I like a lot. I agree, it doesn't seem necessary to switch to a new platform. I guess the only part that suprises me is that it looks almost the same. If they wanted something drastically different or cheaper, then I would get why they are trying a new platform. But if it's going to be close to a copy of Vex and not going to be cheaper, then why change?

Anyway, it looks like a Vex kit with a Lego controller to me, which I guess is ok as long as there aren't any other lego parts in it. If there are lego parts, I wouldn't be interested (since I'm not 11 anymore). But I'm curious to see the complete kit and price, maybe it will be as good as Vex.

[s_forbes]

I'm not sure where all of this new hatred against FIRST is coming from, it looks like they are developing an awesome new system that will be tons of fun to play with. Everything looks super beefy and more competition worthy (now we won't have to run a single arm joint with three motors!). I'm liking it and can't wait to play with one!

If you're angry about the price, you can still play the IFI Vex games...

If there are lego parts, I wouldn't be interested (since I'm not 11 anymore).

I still play with LEGOs, and I'm in college. I've got tens of thousands of them in my room at the moment! Must be a matter of opinion. (I actually much prefer LEGO to Vex).

[Daviddavid]

I'm not sure which posts sound like they are hateful, hopefully you don't mean mine, if so, I'm sorry.
I am very frustrated with FIRST, I think they are handling the FTC program very poorly, and I don't think they've been open or honest with the teams and schools. I am a little angry and very frustrated, but it's clear many people feel that way. To some people like me, it's this simple - there are only two good reasons to switch a platform: if the current one isn't good and people want it replaced or if you find something as good or better that is cheaper. Neither is the happening here, so that's why so many are upset. The current Vex platform is very good (FIRST has told teams that for 3 years or so now and encouraged schools to buy it) and the new platform is not going to be cheaper. So there is no good reason - at least not one that is good for teams and schools.
About the Legos, I can't speak for Sam, but I can only speak for me and the friends on my FTC team the past couple years - many of us did FLL and liked it, but we don't want to play with NXT or Legos anymore. To me NXT and Lego are toys and Vex is not, regardless what FIRST wants to try to convince me of.

Again, if you meant my posts when you said people are hating on FIRST, please know it's frustration. If you didn't mean my posts, then good, I still believe everything I've said.

[Daviddavid]

Could you elaborate on what is second rate about the components?

Good question. I was thinking of the general perception that copied and knocked off stuff is 2nd rate and cheap. It's pretty obvious they're just trying to come up with a platform to replace Vex and aren't even trying to make it look very different, so I consider it a Lego knockoff - just a NXT controller trying to copy the Vex kit. I consider "copied" stuff to be "cheap". Worst part is it sounds like it's going to be more expensive than Vex and not cheap. But it being a knockoff and cheap is just my opinion, some may disagree and many do not, just opinion.

On the other stuff - the Vex metal is great as is, so if the new metal is harder to work with, bend and modify, then it is not better. I don't care about metal gears or bigger motors, that's what I would do FRC to work with, but I do consider metal gears and bigger motors to be less safe for classroom use. So we have different opinions, I haven't seen anything in the new kit that looks "better" than Vex.
Hope that explains what I was saying, should have been more clear, didn't mean to confuse.

[wilsonmw04]

Disclaimer: This is my personal opinions and observations. Please take it for what it's worth.

As a Teacher, I see no problem using the new kit in the classroom. As for the Vex metal: i can take it or leave it. It's light weight and easy to cut, however, i also feel that the metal is a bit too flimsy for a lot of applications. We had to double up angle to reach any length greater than 8". The gears: dude. The gears are the weak point of the VEX kit. For most applications we have had to double up the gears to keep them from slipping. This may have to do with the lack of power that the VEX motors have. In order to lift the two rings for this years game we had to gear down the joints so much we snapped teeth.

[fredliu168]

This may have to do with the lack of power that the VEX motors have. In order to lift the two rings for this years game we had to gear down the joints so much we snapped teeth.

Depends on how you designed your pickup. We can quite comfortably pick up 9 rings on a gear ratio of 1:21 with 2 motors, and our gears have never snapped. I think we may have reduced our gear ratio even more for Atlanta.

However I do think VEX gears are a bit weak. We snapped 35 of the 12 tooth gears last year lifting 6-8 balls.

[Yuffie]

Actually, the new kit may give new teams an advantage. I'm expecting that it will be shipped like an FRC kit of parts, because they keep talking about it being a "complete" kit without add-ons. (Of course...FIRST isn't going to start running its own shop for parts, like IFI.)

So teams like mine (2nd year of FTC, and we're going to Atlanta on the equivalent of 2 starter kits) just pay $1k, and get a mostly complete kit. Meanwhile, all the motors, gears, and other misc. hardware bought by the veteran teams go to waste, while the utility of all their metal is seriously reduced. Well, it's a compromise - FIRST hasn't exactly been very gracious or professional about their new platform.

I just hope that they can put together a complete kit for that much.

[Foster]

wilsonmw04:
This may have to do with the lack of power that the VEX motors have. In order to lift the two rings for this years game we had to gear down the joints so much we snapped teeth.

Fredliu168:
However I do think VEX gears are a bit weak. We snapped 35 of the 12 tooth gears last year lifting 6-8 balls.

This gave both of you a chance to do the "engineering mentoring" that we are challenged to do. For example, when using a 12 tooth gear and a 60 tooth gear, there are 1.5 teeth engaged. This really puts the full force on a single tooth. Which most times means "snappage". But you can do different gear trains that do the reduction in multiple steps. Or double the gear faces so you have more support. Or change the design that stresses are reduced. Or some other solution that great teams are known for.

Engineering is about designing outside the box, while living with constraints that we can't change like gravity, friction and plastic gears. We so much want "well if I had them there Fosteranium indestructible parts" I could make this (arm, claw, lift, base, snorkel) work.

I've found that brute force engineering in FRC leads to the same place, snapped gears, bent arms, burned motors, broken chains, twisted frames, etc.

FTC / Vex makes you think by saying "only these parts". FRC says "use what you want, but weigh less than ..." Both are design constraints.

Let use FTC to teach some good engineering, thinking through the process and improving the design rather than brute force. And frankly, if it was going to be easy, you wouldn't be doing it, there would be no challenge in bolting parts made of Fosteranium together into an indestructible robot.

[JeffJ]

I was very troubled to read today that FIRST and Lego have had an agreement requiring the FTC registration fees to stay higher than FLL. I find myself very upset to hear FIRST would be essentially selling students and teams as a commodity to Lego and Pitsco. Am I just a parent being too sensitive or is this something that also surprises and shocks others?
I wasn't sure why FIRST was pushing this new platform as a replacement to Vex, but now it seems to make sense. It wasn't to help students or schools, it was to help Lego and Pitsco. I expect that type of business dealing from Enron, Haliburton and others - but FIRST? They should be above that.

[Rick TYler]

I was very troubled to read today that FIRST and Lego have had an agreement requiring the FTC registration fees to stay higher than FLL.

Please share your source.

[BHS_STopping]

I'm not sure which posts sound like they are hateful, hopefully you don't mean mine, if so, I'm sorry.
I am very frustrated with FIRST, I think they are handling the FTC program very poorly, and I don't think they've been open or honest with the teams and schools. I am a little angry and very frustrated, but it's clear many people feel that way. To some people like me, it's this simple - there are only two good reasons to switch a platform: if the current one isn't good and people want it replaced or if you find something as good or better that is cheaper. Neither is the happening here, so that's why so many are upset. The current Vex platform is very good (FIRST has told teams that for 3 years or so now and encouraged schools to buy it) and the new platform is not going to be cheaper. So there is no good reason - at least not one that is good for teams and schools.
About the Legos, I can't speak for Sam, but I can only speak for me and the friends on my FTC team the past couple years - many of us did FLL and liked it, but we don't want to play with NXT or Legos anymore. To me NXT and Lego are toys and Vex is not, regardless what FIRST wants to try to convince me of.

Again, if you meant my posts when you said people are hating on FIRST, please know it's frustration. If you didn't mean my posts, then good, I still believe everything I've said.

I believe that some teams, in the past, have been equally frustrated with the reliability of the Vex system which, unfortunately, has given our team some grief with the last two competition robots that we have built. The problem with the Vex system is that it is difficult to repair something short of replacing it - it's nearly impossible to fix a motor or a broken transmitter, and is also quite difficult to diagnose a problem if it ever occurs.

Again, our team has had to deal with these issues in competition, and has had to pay some unfortunate costs. Last year in Atlanta, our robot suffered from intermittent control issues due to unknown circumstances. This year, we (FTC 546) also faced a similar issue, in that our robot only operated about half the time it was on the field. We still do not know the source of either of the problems, but we feel that it is simply the nature of the Vex system which led to these issues.

Personally, I like the idea of shifting to a new, hopefully more reliable system. I think that Vex is a great system for learning and classroom use, but it lacks the robustness to be used heavily in a stressful competition setting. The lack of reliability from the Vex system fulfills your criteria for making the switch. Even though the new system may not necessarily be cheaper, I would gladly pay a little bit more money to ensure that the system will work will in competition.

That said, I still hold true to the belief that Vex is a great system which allows students to flex their creativity without having to go great lengths to build a high quality machine. However, the rigors of competition have, time and time again, proved a bit much for the system, which is why I support the platform switch for FTC. I just hope that everyone is still able to enjoy participating in the program, despite the changes for next year.

[artdutra04]

I believe that some teams, in the past, have been equally frustrated with the reliability of the Vex system which, unfortunately, has given our team some grief with the last two competition robots that we have built. The problem with the Vex system is that it is difficult to repair something short of replacing it - it's nearly impossible to fix a motor or a broken transmitter, and is also quite difficult to diagnose a problem if it ever occurs.

Again, our team has had to deal with these issues in competition, and has had to pay some unfortunate costs. Last year in Atlanta, our robot suffered from intermittent control issues due to unknown circumstances. This year, we (FTC 546) also faced a similar issue, in that our robot only operated about half the time it was on the field. We still do not know the source of either of the problems, but we feel that it is simply the nature of the Vex system which led to these issues.

Personally, I like the idea of shifting to a new, hopefully more reliable system. I think that Vex is a great system for learning and classroom use, but it lacks the robustness to be used heavily in a stressful competition setting. The lack of reliability from the Vex system fulfills your criteria for making the switch. Even though the new system may not necessarily be cheaper, I would gladly pay a little bit more money to ensure that the system will work will in competition.

That said, I still hold true to the belief that Vex is a great system which allows students to flex their creativity without having to go great lengths to build a high quality machine. However, the rigors of competition have, time and time again, proved a bit much for the system, which is why I support the platform switch for FTC. I just hope that everyone is still able to enjoy participating in the program, despite the changes for next year.The problems which you attribute to the Vex system - such as having a motor or a transmitter that are hard to replace if broken, or diagnosing problems - aren't just a problem with Vex, they exist in any and all robotic kits or systems.



// The following is not directed towards anyone, and I apologize in advance if it is read as such.

Over the past few years, I've lost track of how many posts I've read where people complain that we need metal gears, metal chain, bigger motors, etc., and they are all quick to point to Vex as the problem. It would be a much more beneficial solution if they accepted their own fallibility, and re-investigated their own mechanism before pointing the blame on something else.

And if someone puts all their hopes that the new kit will magically solve all the issues and problems, and that flowers and rainbows will sprout from the earth and peace and prosperity will come to all, they are quite mistaken. Nothing is perfect, whether it's LEGO Mindstorms, Vex, the new FTC kit, the FRC KoP, etc., and issues will arise no matter what system exists.

There's a fine line between which problems are inherent to the kit/technology used, and which ones can be solved by a little more creative thinking.

[gblake]

I'm going to say right off the bat that this post is probably going read harshly. The reason for that is my extremely strong dislike for false dichotomies.
The problem with the Vex system is that it is difficult to repair something short of replacing it - it's nearly impossible to fix a motor or a broken transmitter, and is also quite difficult to diagnose a problem if it ever occurs.Good luck repairing ANY motor or ANY transmitter in any robotics kit. When I think of an electric motor, I very, very rarely envision anything consumers can/should repair. The same goes for transmitters. The Vex motors do come with replacement (internal) gears, and they have their clutches that help to (but don't 100% guarantee to) protect them from excessive stresses created when a designer makes a mistake.

Again, our team has had to deal with these issues in competition, and has had to pay some unfortunate costs. Last year in Atlanta, our robot suffered from intermittent control issues due to unknown circumstances. This year, we (FTC 546) also faced a similar issue, in that our robot only operated about half the time it was on the field. We still do not know the source of either of the problems, but we feel that it is simply the nature of the Vex system which led to these issues.Hmmm, I wonder if the Vex systems need a better comm system - Ooops, I almost forgot, they are getting one.

The microcontroller could use an upgrade too. Maybe one is in the works.

Personally, I like the idea of shifting to a new, hopefully more reliable system. ... However, the rigors of competition have, time and time again, proved a bit much for the system, which is why I support the platform switch for FTC. I just hope that everyone is still able to enjoy participating in the program, despite the changes for next year.OK, I too like the idea of hoping the new system will be more reliable and then trading a devil I know for one I don't. Oops, I'm sorry I got that backwards. What would have been wrong with unveiling a proposed system this year and evaluating it in the hands of users and in competition environments for a season before switching????

In the local tournaments I help put on, we almost NEVER have any problems with the RF communication between the transmitters and the robot's microcontrollers. Maybe we don't need to blame the Vex system??? Maybe we need to figure out where the noise sources are and blame the venues?

How about if we understand those noise sources, control them, and develop a system that is immune to them. I too hope the new system is less susceptible to interference.

Blake

[TheOtherGuy]

What would have been wrong with unveiling a proposed system this year and evaluating it in the hands of users and in competition environments for a season before switching????

We don't know the inside information regarding the split between FIRST and IFI. If they decided to split 6 months ago, then they seem to be on the right track at this time.

In the local tournaments I help put on, we almost NEVER have any problems with the RF communication between the transmitters and the robot's microcontrollers. Maybe we don't need to blame the Vex system??? Maybe we need to figure out where the noise sources are and blame the venues?

You can't blame the venues for interference problems; it just doesn't work. There are way, way too many venues to check for consistency, and when you are trying to create a fair game, you can't depend on anything (especially the venue). This is a matter that the system needs to resolve.

[Bongle]

OK, I too like the idea of hoping the new system will be more reliable and then trading a devil I know for one I don't. Oops, I'm sorry I got that backwards. What would have been wrong with unveiling a proposed system this year and evaluating it in the hands of users and in competition environments for a season before switching????
Although not on an extremely large scale, this appears to be what they are doing with the pilot teams that are going to be playing at championships.

FIRST is in a bad situation. Assuming the IFI breakup had to happen, then they seem to be doing their best to get a new program set up. Keep in mind that FTC-Vex was almost entirely based on IFI components. They are going to have to do the same thing with FRC in the next year, the difference being that in FRC, you usually can't use past components anyway, so people will be less bothered. A more negative way to say it is: FRC participants are USED to buying the same stuff every year, while this comes as a big shock to FTC participants (particularly since the FTC system is advertised as low-cost).

[BHS_STopping]

The problems which you attribute to the Vex system - such as having a motor or a transmitter that are hard to replace if broken, or diagnosing problems - aren't just a problem with Vex, they exist in any and all robotic kits or systems.



// The following is not directed towards anyone, and I apologize in advance if it is read as such.

Over the past few years, I've lost track of how many posts I've read where people complain that we need metal gears, metal chain, bigger motors, etc., and they are all quick to point to Vex as the problem. It would be a much more beneficial solution if they accepted their own fallibility, and re-investigated their own mechanism before pointing the blame on something else.

And if someone puts all their hopes that the new kit will magically solve all the issues and problems, and that flowers and rainbows will sprout from the earth and peace and prosperity will come to all, they are quite mistaken. Nothing is perfect, whether it's LEGO Mindstorms, Vex, the new FTC kit, the FRC KoP, etc., and issues will arise no matter what system exists.

There's a fine line between which problems are inherent to the kit/technology used, and which ones can be solved by a little more creative thinking.

First off, I have to agree with you in the respect that people are often quick to place blame on things other than themselves when it comes to problems like these. Many of us (including me, at some points) have felt this way before, to a certain extent. I hold the utmost respect for teams that have succeeded in competition, and in no way regret my experiences in FTC, failure or success.

I would just like to explain where I'm coming from, as I have a pretty good memory of our team's past events. In Atlanta last year, our team completely rebuilt our competition robot from the ground up. (Picture here. (http://photos.project1726.org/displayimage.php?album=21&pos=9)) When we tested it at home, it worked very well, both tethered and untethered. Even at Atlanta in the pits, the robot performed just fine when tethered in the pits. However, once it was placed on the competition field, we began to experience problems. The robot would start and stop, drive erratically, or just stop moving a few seconds after the match had started. This happened for the majority of our matches in Atlanta, with a few successes.

We desperately tried to find the problem, but to no avail. Every time we tested it tethered in the pits, everything worked just as it did at home. We must have switched between 5 or 6 batteries, and none of them seemed to have any effect on the robot's performance. But every time we went on the field, problems frequently occurred. We switched cables, transmitters, receivers, and even our microcontroller, but the problems continued to persist. Our tournament ended (at least, for me) with some feelings of self-inadequacy for being unable to find a solution to an agonizingly crippling problem.

This year, FTC 546 experienced a similar issue in its competition at Arizona. I'm not sure if you're familiar with our robot, but you can see it here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqgwwZpJ7mE) The problems that we experienced here were also intermittent control issues, where our robot would stop about 15 seconds into a match without responding to any signal from the transmitter. Again, the robot worked great at home and also very well when tethered in the pits. However, we vainly tried the same things that we did at Atlanta, but were once again unsuccessful.

Today, our team still has some ideas on what the cause of these problems were. We believe that it might be a faulty transmitter, but we are unable to test that hypothesis, seeing as how we don't have an official competition field.

Now, my problem with the Vex system isn't the reliability of its components, but the difficultly in diagnosing a problem. In Atlanta, we had a FIRST official look at our robot (not tethered to the field, but with competition crystals), and it worked just fine! He was, like us, unable to provide a concrete diagnosis or propose a solution which we hadn't already tried. Even today, almost one year to the day it happened, our team still does not know if our failure was due to a faulty design or a broken electronic component. Even with as much creative thinking as we could muster, there was little that we could do.

My only hope is that next year's platform will not only be a bit more reliable, but much less difficult to diagnose the types of problems that our team has experienced. If it has taken us over a year and two competitions to learn what our problem was, then I wholeheartedly believe that there has to be a better solution. You may take our experiences as you wish, but please understand that we aren't just a group of inexperienced students who are trying to shift blame. Our team holds no blame against anyone or anything. We understand that life isn't always fair. We understand that there will be difficulties, and we understand that we just need to roll with the punches and take what life gives us. I can only hope that our team is able to overcome these obstacles and be able to succeed in the future, and that FIRST is able to give us and thousands of other students the very opportunity to do that.

[gblake]

We don't know the inside information regarding the split between FIRST and IFI. If they decided to split 6 months ago, then they seem to be on the right track at this time.

FIRST is in a bad situation. Assuming the IFI breakup had to happen, then they seem to be doing their best to get a new program set up. Keep in mind that FTC-Vex was almost entirely based on IFI components. They are going to have to do the same thing with FRC in the next year, the difference being that in FRC, you usually can't use past components anyway, so people will be less bothered. A more negative way to say it is: FRC participants are USED to buying the same stuff every year, while this comes as a big shock to FTC participants (particularly since the FTC system is advertised as low-cost).

Whether IFI and Vex split (or were ever joined) is completely irrelevant (but is a great red herring). Anyone can buy Vex kits and use them in a robotics program. That includes the current and future FIRST FTC program(s). Buy enough and I'll bet you will get a generous discount off of the list price.

You can't blame the venues for interference problems; it just doesn't work. There are way, way too many venues to check for consistency, and when you are trying to create a fair game, you can't depend on anything (especially the venue). This is a matter that the system needs to resolve.
I know you can't "blame" a venue, but you can investigate and identify sources of interference and can monitor them during tournaments.

The real point is that the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater if you say that RF communication problems are a reason to switch to a new kit

Both Vex kits and the new kit will have new RF communication systems by the start of the next season. If anyone has some RF measurements in the appropriate bands, etc. at the various venues where each will be used next season, they can make predictions about how each might suffer or shine in those venues. Until then, I presume that they both will work well. If both work well, then RF communication problems are not a reason to switch to a new kit (but they are another red herring).

Blake

[lukevanoort]

I wouldn't be so quick to blame problems with Vex robots on intrinsic qualities of the Vex system when problems with your application of the system are either more likely or equally likely causes.

[TheOtherGuy]

Whether IFI and Vex split (or were ever joined) is completely irrelevant (but is a great red herring). Anyone can buy Vex kits and use them in a robotics program. That includes the current and future FIRST FTC program(s). Buy enough and I'll bet you will get a generous discount off of the list price.

I didn't say IFI and VeX, I said IFI and FIRST (no red herring). VeX is part of IFI. I stated that if FIRST suddenly realized they needed a new kit for next year this year, there would be no way for us to test this new kit until now, which is happening.

I'd also like to bring up the point that the expensive part of the vEx kits (the hardware) will be reusable next year (source (http://firsttechchallenge.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-03-11T10%3A34%3A00-04%3A00&max-results=7)). Also, the batteries (another expensive component) can be used (though will last 2/3rds as long as the new batteries).

[gblake]

I didn't say IFI and VeX, I said IFI and FIRST (no red herring). VeX is part of IFI. I stated that if FIRST suddenly realized they needed a new kit for next year this year, there would be no way for us to test this new kit until now, which is happening. Sorry - I meant to say that any split between IFI and FIRST is irrelevant. What does a split between them have to do with whether or not the FTC rules say that I must buy and use a Vex kit?

Suppose some other non profit wants to run a robotics program using Vex kits - Must they "join" with IFI? And then later on if they "split" must they stop using Vex products? I think not, they and their participants can simply buy and use the kits. - Definite Red Herring.

I don't think that FIRST suddenly realized that they needed a new kit. I think that fairly long ago FIRST took a decision to switch kits; perhaps as part of a bigger decision.

I'd also like to bring up the point that the expensive part of the vEx kits (the hardware) will be reusable next yearWhile it must be possible, I wouldn't count on getting a lot of mileage out of that option. In the blog pictures and videos, the new parts don't look like they are going to mate up very well with the Vex parts.

Blake

[wilsonmw04]

I don't think that FIRST suddenly realized that they needed a new kit. I think that fairly long ago FIRST took a decision to switch kits; perhaps as part of a bigger decision.
Blake

I think you are correct in that. When i started in FVC it was defined as an "interim" program. I don't know if FIRST knew at that point they were going to be moving away from VEX. With the introduction of the new FRC controller I'd have to think that something big, and not in their plans, happened. I have no information to back this statement up, just a hunch.

[Rich Kressly]

I think you are correct in that. When i started in FVC it was defined as an "interim" program.

Not quite. It was then, and still is now, the "intermediate" program.

[wilsonmw04]

Not quite. It was then, and still is now, the "intermediate" program.

From the FIRST Website:
FIRST piloted the competition for two years under the name 'FIRST Vex Challenge' until it was approved as an official program for the 2007 season.

That doesn't sound like a permanent program, therefore the term "Interim" i used.

[Bongle]

Sorry - I meant to say that any split between IFI and FIRST is irrelevant. What does a split between them have to do with whether or not the FTC rules say that I must buy and use a Vex kit?

Suppose some other non profit wants to run a robotics program using Vex kits - Must they "join" with IFI? And then later on if they "split" must they stop using Vex products? I think not, they and their participants can simply buy and use the kits. - Definite Red Herring.

IFI's involvement goes far beyond happening to be the supplier of the kits that FTC uses, doesn't it?. I thought there are IFI staff at each regional, making sure that all the custom stuff they supply (field elements like radios mainly) work smoothly. I know this is the case for FRC and I thought it was the case for FTC as well. If FIRST wanted that kind of support, they'd have to enter into some sort of contract with IFI, and apparently that's not in the cards.

So my impression is that without an official FIRST-IFI contract you could certainly have a competition with IFI things, but it wouldn't be as well supported. If something like the field breaks, nobody knows how to fix it (because nobody there would be paid to know such things, it all either volunteers or FIRST management).

While it must be possible, I wouldn't count on getting a lot of mileage out of that option. In the blog pictures and videos, the new parts don't look like they are going to mate up very well with the Vex parts.
Speculation since I haven't seen close-ups of the new sensor connection apparatus: but old sensors may be usable if they can take the higher voltage the new kit runs at and the new kit has similar connectors. Two big ifs, but old sensor usage hasn't been ruled out yet.

[Rich Kressly]

From the FIRST Website:
That doesn't sound like a permanent program, therefore the term "Interim" i used.

Ohhh....sorry ... you were talking about the term "pilot."

2005 Championship there was a "pilot event"
2005-2006 Was a "pilot season" with "pilot regional events"
2006-2007 FIRST still considered it a pilot, but opened up the number of events and brought "affiliate partners" on board for the first time
2007-2008 (this year) a board approved "full program."

[wilsonmw04]

I hate dealing with semantics. The way read the FVC information 2 years ago was this way: We are going to try this out with the VEX kit and see how we like it. If we find value in this size of program we will continue it in some form in the future. If not, we tried.

[gblake]

IFI's involvement goes far beyond happening to be the supplier of the kits that FTC uses, doesn't it?. I thought there are IFI staff at each regional, making sure that all the custom stuff they supply (field elements like radios mainly) work smoothly. I know this is the case for FRC and I thought it was the case for FTC as well. If FIRST wanted that kind of support, they'd have to enter into some sort of contract with IFI, and apparently that's not in the cards.

So my impression is that without an official FIRST-IFI contract you could certainly have a competition with IFI things, but it wouldn't be as well supported. If something like the field breaks, nobody knows how to fix it (because nobody there would be paid to know such things, it all either volunteers or FIRST management).

....My direct personal experience is this: In FTC tournaments this season, the types of support you describe above are so unimportant to the tournaments that they may be very safely called "irrelevant" in this discussion.

I do not have direct experience to back up this next assertion:
I strongly believe that if FIRST wanted to hire IFI to assist at Vex-based FTC tournaments, IFI would gladly supply that support to FIRST (just like they would supply it to any customer) at a price saimilar to or less than the prices they charge other customers.

From these lines of reasoning I conclude that the so-called "split" between IFI and FIRST does not create a strong motivation for FIRST to stop using the Vex product line in FTC tournaments. Hence my conclusions of "Red Herring" and "irrelevant".

Blake

[Mr. Lim]

New kit price is $900.

$450 grants for all returning teams.

250x $450 grants for new rookie teams.

[Bongle]

New kit price is $900.

$450 grants for all returning teams.

250x $450 grants for new rookie teams.

Are you posting from the announcement meeting, or is there a web feed/web site that can be watched?

[basicxman]

Are you posting from the announcement meeting, or is there a web feed/web site that can be watched?

you just missed the web cast of Ken J saying this himself

the kit comes with 11 motors and 10 sensors!!!

[s_forbes]

you just missed the web cast of Ken J saying this himself

the kit comes with 11 motors and 10 sensors!!!

I guess they weren't kidding when they said a full kit! So returning teams can get all of that for just $450?!? FTC FTW!

Is there anywhere that those of us not in Atlanta can get more information on the new kit?

[basicxman]

hopefully they'll post this on their blog:
firsttechchallenge.blogspot

they said they'd put videos on the first site

[TheOtherGuy]

Well, I guess the question about pricing is over!

FIRST pulled through on this, if the pricing is right. I'm just awed at how much you get for $450 (returning team or possibly rookie)...

[vavex]

What do you mean by "250x $450"?

[basicxman]

there wil be 250 available rookie grants of $450 dollars

[Rick TYler]

I'm in Atlanta right now -- the information above is correct. I stopped by the demo field and and never saw a robot moving under remote control -- but the demo teams said they only had two weeks to build their 'bots so that's not a big surprise (at least to me). Overall, it's a lot of value for $450, and includes three SDKs in the box (Labview, RobotC, and something else -- the LegoNXT environment?). Got to run to dinner now...

[wilsonmw04]

anyone have a list of parts for the new kit?

[basicxman]

yes i would love a list of parts, like a checklist with quantities and everytihng

i only saw a slide of all the parts together for a splitsecond

[wilsonmw04]

watching the demo. One thing popped into my head: cool robots, funky game. I really hope this is just a demo and not the direction the games are going to be heading. It's not very game like is it?

[s_forbes]

Demo was cool, the new FTC platform looks rediculously capable (and cheap in price!). I can't wait to play with one.

From the video, it also looked like you can use legos on the FTC bots (the kit comes with lego motors, too). This rocks beyond belief! Vex parts are miserable for making precise little mechanisms; legos are the right size and have enough variety to build amazing mechanical components.

I really like where FTC is heading!

[gblake]

I'm in Atlanta right now -- the information above is correct. I stopped by the demo field and and never saw a robot moving under remote control -- but the demo teams said they only had two weeks to build their 'bots so that's not a big surprise (at least to me). Overall, it's a lot of value for $450, and includes three SDKs in the box (Labview, RobotC, and something else -- the LegoNXT environment?). Got to run to dinner now...If I remember correctly we ("the teams") had 4 weeks or a bit longer to build our bots. Whoever told you two weeks did not get to use all of the time that was available.

The bots can, do and did move under remote control. However, what you saw was evidence of the non-trivial software problems that we encountered in this version of the kit and field control system. I presume that more mature versions of all the different software tools will be shipped; but I wouldn't be surprised if the first season encounters a few bumps in the proverbial road when hundreds of FTCers truly start field-testing them.

Blake

[thatguy]

gblake how does the new platform compare to the Vex one?
I was only able to catch a few minutes of the webcast match :(
Anyways, how easy was it to develop a working robot with an arm and it seems as if you can use a bluetooth playstation controller? If so and you did use one, is it fun to use?

[basicxman]

yea i think the new kit contains an entire NXT kit

[gblake]

watching the demo. One thing popped into my head: cool robots, funky game. I really hope this is just a demo and not the direction the games are going to be heading. It's not very game like is it?I have a hunch that the "FIRST Response" game/challenge was chosen for several reasons; one of which was that in a disaster situation, robots and the people controlling them can be expected to cooperate, not compete.

Cooperating robots don't intentionally collide with one another (the game rules included a penalty for interfering with another bot). Robots that don't collide with each other don't convert each other into piles of LEGO rebble.

Also, with their obvious resemblance to LynxMotion parts, many of the structural metal parts in the kit FIRST gave thier "Showcase" participants seem better suited to building walking/crawling and manipulating machines, instead of the typical FTC, go-karts of recent seasons.

Based on the above, I do expect the nature of the FTC games to change in the direction of becoming more like FLL challenges rather than staying the same as in past seasons, or becoming more like FRC challenges.

Blake

[Rick TYler]

Based on the above, I do expect the nature of the FTC games to change in the direction of becoming more like FLL challenges rather than staying the same as in past seasons, or becoming more like FRC challenges.

I got some flashes of this in the last few days, but nothing I can really put my finger on. In my very strong opinion, the more FIRST makes FTC look like FLL, the more teams will avoid it. There is no way a juiced-up FLL is going to serve as "high school competition robotics for less money." The more FTC looks like FRC, the better it will be, and this will have to include permanent team numbers, wider variety of parts than even Vex has right now (and despite some obvious strengths of the the FTC kit, it will be a while before they can come close to matching the richness of parts choices in Vex), and serious competitions that resemble FRC games. For my part, I would like to see a an FTC version of "Aim High" using 2-inch foam balls. That would rock. Doing pretend under-sea exploration or toxic waste removal would cause a mass abandonment of FTC.

I'm a FIRST loyalist, and made a conscious decision to step down from FRC to FTC. If FTC becomes SFLL, I'm out of the program. I'll either go back to FRC, or switch to some other competition.

[basicxman]

Yes, technically I'm underage for FTC this year but I was either starting an FTC team or an FLL team, I looked at past games and I simply just did not like FLL. For one completely autonomous is not my style. And yes I don't think teenagers are going to quite care for imagining an oil spill happened at you have to send your robots to clean it up. Also, permanent team numbers would rock!

P.S. aim high 2009 FTC would be awesome too

[wilsonmw04]

I would tend to agree. I want a mini-FRC game, not a super FLL game.
I've been told that numbers will be permanent startin this year.

[thatguy]

Ugh I'm really starting to fear the future of this program. My school has already decided on FTC next year and since next school-year is my senior year, I want to have a super-fun robot experience.

Hopefully FIRST will give some promises for a FRC-ish like competition. Did the testers complain about the kit to the FTC people?

My school won't do FRC, so I really want something close to FRC to satiate my wants and I really felt that way with this year's FTC. Oh and my friends and I found Quad Quandry somewhat similar to Rack 'n Roll.

[fredliu168]

I got so many complaints about the kit from several teams (who will stay hidden). From my general impression of the complaints, the kit wasn't thought through very well, quite inconvinient in building (holes don't align), programming was difficult, parts were awkward to use, and it generally wasn't suited towards a FRC style game. Its closer to FLL, where the challenge of teams is to perform tasks (just look at the showcase).

I have to admit I am very disappointed in what FIRST has come up with.

(Yes I'm in Atlanta right now)

[thatguy]

So I guess all my fears are coming true. And I thought the new stronger metal would make FTC bots closer to FRC bots...

I guess at this point, only mass amounts of emails can do the trick.

(no I'm not in Atlanta right now, when I saw the webcast I believed the game's purpose to showoff the capabilities of the new kit instead of giving the idea for an actual game)

(I blame Team 74's alliance and Murphy's Law for why I'm not in Atlanta, why did they have to be so good in the latter half of the NYC regional D: )

[gblake]

gblake how does the new platform compare to the Vex one?
I was only able to catch a few minutes of the webcast match :(
Anyways, how easy was it to develop a working robot with an arm and it seems as if you can use a bluetooth playstation controller? If so and you did use one, is it fun to use?They are different:
The new kit is not a "better" kit. It is a different kit.

I and some of the other participants will need to collect our thoghts (now that we can reflect on the experience, instead of spending our time scrambling to try to puzzle out how to best use the parts FIRST gathered together to make the kits. That will take a little time.

The Vex product line is fairly well integrated into a unified offering. Sometimes when trying to solve a "game" problem, this can lead you to wonder if a different vendor makes a better mouse trap.
In the new kit, in addition to the obvious impications of including snap-together LEGO plastic parts in the kits, the version of the new FTC kit we used seems more like a mixture of several similar, but not the same, different part styles. Diversity can create strength; but it also created frustration when we had to try to blend those philosphies in a single machine.

The Vex system has considerable openness (the VexLabs fora frequently discuss how to integrate non-Vex sensors, motor controllers, etc.) with the Vex Microcontroller.
I am still fairly unfamiliar with interfaces the LEGO microcontroller exposes, but I think that they implent IC2 communication interfaces. Given that, I presume that one can find sensors or other devices that use IC2 and can write or buy communication software/drivers that can run in the LEGO NXT computer.

Attention to mechanical details has resulted in being able to easily mate almost every Vex part with other Vex parts.
Some of the new kit's parts just do not yet connect easily with others (at least if you are asking me to figure out how to connect them). Attaching a rotating part (a gear on an axle) to a stationary part was a partucularly onerous chore.

"How easy was it to develop a working robot?" At this stage of the kit's lifespan, it was not easy. The mechanics were often odd and clunky. In general, the software support still needs quite a bit of work (the vendor reps were quite helpful and generous; but the product(s) simply are not yet mature enough for release to the general-public).

Putting "Arms" on Vex bots is a challenge because the Vex Servos just don't put out much torque compared to the weight of the larger Vex steel parts; and the Vex aluminum parts are only sold in bundles (and I don't want to pay for bundled parts I am unlikely to ever use.
Putting an arm on the new FTC kits was pretty easy. The aluminum is light, the servos are strong and the LynxMotion-style parts are expecitly designed for that sort of thing.

Yes - With the right software drivers you could use a bluetooth Playstation controller. Was using the Logitech handheld remote controller (plugged into a computer that handled the bluetooth protocol and had a bluetooth dongle installed) fun? Not so much. Video game objects respond well to Playstation/xBox, etc. handhelds because software developers spend hours and hours tuning the conversions of user actions into game actions. Doing that for any realworld object is is not going to work any better than using something like a Vex transmitter if the software involved doesn't get tuned to match that realworld object's behavior. An FTC robot is a collection of realworld objects.

Blake

[thatguy]

Blake thank you for that in depth response. I have basically been researching the new FTC platform for hours a day for the last two weeks (it didn't really become an issue to us until after the NYC regional). I've been communicating the information I have found to my friends and have had some discussions with them on this situation. (I must say chiefdelphi and vexforum.com are amazing resources)

I only wish I could somehow get this information to my teacher, but unfortunately we have school off next week due to Passover.

Again thanks,
-thatguy

[gblake]

I got some flashes of this in the last few days, but nothing I can really put my finger on.I see that my hunch, and Rick's, about the style of future FTC games generated some pretty strong reactions.

Let me remind you that my crystal ball is very cloudy.

Do not over-react to hunches about how the tone of the games might change a bit.

Also, when I think about challenges to work into FTC games I often think about problems like building towers, or turning knobs, or punching numbers into a keypad, or about doing other tasks that would not involve a whole lot of bumping or pushing/shoving. Introducing a little bit of non-contact sports into the challenges might be a good thing.

Blake

[artdutra04]

Now that the new FTC system has been announced, I will share some of my opinions on the kit, based upon checking out the kit first hand over the past month while we built one of the FTC robots using the new kit. (Note: while I had some chances to play with it over the past month, most of my time went into working on our NI Prototype Robot with the new FRC control system.)


So here are my thoughts on the new FTC kits based on my experience so far:

The new FTC kit lacks any sort of continuity. Most of the metal parts are stamped with center to center hole spacing of 0.625 inches. The standoffs given to teams are in 0.5 increments. This makes it really difficult to make perpendicular things line up. If you want a relation in real world terms, the new FTC kit is like watching Back to the Future III without ever seeing the first two.

Most of the new parts are overkill [or underkill]. On a robot that weighs at most ten or fifteen pounds, do we really need structural members than can support fifty pounds of weight?

Kind of a sub point to this: the size (I call it overkill factor) of the new parts really makes working with Vex sized (dimensions between 12" and 18" cubed) robots difficult. The new Lynxmotion parts really seem best suited for larger robots, such as between 18" and 24"-ish cubed.

At the same time, the huge amount of NXT Mindstorms parts included in the kit really make anything larger than 12" cubed difficult to work with...

It's like Goldilocks and the Three Bears, the first one is too big and the second it too small. At least letting us use all the Vex mechanical parts in next years game will fill that "just right" size category.

It needs adapters to mate directly with Vex axles/wheels. While control system wise, the new FTC kit is ahead of the old Vex kits, mechanically, it is lacking way behind. And using the logic that it took Vex a few years to come out with the whole range of products they have today is missing the obvious point: Vex has all these neat products on the market right now. Not a year away, not two years away, but right now. And when we are limited to only three different size spur gears in the FTC kit, and a few different size regular wheels, and most FTC teams already have a bunch of Vex omni wheels, advanced gear kits, roller chain, etc. I feel like purposely trying to alienate one brand for another is quite a bad decision on behalf of the teams.


These are the main issues that I have with the new kits; as such right now I feel like this kit is a barely manageable attempt to cobble anything and everything together. The kit will work, it is neither an elegant solution nor an efficient robotics kit.

If FIRST is actively seeking feedback on this issue, and expresses an interest in trying to solve some of these annoying issues (or alter the format of FTC to match these new 'quirks'), then I will reconsider the above points. Until then, if I had to grade the new kit, I'd give it between a C- and a C+. It has potential if there are major changes to streamline and bring continuity to the kit, but until then it's just a lot of public jabs at Vex (which IMHO is quite unprofessional), while it suffers through a lot of swings and misses with its own kit. Our friends from Texas have the perfect phrase for this: all hat and no cattle.

[wilsonmw04]

Thanks for the reminder Blake. i would REALLY be disappointed if they limited the interaction/defense in the FTC game. I hope the demo was just that: a demo. If they were smart, FIRST would take all the feedback from the teams and make some improvements to the kit and make a great game for the first year of the kit.
FIRST got the price of the transition right. now let's work on the kit and the game.

[thatguy]

Well I'm guessing the kits that were given out for testing were the same idea. Just test kits, they weren't gonna be accurate and probably were going to go through adjustments.

So anyone have an idea of a release date. I would say take two months and adjust the metal to meet the complaints.

[wilsonmw04]

release date: i think you can buy it in June for delivery in August.

[gblake]

If they were smart, FIRST would take all the feed back from the teams and make some improvements to the kit and great a good game for the first year of the kit.When I read this it makes me want to share one more thought with CD readers:

This train has already left the station (long ago). Short of an absolutely miraculous event, or a truely monumental disaster striking; no amount of wishing, bemoaning, or recommending is going slow it down or back it up.

I think it would have been very wise to give the kit one full year beyond today to "bake in the public oven", or to have started the current process at least 6-9 months earlier. However, it didn't happen and it ain't going to happen. Take today's new kit; add a little more development time to it and tweak the parts mix a bit; and then start mass producing it for the next Fall season. Aside from being able to distribute new software versions and patches fairly easily; things in the kit are not going to change much.

If you stopped by the FTC Showcase exhibit in Atlanta over the last couple of days (and have been keeping up with FIRST's announcments), I think that you now have a very good idea about what the new kits will be. Because of the logistics and lead times involved, I think that the Showcase wasn't an experiment to see if FIRST should use the the new kit or should radically revise it. Instead, I think that the Showcase exhibition was an unveiling of what the kit will be (give or take a tweak here or there).

The train is not pulling into the metaphiorical station; it is instead accelerating away from the station.

Blake

[thatguy]

The speculation is starting to get me annoyed. I think I might patiently wait for the final specs now.

I have a feeling that chiefdelphi is going to become a major resource for next year's FTC so everyone can help each other with the new platform

[oh no i'm speculating again...]

[TheOtherGuy]

First I'd like to say thanks to everyone that helped release the information of the new kit to us homesick FIRSTers. I missed the webcast due to school today and so I had to rely on the internetz, which did, indeed, help.

CONS:
Now, it looks like this new kit is a mixture of a) new kit metal, b) vEx metal, c) legos. It also appears that it is quite difficult to mate these 3 fabrication materials, which (as far as I can tell) appears to be one of the biggest issues with the kit. The next largest issue appears to be the software, but, fortunately, those issues can be resolved quite calmly over the next 3-4 months. Unless I've forgotten something big (which is entirely possible at this hour in AZ), the rest of the "problems" are small and could be fixed easily.

As inferred above, I was not able to see the demo game so I cannot comment on the style of game for next year; we can only hope it stays the same or moves closer to FRC-style play.

PROS:
As far as I can tell, the new metal is light and strong, as are the motors, which allows users to easily create powerful, robust arm joints and mechanisms. Big pro, as it is quite... how do I say this... not difficult, but time consuming with the vEx system. Another feature would be the increased possibilities with the number of different systems now available. You could, in practice, create a vEx robot with the new controller system. Or you could change it up (quite a bit, actually) with legos or the new system. It was stated in a previous post that the legos were "too small," but this is one great feature of the addition of Legos to the kit; you can create smaller, more flexible mechanisms with Legos that you simply just can't with vEx or the new metal. And finally, the biggest pro of them all: you get the entire new kit, all 11 motors, 10 sensors, 3 programming environments, and all the hardware, for only $450 (returning or one of 250 rookies, meaning mostly everyone). vEx would cost a bit more for the same quality and quantity of parts.

So it looks to me that this kit is promising if we take the time to move forward with it and not backward. Like gblake said, the train has left the station; let's not be left behind. There are great resources abroad along with great minds, and I'm sure we can make this new kit a worthwhile investment of money and time.

[basicxman]

The speculation is starting to get me annoyed. I think I might patiently wait for the final specs now.

I have a feeling that chiefdelphi is going to become a major resource for next year's FTC so everyone can help each other with the new platform

[oh no i'm speculating again...]

theroboticsuniverse.com has made a new forum dedicated to FTC, some people found that CD was mainly around FRC and now that we dont have Vex Forum we're heading over to -> ftc.theroboticsuniverse.com

[thatguy]

theroboticsuniverse.com has made a new forum dedicated to FTC, some people found that CD was mainly around FRC and now that we dont have Vex Forum we're heading over to -> ftc.theroboticsuniverse.com

Thanks for the info, that's one more site for my bookmarks.

[gblake]

... 11 motors, ...I don't think that I have seen anyone post a breakdown of what is meant by "11 motors"

4 Hitechniic +/-90 Deg Servos ( I think they came from HiTechnic, but I'm not sure, the kit rode home in a different car than I did)
4 Beefy motors (presumably for wheels, but not necessarily)
3 Lego motors.

Describing these as 11 motors, is something of an oversimplification. Each of the types listed above is significantly different from the others.

Blake

[Andrew Bates]

Thanks for that motor break down Blake, I had been wondering about that.

All I can say is that I'm not ecstatic about this new kit. I like the new communication protocol, bluetooth it's better than RF it least. I like having some stronger motors. However everything else about the kit makes me dislike it. Especially when IFI is fixing at least the RF problem by going Wifi. However as blake pointed out it's too late now. We are going to have to make the best of it.

[GUI]

I don't think that I have seen anyone post a breakdown of what is meant by "11 motors"

4 Hitechniic +/-90 Deg Servos ( I think they came from HiTechnic, but I'm not sure, the kit rode home in a different car than I did)
4 Beefy motors (presumably for wheels, but not necessarily)
3 Lego motors.

Describing these as 11 motors, is something of an oversimplification. Each of the types listed above is significantly different from the others.

Blake

That's a pretty good variety. I'm liking the new kit because it offers teams a wider selection than the Vex kit. Instead of having to slow down a mechanism or add more motors, one can use just one or two powerful motors, but if it doesn't need to do much you can use a Lego motor. The hardware is sounding really nice too, Legos have limitless possibilities and with the strong metal in this kit as well there will be a lot of variety.

[thatguy]

Is there any knowledge if we can use our own lego sets because I have a couple of spybots and i know my school has an unused mindstorms set.

[skimoose]

I know this is the new FTC platform thread, but after seeing the new NI FRC platform in Atlanta, I must start by stating I'm very impressive. Nice job FIRST.

However, after seeing the new FTC "kit" in action in Atlanta, my first reaction was...
For a kit that was billed as "not a toy", there's more toy than the last platform (or at least more than I expected). :confused:

The metal portions and new drive motors and gears just make the plastic bits look silly. The metal is nice but overkill as stated elsewhere. A robot that's going to weigh in at 10-15 pounds doesn't need structural members that will handle 50 pounds.

We haven't seen the new robot rules yet, so it's hard to tell just exactly how good this new kit will be. I hope that fabrication is allowed so that many of the plastic bits can be non-functional decoration. COTS will be an interesting subject to see as well. It's seems clear with the 0.625" spacing on the new metal, that every effort is being made to ensure that Vex hardware will not be an easy COTS solution. This is neither good nor bad, merely an observation.

The subject of COTS hasn't been touched on much yet. If it is allowed great. If not, design just got harder again. No metal bevel gears or rack gears, no heavy duty linear bearings, and as much as teams loved to complain about the weak Vex chain, almost every team used it including last year's Champion Simbotics machine. Currently, it appears that design potential has gone down, not even stayed the same.

The issue of sensors is still up for grabs. It appears that there will be a good selection, but ease of integration will need to be seen. Also quantities that can be used will be important too. In three short years, I believe many FTC robots have matched their bigger FRC brethren in autonomous complexity.


4 Hitechniic +/-90 Deg Servos ( I think they came from HiTechnic, but I'm not sure, the kit rode home in a different car than I did)
4 Beefy motors (presumably for wheels, but not necessarily)
3 Lego motors.

Describing these as 11 motors, is something of an oversimplification. Each of the types listed above is significantly different from the others.
Blake

While its nice to see a variety in the motor arsenal, I don't think it's as versatile as previously posted. The new bigger motors are nice, the LEGO motors are interesting, but the servos are not a good choice. Having been a FTC robot inspector at the Championships the last two years, I think I've seen less than ten machines that used any servos. My own team rarely if ever chooses a servo as a solution to their needs. Perhaps two constant rotation and two 180 degree servos would have been a better choice, but I think four constant rotation servo motors with the option to substitute standard servos on a one for one basis would have been a better choice.

Lastly, the controller. The NXT is a capable controller and it should make the transition from FLL to FTC easier. However, FIRST has always said that they expected FTC teams to move up to FRC, so I feel the choice of controllers hinders that. Again, after seeing the new FRC system, I'm saddened that a lower cost version of that platform couldn't be assembled for FTC. The power distribution panel could have incorporated the two battery inputs and main breaker, circuit breaker outputs for the "beefy" motors, and power output to the controller. The controller wouldn't need eight slots for various input and output modules, just two. One for PWM and relay outputs, and one digital/analog input. A smaller wifi modem could be adopted for FTC or perhaps one of the Zigbee wireless solutions. The driver station could just have two usb ports for game controllers and no dashboard LCD display.

The NI IDE should make for a smooth transition from any of the programs. Although, I'd still prefer to see multiple programming environments for different levels of skill.

These are just my own first observations of the new platform. It's hard to clearly rate the new platform since it's not being viewed in context with the new rules. If this is a "kit system" along the lines of the old platform, its not as versatile, integrated, or useful. However, if this is more along the lines of a KOP with options for COTS and more fabrication, then it's a first step but far from complete.

I only wish that FIRST would put as much effort into FTC as they do into FRC. For the future of FIRST, all the programs are important.

[gblake]

...While its nice to see a variety in the motor arsenal, I don't think it's as versatile as previously posted. The new bigger motors are nice, the LEGO motors are interesting, but the servos are not a good choice. Having been a FTC robot inspector at the Championships the last two years, I think I've seen less than ten machines that used any servos. My own team rarely if ever chooses a servo as a solution to their needs. ...Every now and then I have to post something postive, just so that folks can't say that I'm always crabby.;) This is one of those times.

I perfectly understand and agree with what Skimoose said about the Vex kits and their servos. Because they don't have enough strength to hold up much of the Vex steel, they gather dust in my boxes of parts.

However, for me, the strong servos and light aluminum tubing were one of the bright spots in the new FTC KOP. To get a sense of what I mean, take a look at the various walking robots on the LynxMotion site; especially the one that looks like a walking stick insect. With the new servos, servo mounts, and the tubes it is very easy to make a long, multi-jointed arm that can do useful things (not lift 10 pound weights, but reasonably useful things).

Otherwise, I think your assessments of the new kit are reasonable. Some would debate them; but they certainly aren't out to lunch.

Blake

[Ken Delaney 357]

We haven't seen the new robot rules yet, so it's hard to tell just exactly how good this new kit will be.

I think this is one of the biggest issues that has not been addressed. What are the rules going to be? In the state of Pennsylvania all seniors are required to do a senior project that culminates with a presentation that is judged by a panel high school teachers. If FIRST was doing the FTC transition as their senior project they would fail! They do not to seem have answer for obvious questions that would arise from the panel. As I would tell the seniors who fail, you have had all year and this is all that you have. FIRST chose to do this project, it should be better done or at least more thought out in the areas that they control, specifically the rules.

I have another question and I am not sure if it has been answered, but will I have to buy the $900($450 if I buy now) kit every year? One of my attractions to FTC/FVC was the reuse of materials. This year my budget consisted mostly of registration fees, with about only $200 for robot materials. Stating that I still spent over $1000 dollars this year. This would drive me away from FTC.

[Lil' Lavery]

I apologize if this was announced elsewhere, but from a quick reading of this thread I didn't see an answer. Is it possible to interface non-Lego sensors with the NXT controller? Will it be legal to do so (although I doubt anyone knows this answer yet)?
I have very mixed feelings towards Lego NXT sensors from my experience with them, particularly the ultrasonic and light sensors. The more expensive HiTechnic NXT sensors may or may not be more reliable, but I have no experience with them.

[Andrew Bates]

There are several sites that sell sensors designed to be compatible with the Lego NXT. For example HiTechnic (http://www.hitechnic.com/). Is that what you mean?

[Ken Delaney 357]

Is anyone concerned with how complex/expensive the shwocase field would be to build? I spent a whole day building the filed elements for QQ, I wonder how long it would take to build the "FIRST Response" field. FIRST needs to remember one of the initial misssions of FTC, that is a low cost competition.

I hope FIRST responds to all of the concerns that FIRSTers are hvaing with the new direction of FTC

[Andrew Bates]

I never thought of that but you're right. To make that "debris" field one would have to make probably over 100 cuts and then glue each piece in the right spot...

[Jeff K.]

I apologize if this was announced elsewhere, but from a quick reading of this thread I didn't see an answer. Is it possible to interface non-Lego sensors with the NXT controller? Will it be legal to do so (although I doubt anyone knows this answer yet)?
I have very mixed feelings towards Lego NXT sensors from my experience with them, particularly the ultrasonic and light sensors. The more expensive HiTechnic NXT sensors may or may not be more reliable, but I have no experience with them.


In the rules we got for the showcase, we were allowed to make custom circuits like sensors. The HiTechnic NXT sensors are supplied in the kit and the programmer said they worked fairly reliably.

[KathieK]

Is anyone concerned with how complex/expensive the shwocase field would be to build? I spent a whole day building the filed elements for QQ, I wonder how long it would take to build the "FIRST Response" field. FIRST needs to remember one of the initial misssions of FTC, that is a low cost competition.My first thought was, where will we store all of that? Right now I have field elements and boxes of supplies all over the place and have to find a central location for all of it.

[ttldomination]

Well at least now we can see what real life challenges are.

As for the field goes, I dun think that having the entire thing is necessary. I hope that the actual games won't involve such complex fields.

[gfrankel1]

I apologize if this has already been posted. However, I feel very strongly about this. This is my first year of involvement in FTC and I must admit that I am hooked. I must also admit, however, that what hooked me is what seemed to be lacking from the FTC showcase in Atlanta - excitement.

While the new platform seems OK. The new "real world" challenges were boring...almost painful to watch. I feel that the challenge lacked the head to head adrenaline inducing challenge of the FRC and the current FTC game. I also fear that FTC is heading towards becoming a beefed-up version of FLL rather than a scaled-down version of FRC and that this will discourage kids from wanting to participate.

Thanks for listening.

Gary Frankel

[wilsonmw04]

I apologize if this has already been posted. However, I feel very strongly about this. This is my first year of involvement in FTC and I must admit that I am hooked. I must also admit, however, that what hooked me is what seemed to be lacking from the FTC showcase in Atlanta - excitement.

While the new platform seems OK. The new "real world" challenges were boring...almost painful to watch. I feel that the challenge lacked the head to head adrenaline inducing challenge of the FRC and the current FTC game. I also fear that FTC is heading towards becoming a beefed-up version of FLL rather than a scaled-down version of FRC and that this will discourage kids from wanting to participate.

Thanks for listening.

Gary Frankel

If the "FIRST Response" is the direction that the game is going, I'm not sure how excited my students will be. I strongly urge the new game committee to keep the FRC "lite" concept going.

[ttldomination]

I see what you mean. The real competitions are much more exciting.

As for the new games go, I hope that first continues to make FTC games much like the previous year's FRC games. The ones there were a real...bore...it doesn't leave much room for friendly competition.

[Andrew Bates]

I apologize if this has already been posted. However, I feel very strongly about this. This is my first year of involvement in FTC and I must admit that I am hooked. I must also admit, however, that what hooked me is what seemed to be lacking from the FTC showcase in Atlanta - excitement.

While the new platform seems OK. The new "real world" challenges were boring...almost painful to watch. I feel that the challenge lacked the head to head adrenaline inducing challenge of the FRC and the current FTC game. I also fear that FTC is heading towards becoming a beefed-up version of FLL rather than a scaled-down version of FRC and that this will discourage kids from wanting to participate.

Thanks for listening.

Gary Frankel

There will always be games like the previous FTC games. If next years FTC game doesn't suit your needs then look elsewhere. I'm sure IFI will release a new game next year similar to this years Bridge Battle.

[wilsonmw04]

There will always be games like the previous FTC games. If next years FTC game doesn't suit your needs then look elsewhere. I'm sure IFI will release a new game next year similar to this years Bridge Battle.

isn't that what's great about where we live? We do have freedom of choice. If the game doesn't suit my team we will look elsewhere. I will be disappointed but that's something we would have to do. I am VERY excited about the new kit. I am very excited to see what my kids can do with it. I am just a bit concerned about the game that we saw in Atlanta. It just doesn't seem fun. I wanted to like it. I wanted to enjoy it, but it was just plain boring.

[KathieK]

There will always be games like the previous FTC games. If next years FTC game doesn't suit your needs then look elsewhere. I'm sure IFI will release a new game next year similar to this years Bridge Battle.There are many robotics competitions, which is great! I like to think of FIRST as a program with a competition attached.

[gblake]

I never thought of that but you're right. To make that "debris" field one would have to make probably over 100 cuts and then glue each piece in the right spot...From experience with a previous showcase field - building the ramps correctly is an even bigger pain (for me at least).

[thatguy]

For now the sound of this comment has made me personally relieved

(from http://usfirst.org/community/fvc/content.aspx?id=9044 )

Game design for the upcoming 2008 season will start soon and the new game will be announced in September. We will continue to feature head-to-head competition and the use of alliances. The new platform allows FIRST to expand the level of challenge teams will face.

What it says next scares me a bit:

The 2008 game will include tasks that reflect real-world issues faced by robotics designers today. Uneven surfaces, manipulation of objects, and greater use of sensor technology will be featured.

Stupid confusion...

[fredliu168]

I'm excited and worried at the same time.

Chances are you will see our team in the Ontario FTC Competition next year. Whether I will be there... time will tell.

[artdutra04]

After thinking about potential ways to improve the new FTC kits for a while, I came to the conclusion that in addition to easily mating with all the Vex gears, wheels, and sprockets/chain, there should also be something "new" in the FTC kits. Pneumatics.

Give teams the choice of two or three different stroke lengths, and the choice of one or two air accumulators. And if you want to make it difficult, limit the number of potential motors used on the robot if they choose to use pneumatics.

Many of the issues that I had previously identified with the FTC kits (lack of a multitude of different gears and overall kit consistency) could be circumvented with use of pneumatics.

[Rick TYler]

After thinking about potential ways to improve the new FTC kits (...). Pneumatics.

Me too!!3!! How about making the IFI/Vex pneumatics legal in the new system? They don't cost too much and they are in the right scale.

[Andrew Bates]

Pneumatics are nice but I'm not sure I would use the VEX ones. They less than 2inchs of stroke. Although I'm sure they would have some uses, I don't think less than 2in of stroke is going to be all that useful most of the time. VEX Pneumatics Page. (http://www.vexrobotics.com/vex-robotics-pneumatic-parts.shtml)

[Rick TYler]

Pneumatics are nice but I'm not sure I would use the VEX ones. They less than 2inchs of stroke. [/URL]

Two inches isn't so bad on a FTC scale, but that's just detail. Having pneumatics, wherever they come from, would be one more interesting engineering element to play with -- and that's a good thing.

[yongkimleng]

or alternatively, have some DC-motor driven linear actuators...

[Andrew Bates]

You could always make your own.

[gdo]

A message from Team Unlimited.

We finally got all the pictures up of the new FTC kit online at our site (http://eaglevex.syraweb.org/FTCplatform.htm). There are two set of thumbnails:
1st set - Small images that have lower quality
2nd set - Large images that have full quality for viewing the parts in more detail.

We are still working on the images of Atlanta, but we thought the images from the new kit would be more useful to teams.