View Full Version : Limitations too far?
Looking at this year's game rules, when is FIRST going to give us detailed robot assembly instructions? It appears that FIRST is limiting on our creativity way too much, challenges are one thing but where is the line? Never before have we had so many restrictions on our robot such as wheels, playing size, trailer attachment, and now after wasted precious hours no descoring or blocking trailer. Can the FIRST GDC come up with an interesting challenge in the future without destroying competitiveness and creativity.
Chris Hunt
Looking at this year's game rules, when is FIRST going to give us detailed robot assembly instructions? It appears that FIRST is limiting on our creativity way too much, challenges are one thing but where is the line? Never before have we had so many restrictions on our robot such as wheels, playing size, trailer attachment, and now after wasted precious hours no descoring or blocking trailer. Can the FIRST GDC come up with an interesting challenge in the future without destroying competitiveness and creativity.
Chris Hunt
I agree, I feel that this game is far too limiting. Some limits (like not being able to extend outside the footprint) force you to think outside the box. Other limits (like limiting you to the vertical plane of your bumper perimeter) crush the box entirely.
I'm sure you will be very surprised at the variety of mechanisms that appear at the competitions.
Also, the original rules pretty much discarded the idea of descoring/blocking the goal when interptreted as a whole instead of rule by rule, the update merely called it out specifically.
Laaba 80
06-01-2009, 17:32
They want to see something different from the usual robots. Also, remember they have to try and make this fair for all teams, and restrictions are the way to do that.
They also want to encourage creative thinking. Honsetly how hard is it to think that you could cover up your own goal? Thats not creative at all.
Joey
I'm sure you will be very surprised at the variety of mechanisms that appear at the competitions.
Also, the original rules pretty much discarded the idea of descoring/blocking the goal when interptreted as a whole instead of rule by rule.
Not really MATT the rules started out being that you could not extend outside your box. The rules did not say that you could not incorporate something that would reach inside the goal to remove balls as long as it is inside your box.
Other limits (like limiting you to the vertical plane of your bumper perimeter) crush the box entirely.
Crushing the box makes it much easier to think outside the box. :D
Since it's kinda hard to think inside of something that no longer has an inside?:confused:
Not really MATT the rules started out being that you could not extend outside your box. The rules did not say that you could not incorporate something that would reach inside the goal to remove balls as long as it is inside your box.
As originally written and intended, rule <R08> did restrict any sort of mechanism.
They want to see something different from the usual robots. Also, remember they have to try and make this fair for all teams, and restrictions are the way to do that.
They also want to encourage creative thinking. Honsetly how hard is it to think that you could cover up your own goal? Thats not creative at all.
Joey
But being inside of the box makes you sacrafice other options of scoring, while covering, or using the trailer behind you as a hopper and removing balls from it.
Laaba 80
06-01-2009, 17:38
But being inside of the box makes you sacrafice other options of scoring, while covering, or using the trailer behind you as a hopper and removing balls from it.
I didnt mean it would be easy to design. I was talking from a strategy standpoint.
dtengineering
06-01-2009, 18:15
Looking at this year's game rules, when is FIRST going to give us detailed robot assembly instructions? It appears that FIRST is limiting on our creativity way too much, challenges are one thing but where is the line? Never before have we had so many restrictions on our robot such as wheels, playing size, trailer attachment, and now after wasted precious hours no descoring or blocking trailer. Can the FIRST GDC come up with an interesting challenge in the future without destroying competitiveness and creativity.
Chris Hunt
Well, I'm glad to see someone has figured out exactly how to build the perfect robot for this game!
Rather than seeing the restrictions on the robot as destroying creativity, I see them as requiring creativity to gain a competitive advantage within a specific set of parameters.
Specifically I see this year as having the most creative drive trains ever... given that over the past 15 years pretty much everything that can be done on carpet has been done already. This year EVERY drive train will be different from previous years.
I also appreciate the way that this challenge accounts for the extra weight of the new control system by allowing for a lighter drive train (no advantage from extra torque) and places an emphasis on developing software for the new control system. Not all creativity is visible or mechanical!
Jason
It just got worse: Nothing can extend outside of the bumper perimeter at all.
Seems like now we're relying on skill of the drivers and accuracy of the people shooting the balls, and that's it. (or are they teaching us to find every loophole possible?)
They also want to encourage creative thinking. Honsetly how hard is it to think that you could cover up your own goal? Thats not creative at all.
Joey
It was actually very difficult (and required creative chassis) given the footprint restrictions.
As originally written and intended, rule <R08> did restrict any sort of mechanism.
No it didn't.
Daniel_LaFleur
06-01-2009, 18:25
It just got worse: Nothing can extend outside of the bumper perimeter at all.
Seems like now we're relying on skill of the drivers and accuracy of the people shooting the balls, and that's it. (or are they teaching us to find every loophole possible?)
It's not 'finding every loophole possible', it's applying proper engineering to the problem and gaining advantage from the design.
From my perspective, with all the design requirements, "It's just another challange".
Oh, and by taking teams out of their comfort zone ... Kudos to the GDC.
waialua359
06-01-2009, 18:27
Someone posted how this year's game has evened the playing field.
I totally disagree.
I think the very capable teams will be able to meet the much more restricted rules and still build whatever they want and incorporate much more programming creativity to have their robots function how they want.
If anything, I felt that the '07 (ramp bots) and '08 (speedsters) had a much greater chance if they couldn't build a robot for the main objective.
Sure, there are human players scoring, but so does everyone else. There's a tall, talented "basketball" player that can be found on every team, I'm sure. :cool:
nuggetsyl
06-01-2009, 19:23
I have to agree there are far to many limitations on this year robots. To many aspects of this years robot have been decided for teams instead of challenging them to come up with creative solutions to solve the problem. I hope i am wrong but i think this year we will see the same generic robot for 90% of the teams.
Alexa Stott
06-01-2009, 19:48
They want to see something different from the usual robots. Also, remember they have to try and make this fair for all teams, and restrictions are the way to do that.
Does a start-up company looking to design the next mobile media player have the same knowledge/experience/advantages as, say, Apple? No. Apple has worked for many years designing new things and working to perfect their methods.
It's similar in FIRST. As a senior programmer on my team, I have worked for the past 4 years to learn the best way to code certain functions on the robot. I have learned how to work with sensors, etc. The same goes for the members of our build team. They have worked over many years to try and build "the perfect drive train."
Now, they want to punish people like us who have worked through mistakes to make their robot better? Teams are good because they have experienced downfalls and failures; it's a part of the game. Nobody expects you to pick up the KOP as a rookie and build 1114 or 254-quality robots. Those teams have worked very hard to build their programs. Isn't the idea behind FIRST to inspire students to pursue careers in science and technology? To give them real-world experiences in those fields? A company is most certainly not going to start restricting their older employees just to let you, "the new guy," have an advantage.
Basically, it can all be summed up in the worn adage: Life isn't fair.
XaulZan11
06-01-2009, 19:54
Now, they want to punish people like us who have worked through mistakes to make their robot better? [/i][/b]
Punish? I would change 'punish' with 'challenge'. They never said you cannot use previous knowledge/experience (for example, when faced with a problem now, you probably know how to approach it, unlike a rookie team). Instead they are forcing you to learn new/different knowledge.
smurfgirl
06-01-2009, 20:00
t appears that FIRST is limiting on our creativity way too much ... Can the FIRST GDC come up with an interesting challenge in the future without destroying competitiveness and creativity.
Yes, I can see why you are upset because of all of the limitations we have been given this season. It definitely makes building an effective robot harder. But does it really limit our creativity? It may limit our options, but it most definitely does not limit our creativity. It may sound corny, but you can do whatever you put your mind to. No one can stop the power of your mind and your creativity.
Think about it in these terms... if it were legal to build a robot with a small base and a flap extending over the bumper zone to cover the trailer, would you see teams with robots that only did that? Certainly. Because we are prohibited from this simple solution, we are forced to stretch our creativity and push the limits of what we know. We have to be more creative to design an effective robot for this year's challenge. We have to be more creative in order to be competitive. We have to reevaluate both our strategies for defense and offense. Because we are being pushed out of our comfort zone with this year's rules, it is harder to achieve a competitive edge... and this is where our creativity comes in.
Make the best of what FIRST has handed you. Complaining isn't going to change anything.
Alexa Stott
06-01-2009, 20:03
Punish? I would change 'punish' with 'challenge'. They never said you cannot use previous knowledge/experience (for example, when faced with a problem now, you probably know how to approach it, unlike a rookie team). Instead they are forcing you to learn new/different knowledge.
They make our entire knowledge of effective drive trains and manipulators that extend beyond your bumper zone obsolete. That seems like some sort of punishment.
I simply don't understand why we need to make it "fair." Teams that build effective robots will succeed in the competition.
But hey, like everyone always says, it's not really about what happens on the field, right? So why not encourage creativity? Why does the on-the-field competition need to be fair if it doesn't really matter in the end?
Matthew2c4u
06-01-2009, 20:07
Well, I'm glad to see someone has figured out exactly how to build the perfect robot for this game!
Rather than seeing the restrictions on the robot as destroying creativity, I see them as requiring creativity to gain a competitive advantage within a specific set of parameters.
Specifically I see this year as having the most creative drive trains ever... given that over the past 15 years pretty much everything that can be done on carpet has been done already. This year EVERY drive train will be different from previous years.
I also appreciate the way that this challenge accounts for the extra weight of the new control system by allowing for a lighter drive train (no advantage from extra torque) and places an emphasis on developing software for the new control system. Not all creativity is visible or mechanical!
Jason
I completely agree, The Veteran Teams, Have used a similar drive train for years, this forces all of us to step outside our comfort zone. If it was another game like last year with new kind of focus, i would not be nearly as excited as with this shaken up field.. This Year its a much more even playing field for all teams.
Furthermore, First always focuses on scoring, A descoring mechanism or blocking mechanism is Always discouraged as basically following the Gracious Professionalism idea. Last year we would've stolen both track balls and sat in a corner, but each year the focus is scoring rather than blocking.
XaulZan11
06-01-2009, 20:13
They make our entire knowledge of effective drive trains and manipulators that extend beyond your bumper zone obsolete. That seems like some sort of punishment.
I sure hope you haven't only learned about drivetrains and manipulators. If so, then FIRST has failed. I think the benifits of FIRST is that you learn the design process, the phsyics/science behind designs, problem solving, working with others, and creativity. If you are saying that your creativity and everything I just mentioned is the same as a rookie team with no experience, then what have you gotten out of FIRST? Knowing how to build the perfect 8 wheel drive to succeed in a FIRST competition won't get you too far in life. I think that FIRST is forcing experienced teams to reuse these skills instead of just coping last years drive.
I think you are underestimating the knowledge and skills veteran teams have and that advantage.
smurfgirl
06-01-2009, 20:17
Isn't the idea behind FIRST to inspire students to pursue careers in science and technology? To give them real-world experiences in those fields?
Think about what you just said... real-world experience. It would seem that FIRST gives you a lot of that. The real world is filled with constraints. Hey, guess what, so is FIRST. Think about it:
- We have time constraints: 6 weeks to build and ship a functional robot
- Budget constraints: $3500 to spend on said robot
- Weight constraints for our final engineered object: 120 lbs not including battery or bumpers
- Size constraints for our final engineered object: 28"x38"x60" maximum, cannot extend beyond bumper zone
- Constraints because we must use standardized parts: think bumper requirement, motors, control system, etc.
The list could go on; I bet you can also list some other constraints that we're under as members of FRC teams, that you see in the real-world for engineering projects as well.
And as far as FIRST inspiring students to pursue careers in science and technology- actually just even to be interested in and to respect those fields- it's doing a really good job of that. Just look around you... you can find lots of stories of it on Chief Delphi, and I'm sure you can find it in your own community, and on your own team.
Sure, sometimes building a robot can be really frustrating, because it's never going to go perfectly. However, think about the sense of accomplishment that comes at the end of a season, or even before then- I built that. Or, look at what I've learned. There are always new moments to remember, especially when you're interacting with tons of people at competitions, and I think that's one of the places where people are most inspired.
Especially with the limitations on this year's game- which, yes, can be frustrating- a lot of creativity is going to be involved, both in building a robot, and in game strategy during matches. Walking into your first competition of the season, or even watching a webcast, you will look upon the sea of robots and go "hey, why didn't we think of that?", and "wow, I can't believe they actually got that to work". You will be amazed, possibly inspired by the things you see and the stories you hear.
Just because it feels tough to design well for this game, doesn't mean FIRST isn't still inspiring students, or reflecting the processes and type of thinking involved in solving real-world engineering problems. In fact, I think FIRST is doing a really good job of it.
i think its a good thing it makes my team thing if any thing it force me to be more creative:cool:
smurfgirl
06-01-2009, 20:49
That seems like some sort of punishment.
I don't think it's punishment, I think it's forcing you to be creative. Why, you ask? Well, I explained it in this post (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=794110&postcount=17) which also answers your other complaint, below:
But hey, like everyone always says, it's not really about what happens on the field, right? So why not encourage creativity? Why does the on-the-field competition need to be fair if it doesn't really matter in the end?
Also, in response to:
They make our entire knowledge of effective drive trains and manipulators that extend beyond your bumper zone obsolete. ... I simply don't understand why we need to make it "fair." Teams that build effective robots will succeed in the competition.
Your knowledge of effective drive trains and manipulators which extend beyond the bumper zone is most definitely not rendered obsolete by this game. More than anything else, it is the process of developing said effective devices that is the important thing for you to get out of FIRST. One drivetrain (manipulator, etc.) will probably not fit all... knowing how to design a working drivetrain (or any other engineered assembly) to fit your needs is a skill which you can apply throughout your life. FIRST is being realistic, and is teaching you skills which you can use in the real world. Cut-and-paste isn't always going to get you what you need to solve problems; sometimes you have to create an original work as the solution.
Furthermore, there will never be a game that is completely fair. Why? Well... all the stuff I mentioned in my previous paragraph, the skills and the knowledge of processes and thinking and designing carry over from year to year, game to game in FRC. Veteran teams and experienced team members have an advantage, no matter how you slice it. I don't think Lunacy was designed to "be fair" by "making us all rookies again", I think it was designed to bring us real-world engineering issues, and to push us out of our comfort zones to help us learn new things instead of relying on what we already know.
thefro526
06-01-2009, 21:16
I don't think FIRST has gone too far with the limitations at all. If anything they are promoting creative thinking by giving us so many rules and guidelines. This is like a real world situtation, you have budget constraints, things you can't change and laws that need to be followed.
In addition to that, FIRST is making it so that we have to rethink our whole approach to robot construction. Long gone are the days of the "universal drive train" and classic arms. If anything this is helping us learn by forcing us to design new drive trains and manipulators that stay within the footprint. In all seriousness we've been spoiled by FIRST for the last 10 years or so. The game field's surface never really changed from carpet so we could keep building on the experience we had with drive trains. Now the carpet's gone and so are our high-traction and omni wheels which just gives us an opportunity to learn.
But really, rules are rules and no matter how many people dislike them they probably won't be changed.
One of my favorite episodes of tv of all time: Naruto epsiode 24.
There is a test. The test is very hard. Too hard. But they aren't being tested on the material of the test, they are tested on their ability to acquire the answers.(Yes, cheat). However, the room is full of ninja that are watching them. If you get caught, you fail. The point is that only an excellent ninja would be able to cheat in such a situation.
Just as only an excellent engineer can thrive in this situation. They burden us down with limitations to inspire creativity. Not to stifle it. Some of the rules will ruin some of the more colorful ideas but that just requires us to come up with yet another design. The only rule I could see that would take away from creativity is one that makes the work easier.
Daniel_LaFleur
06-01-2009, 21:19
They make our entire knowledge of effective drive trains and manipulators that extend beyond your bumper zone obsolete. That seems like some sort of punishment.
I simply don't understand why we need to make it "fair." Teams that build effective robots will succeed in the competition.
1> If your entire knowlege of drivetrains is obsolete in this game then you have not learned how to design a drivetrain ... only how to assemble the one you already have.
2> Many times, in industry, you'll need to learn how to create manipulators that stay within a framework (usually for safetys sake). Now is a good time to learn that skill as well.
3> While you look at it as punishment, I look at it as a challange. This game takes many people (Including us engineers) out of our comfort zone. I guess it's time to see who's adaptable and who isn't
4> Fair? Fair? I hardly see this game as fair. Those teams that understand the game, and the playing field, and their own teams capabilities will have a huge advantage. Personally I find it a waste of effort to complain about the game and instead put my efforts into figuring out how to best play this game.
Good luck to all (I think some of us will really need it :P )
waialua359
06-01-2009, 21:24
The limitations will work two-fold I guess.
Teams that have experience in building superior bots and drivetrains, will figure out how to do so in this year's games, separating themselves even further from the team's that build the common, average ones.
On the other hand, that will only be a handful, while the rest of the robots look very similar in concept and design...........:D :D
EricVicenti
06-01-2009, 21:33
I don't believe they are limiting our creativity. I'll admit that prohibiting us from going beyond the bumper zone is a bit far, but this is clearly what they intended with the origional rules. The game could have another dimension, but I don't think they are limiting our creativity by doing things like outlawing descoring devices. Teams are supposed to be creative with robot designs, not finding loopholes in the manual.
There are still a number of ways to drive, pick up, score, and play the game. Enjoy the freedom you have.
Laaba 80
06-01-2009, 22:05
It's similar in FIRST. As a senior programmer on my team, I have worked for the past 4 years to learn the best way to code certain functions on the robot. I have learned how to work with sensors, etc. The same goes for the members of our build team. They have worked over many years to try and build "the perfect drive train."
Now, they want to punish people like us who have worked through mistakes to make their robot better? Teams are good because they have experienced downfalls and failures; it's a part of the game. Nobody expects you to pick up the KOP as a rookie and build 1114 or 254-quality robots. Those teams have worked very hard to build their programs. Isn't the idea behind FIRST to inspire students to pursue careers in science and technology? To give them real-world experiences in those fields? A company is most certainly not going to start restricting their older employees just to let you, "the new guy," have an advantage.
Basically, it can all be summed up in the worn adage: Life isn't fair.
You got to use those "perfect drivetrains" other years. Its now time to try to try something new. They want people to step outside their comfort zones, not just do the same thing every year. You got your advantages in past years, now they are leveling the playing field a little bit. You say life isnt fair, and you are fine with it when you beat all the other teams, yet you complain when this goes against you. Seems a little contradicting to me.
Also, whats stopping you from using knowledge from past years? You need to change it up a bit, but you can use similar concepts.
Joey
Deathnmasses
06-01-2009, 23:32
In the real world we have to be able to work around constraints. Think of this as training until that time. ;)
JaneYoung
07-01-2009, 00:01
Should innovation and new challenges be sacrificed so that the teams who compete successfully in the robot competition be able to continue competing successfully in robot competitions because the basics remain familiar or the same? Is it important that veterans stay within a certain comfort zone? Is that what engineers do? Is that what scientists do? Is that why there are continued breakthroughs in science and new technologies? Why do people keep buying the latest in cell phones? To call someone? Or, to be able to use new features like submitting bar codes for searches?
I get very confused when we pick and choose what is ok and what is not ok in this community that places value on inspiration, innovation, creativity, engineering, and challenge. Esp. the first few days after Kickoff for the new season.
Herodotus
07-01-2009, 01:08
The only problem I really have with the design rules are the no descoring rule and the nothing outside the bumper perimeter rule. I separate descoring an allies trailer from blocking your own, however. I agree that teams shouldn't be able to block their own goals, but It would have been awesome if you could empty out an allied goal. The game would constantly go back and forth, it would be crazy.
And as far as I can think, the bumper perimeter rule means the only physically effective way to score is to launch the cells. I see no other option, unless maybe you have absolutely perfect control of your robot, as though driving on carpet. You can't get close enough to use any kind of dumper.
I also fear we will see a huge number of boxes on wheels. I sincerely hope I'm proven wrong, of course. I suspect the top teams will still be awesome, but I don't think there will be as many as usual.
dtengineering
07-01-2009, 02:49
I also fear we will see a huge number of boxes on wheels. I sincerely hope I'm proven wrong, of course. I suspect the top teams will still be awesome, but I don't think there will be as many as usual.
If all you see is a box on wheels, then you probably haven't looked closely enough.
I figure I've seen over 740 FRC robots in person over the past six years, and several hundred more on webcasts, the Blue Alliance, etc.
The only ones that have been the same were the very few that were intentionally built to be "twins" or "triplets"... and even then there were tiny little differences.
You are right that the top teams will still be awesome, but not because of some divinely inspired awesomeness that only they can posess. The top teams are top teams because of the people on those teams. If you want to beat 1114 all you have to do is work harder and smarter (all year round for several years). Either that or wait for the occasional match where they break down. They are only moderately dangerous when they are sitting still!
Jason
While I have heard a lot of complaints about this year’s game and it restraints, I would like to point out that this year’s game is going to allow every team, new and old to learn something new, and isn’t this one of the things FIRST wants us to do. It is true that veteran teams have been able to design very affective drive trains in the past few years because the playing surface has not changed. By changing the playing surface, as well as restricting the use of the different wheels, FIRST has forced every team to be innovative and learn in the process.
As for the restrictions, I have found that the engineering field always has restrictions or constraints of some kind. Actually, I have found that designing a robot for a FIRST competition is one of the more open ended chanlleges that you can undertake. With this said, in my opinion, the restrictions that FIRST have put in place are there to promote new and creative designs, insure that a team does not gain an unfair advantage except through creative design, for safety reasons, and so that all the robots can properly interact with certain field elements ( i.e. the trailer or the operator interface).
For those of you expecting to see robots with a common theme in their design and function, you are entirely correct. This has always happened in the past. Just because two robots are both shooters with a turret doesn’t mean they have the same design. When you look closer you may very well find that the two robots have very striking differences. I would suggest to everyone to not judge a robot by its shell. Get closer and take a look at its guts and see what it’s made of. Sometimes seeing the subtle differences in designs can be a very inspirational thing.
Box on wheels with ball coming out is exactly what a person is going to see that is not part of FRC. They are not going to see your great programming, your great mechanism or super drive system. That wider fan base wants to see that claw or that sledge hammer swinging around. Maybe this year the human player will get more cheers. "He's five for five so far. He let's one go---IT'S GOOD!!!!"
XXShadowXX
07-01-2009, 09:02
This game is forcing teams to modernize and the claws are coming out. We used IFI controllers for so long, programed in C using software that could be ran on any old computer with a serial port. On the same carpet year in and year out.
Now we have new challenges and instead of taking them in stride you cry about how hard this is, i had faith in FIRST'ers at one point
Herodotus
07-01-2009, 12:37
If all you see is a box on wheels, then you probably haven't looked closely enough.
I figure I've seen over 740 FRC robots in person over the past six years, and several hundred more on webcasts, the Blue Alliance, etc.
The only ones that have been the same were the very few that were intentionally built to be "twins" or "triplets"... and even then there were tiny little differences. I didn't mean to say every robot would be the same. I actually expect to see a large number of really cool drive trains underneath those boxes on wheels as well, and in the pits I'll be able to talk to the people who did the programming and hear from them how awesome their programming is, but when the matches start it isn't the programming that people see, unfortunately. Watching robots just driving around, not really doing anything else, has never been particularly interesting (barring a few of the ridiculously fast designs last year).
You are right that the top teams will still be awesome, but not because of some divinely inspired awesomeness that only they can posess. The top teams are top teams because of the people on those teams. If you want to beat 1114 all you have to do is work harder and smarter (all year round for several years). Either that or wait for the occasional match where they break down. They are only moderately dangerous when they are sitting still! I believe you misunderstood what I meant. I mean the top teams will still be on the top because of their members, as you say. Of course our team is going to do it's best to challenge them, like we have for years now, and we are going to push the boundaries of this game, and we are going to go out onto the field and attempt to redefine "high score, and work as hard as we ever had to beat the 1114s and 217s of FIRST.
I just don't think us doing that will look as exciting as past years, I guess. I mean god only knows, really. The matches could turn out to be intensely exciting.
Teams are good because they have experienced downfalls and failures; it's a part of the game
Teams should be good because they have good students and mentors, not because people they don't know built something good 5 years ago and they've been duplicating it since. Sure a teams experience matters, but if you view this as a punishment and feel that this makes you experience useless, well then I think you've been getting the wrong experience.
Daniel_LaFleur
07-01-2009, 14:25
Should innovation and new challenges be sacrificed so that the teams who compete successfully in the robot competition be able to continue competing successfully in robot competitions because the basics remain familiar or the same? Is it important that veterans stay within a certain comfort zone? Is that what engineers do? Is that what scientists do? Is that why there are continued breakthroughs in science and new technologies? Why do people keep buying the latest in cell phones? To call someone? Or, to be able to use new features like submitting bar codes for searches?
I get very confused when we pick and choose what is ok and what is not ok in this community that places value on inspiration, innovation, creativity, engineering, and challenge. Esp. the first few days after Kickoff for the new season.
Jane,
Those complaining are complaining because they have not learned what they need to know. Instead of learning how to design a drivetrain they have learned how to manipulate the one that was designed for them, and now it won't work and they are being asked to innovate.
To everyone else,
Go look at Janes signature. Today you are being forged in fire, and it will either break you or make you stronger. Learn, Adapt, and become an engineer ... don't just assume that because you can modify an existing design that you are an engineer.
JaneYoung
07-01-2009, 14:31
I've been thinking about limitations for the past few days with regard to the game. Naturally, that started me thinking in other directions regarding limitation, as well. In space exploration, there are limitations that push those involved to the limits in how to solve/resolve/work with the limitations and push them/explore them. The Mars rovers are an example. In order to work to solve/resolve/push/explore limitations, there has to be an acceptance of them and then an understanding of them. Another example, astronauts have to be very well-trained and they also have to think on their feet when they embark on missions, hoping all goes according to plan, but staying alert and ready to adjust as needed.
I imagine that from space, perspective can change significantly by looking out a window towards earth. Teams are being offered opportunities to check their perspectives of their own limitations and how they are created/why they are created. If they are impacted by resources and mentor support, that is one thing to work with/through. If the limitations are caused by attitude, that is another thing to work with/through.
Just as every year, there are freshmen starting out, and this 2009 game will be the game that they know as they move forward through their time in FRC and on the team. At the same time, there are seniors who have known several different games and look back at those for areas of familiarity, achievements, and setting the bar for the team. It can be hard to move the bar again without some resistance or hesitance. That is when it is a good time to look into why and how the team has acquired experience and achieved success by acknowledging the limitations, learning from them/about them and dealing with them.
Edit: Daniel, sorry - you posted while I was thinking about this post. It may somehow fit with what you wrote.
BTW, thank you.
Jane
I think the limitations (aka Rules) of this game has been wonderful for our team. We had to start with blank sheets of paper and use the ideas, concepts and knowledge we have to make new marks.
We have traditionally said that the drive train concepts must be proven in the offseason and preseason to be used during the build season. Scratch that this year. New engineering, new calculations, new simulations all took place in the past few days. Many more team members have an understanding of what goes into the design of the drive train. Friction, centers of gravity, strength of materials have been considered as never before.
As for the box that will be the robot? We ended our preliminary design session with 5 distinct, feasible and buildable designs. Our team leader commented that that was unprecedented in her 14 years of FIRST experience. And those were the designs that met the requirements for our particular strategy emphases. And with teams having different strategies, I really expect to see countless configurations of robots at competition!
Limitations too far? Not by a long shot.
If you guys are complaining about limitations now, I'm going to make a proposal for next year. I'll give you the details now, though.
It's one simple rule: "All robots shall be built using only what is in the KOP, plus $x from [insert supplier], plus a certain amount of a, b, c, and d materials from the local Home Depot." Oh, and the KOP will include items that are not in component form.
All I'll say is that it's happened before, back in the "Dark Ages" before alliances. I don't think it limited creativity one bit.
All I'll say is that it's happened before, back in the "Dark Ages" before alliances.
No alliances?! :ahh: Those were true dark ages --shudder--
The only rules I gripe about are the stipulations on bumpers, and not even the fact that we can't extend passed them...that I can easily live with. But even as I complain when a particular design concept fails, a new design comes to mind or I find a small, simple solution to a part of the problem. Really, in all honesty, I could have cared less that these solutions existed except for the fact that the rules forced me and the CAD student to find them. The students are in a similar boat with the way the conveyor design worked out, yet they're floating with it on their own until the drive train is done. To my surprise, they're not only finding solutions, but the solutions are way better than what any of the mentors could have come up with. Without these 'restrictions', none of this would have happened.
Just wait till you get into the real world when you're on the wrong side of an ambiguous problem who's solution had no real direction to begin with. Then you will have wished someone had put restrictions in place somewhere along the line.
Andrew Schreiber
07-01-2009, 20:16
Looking at this year's game rules, when is FIRST going to give us detailed robot assembly instructions? It appears that FIRST is limiting on our creativity way too much, challenges are one thing but where is the line? Never before have we had so many restrictions on our robot such as wheels, playing size, trailer attachment, and now after wasted precious hours no descoring or blocking trailer. Can the FIRST GDC come up with an interesting challenge in the future without destroying competitiveness and creativity.
Chris Hunt
A stab at what Chris was talking about, we were discussing descoring our own goal. What we found, after hours of looking at it and reading the rules, was that we could fit it into our robot. The catch? We would have given up a large percentage of the space in our robot. Who is the GDC to tell us that we can't make that tradeoff? If they wanted us to not fit it in at all they should have designed it so we absolutely couldnt do it. We designed within the rules as they stood, why should they be able to come back and say, seemingly with no explanation of why, that what we were doing was illegal?
Perhaps if the GDC would release an explanation of why they decided a rule needed clarification we would all feel a little more at ease.
Perhaps if the GDC would release an explanation of why they decided a rule needed clarification we would all feel a little more at ease.
I'm not on the GDC, but I've got one.
They thought the rule was bulletproof as it was. Then the 10 or so of them turned the game over to 10,000+ high schoolers and as many mentors, who immediately started looking for ways around the intent of the rule by using the letter of the rule.
So the GDC decided that clarification was necessary, and issued it.
Andrew Schreiber
07-01-2009, 20:36
I'm not on the GDC, but I've got one.
They thought the rule was bulletproof as it was. Then the 10 or so of them turned the game over to 10,000+ high schoolers and as many mentors, who immediately started looking for ways around the intent of the rule by using the letter of the rule.
So the GDC decided that clarification was necessary, and issued it.
Im sure you are right, but sometimes I would like to hear more from them about why things are there. I know that sometimes rules are just made to challenge us, I'm ok with that, but some rules, such as the rule about expanding beyond bumpers, would deserve an explanation. Honestly, I think that a lot of the issues many of us are having come from our lack of understanding WHY a rule must exist.
i agree this new game limits us horribly and it makes so many ideas crushed preventing innovation and big concept to first but i bet there may not be many rockie teams registered so there uping the diffuculty to veteran teams
All the rules they right are to challenge you. The more like the real world the better the challenge. In the real world, you are going to be given rules for no real good reason. A boss might tell you he doesn't like your design and not tell you what is wrong with it. He might tell you if anything is wrong with it. As for the reaching outside of the original dimensions, I don't know about you but that is one rule that I'm having trouble working with. It is because of this that I think that it is the best rule of this game.
Remember: If life was too easy, it wouldn't be worth the trouble. The same goes for the game.
for_the_horde!
07-01-2009, 22:05
i do agree. but no good to complain. we just have to deal with what we have and not what we want (i'm thinking, let us extend outside the bumpers:D ) would anyone happen to know how you are positioned during autonomous? i know that your trailer has to contact the wall, but assuming that your trailer is touching the wall, are you free to angle your robot as desired? that would help alot in autonomous, especially considering the low traction conditions.
You can angle your robot any way you want, provided you do it by eye (no measuring devices).
I've never been so frustrated while reading a topic on CD. The GDC is not going to renege just because some of their rules are considered unfair.
More and more, I see people forming opinions too early. Not just in FIRST, but in school and the real world too. If, after the championship, 90% of the robots really are the same, and few or none managed to overcome the "unreasonable" challenges, the GDC has failed. Until then, however, there's nothing constructive in criticizing these restrictions. This has been said before, but the real world is not reasonable, and restrictions don't go away because they're ridiculous. Better to accept them and spend time working around them instead.
The truly ironic thing is that most of these restrictions appear to have logical reasons behind them. If a robot crashes into a wall or other robot with an extended manipulator, there could be damage to either or both of colliders. If teams built robots that could descore balls or block their trailers, they could eliminate the need to maneuver entirely. Just because the restrictions don't seem right to teams doesn't mean they aren't there for a good reason.
Andrew Schreiber
08-01-2009, 00:09
I've never been so frustrated while reading a topic on CD. The GDC is not going to renege just because some of their rules are considered unfair.
More and more, I see people forming opinions too early. Not just in FIRST, but in school and the real world too. If, after the championship, 90% of the robots really are the same, and few or none managed to overcome the "unreasonable" challenges, the GDC has failed. Until then, however, there's nothing constructive in criticizing these restrictions. This has been said before, but the real world is not reasonable, and restrictions don't go away because they're ridiculous. Better to accept them and spend time working around them instead.
The truly ironic thing is that most of these restrictions appear to have logical reasons behind them. If a robot crashes into a wall or other robot with an extended manipulator, there could be damage to either or both of colliders. If teams built robots that could descore balls or block their trailers, they could eliminate the need to maneuver entirely. Just because the restrictions don't seem right to teams doesn't mean they aren't there for a good reason.
First, there is ALWAYS a reason to question rules. I dont know about you but any society where questioning rules of a governing party is discouraged is not one I want to part of. I highly doubt that Chris expects the GDC to change the rules now but he has an issue with something they are doing, are you telling him that he should just shut up?
As I said, I know that there are a lot of reasonable explanations for the rules, I think most of us agree with them, but there is a difference between having the person who wrote a rule tell why it was put in than having some college kid tell us that the rule is there because so and so. No offense, Im sure you are smart and understand your stuff but you are NOT on the GDC and as such really can't explain their thinking.
The scenario you described where a team eliminates the need to move entirely is just good problem solving. How is the GDC deciding they want robots to have to move a good reason? To me that is an arbitrary decision they made to make the game more exciting. Nothing wrong with wanting an exciting game. As far as teams potentially getting parts broken, that has always been part of the game, making your stuff robust enough to withstand collision.
You can angle your robot any way you want, provided you do it by eye (no measuring devices).
I've never been so frustrated while reading a topic on CD. The GDC is not going to renege just because some of their rules are considered unfair.
More and more, I see people forming opinions too early. Not just in FIRST, but in school and the real world too. If, after the championship, 90% of the robots really are the same, and few or none managed to overcome the "unreasonable" challenges, the GDC has failed. Until then, however, there's nothing constructive in criticizing these restrictions. This has been said before, but the real world is not reasonable, and restrictions don't go away because they're ridiculous. Better to accept them and spend time working around them instead.
The truly ironic thing is that most of these restrictions appear to have logical reasons behind them. If a robot crashes into a wall or other robot with an extended manipulator, there could be damage to either or both of colliders. If teams built robots that could descore balls or block their trailers, they could eliminate the need to maneuver entirely. Just because the restrictions don't seem right to teams doesn't mean they aren't there for a good reason.I fail to see how this criticism in general is not constructive, even if the GDC is not going to listen. They have showed a pattern of (occasionally!) listening in the past. But even then, that's no reason not to. That's like saying it's not constructive to criticize the President, because he's probably not going to listen. That may be true, but criticism of politicians is a cherished value here in America. Yes, it is healthy that the game have a reasonable amount of restriction, but at the same time we are not building these robots because we have a high-dollar contract to do so; we are doing it to learn. If the game prevented us from doing that, it would deserve criticism.
Now, I don't think it does; while I do have my issues with it, I do in general like this game. But there are issues that are, IMO, hard to defend, and the "no extending beyond your footprint" issue is one of them. It has been allowed in nearly all competitions before, and yes, there have been collisions, but one of the challenges of the game has been to build a robust robot.
Hanna2325
08-01-2009, 00:17
This probably has been said, but it seems like too much (due to all the restrictive rules) is being placed on hand-eye-ball-trailer coordination - not design, ingenuity, driving, etc
Still, there are some solutions, and it will be fun to see how everyone approaches this year's competition.;
are you telling him that he should just shut up?
He was doing it in a very GP way. But yeah, I think that is the message he has gotten from many of us. I don't mean to raise a fuss but I'm tired of hearing people complain because the game is hard. The fact that it is hard is what makes it worth doing.
Also, the reason they aren't giving a response as to why is because they are too busy monitoring all the teams out there that are confused by the rules or just simply trying to get around them. Let them answer the important questions of what and how. Then, ask them why. Until then, you should be busy with the bot.
GaryVoshol
08-01-2009, 08:01
A stab at what Chris was talking about, we were discussing descoring our own goal. What we found, after hours of looking at it and reading the rules, was that we could fit it into our robot. The catch? We would have given up a large percentage of the space in our robot. Who is the GDC to tell us that we can't make that tradeoff?They're the GDC. ;) No, seriously, they can change things as they see it necessary. Much better now than after Week 1 Events.
If they wanted us to not fit it in at all they should have designed it so we absolutely couldnt do it. We designed within the rules as they stood, why should they be able to come back and say, seemingly with no explanation of why, that what we were doing was illegal?
Perhaps if the GDC would release an explanation of why they decided a rule needed clarification we would all feel a little more at ease.
Team Update 1 did provide some rational for the rule changes - they were clarifying what they thought they had already said.
I'm not on the GDC, but I've got one.
They thought the rule was bulletproof as it was. Then the 10 or so of them turned the game over to 10,000+ high schoolers and as many mentors, who immediately started looking for ways around the intent of the rule by using the letter of the rule.
So the GDC decided that clarification was necessary, and issued it.
I agree with Eric. When you work with the concept of a game, and then try to put that concept into rules, part of what should have been written down might get missed. It's crystal clear to the committee what their intent was (in their minds); getting that clarity across to all the teams is something else.
If the Rules had statements from Kickoff saying, "Thou shalt not block thine trailer." and "Thou shalt not descore." and "Thou shalt not exit thy bumper perimeter." would we be having this discussion? We all would have gone, "Aw, crap, there goes that idea." and then got on with the design process. We wouldn't have anything to argue about. (Well, there's still <G14>, but ... :p )
So the bigger question becomes how can the GDC ensure that the rules come out as intended, the first time? I have one thought on that which I can't share now but will follow up on through proper channels as the season progresses. Anyone else with ideas is free to contact FIRST individually or make their feelings known in the feedback mechanisms that are available each season.
Al Skierkiewicz
08-01-2009, 08:27
I think you are all right. The GDC went overboard this year.
Do they think we can face the challenges of everyday life on a 1/6 gravity moon?
Do they think we can exist with a limited size robot?
Do they think our teams can handle a weight limit of 120lbs?
Do they think we can overcome programming issues for driving on ice?
Do they think we can use new electrical parts and be effective?
Do they think we can overcome these adversities and survive?
Do they think we can use humans as an effective addition to a mechanical strategy?
Do they think we can figure out how to pick up those balls made of plastice and spandex?
Do they expect us to do all of this in just six weeks?
And the answer to all of these questions is YES! This is the 40th annivesary of man's first step on the moon. Remember kickoff? The average age of the engineers working on Apollo was 28 at the time of the landing, making them 18 when John Kennedy challenged them, "First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him back safely to the earth." You guys have 40 years of technological advantage over those engineers and all you have to do is get your robot to move a few feet and pick up some toys. Let's get moving!
The gdc could solve alot of problems at kickoff by changing that one segment were they play some kind of tv game. One hour before telecast they take a group and show them everything. Have them sign something or take away their phones. Then use their questions in that segment. I think the questions of blocking and descoring would have been brought up.
GillSt.Bernards
08-01-2009, 14:17
They are trying to even the playing field between the teams but that is not going to happen no matter what they do. Teams with more experience are going to have an easier times then rookies and second year teams. I am not sure it is worth it though.
They are not letting us get extremly creative this year because they're are so many rules. I guess we will have to find different ways to be creative then ew have in the past.
They are not letting us get extremly creative this year because they're are so many rules.
No, they are not letting us get 'extremely creative', they are forcing us to be 'extremely creative'. The fact that this game has so many rules, forces us to be 'extremely creative'. Be grateful for the challenge, it is preparing you for life.
They are trying to even the playing field between the teams but that is not going to happen no matter what they do. Teams with more experience are going to have an easier times then rookies and second year teams. I am not sure it is worth it though.
They are not letting us get extremly creative this year because they're are so many rules. I guess we will have to find different ways to be creative then ew have in the past.
Please do not attribute reasons to the GDC, especially ones that Dave has already addressed elsewhere (I believe it was in the <G14> thread, or one of them).
And, once again, if you guys are complaining about limitations now, I'm going to make a proposal for next year. I'll give you the details now, though.
It's one simple rule: "All robots shall be built using only what is in the KOP, plus $x from [insert supplier], plus a certain amount of a, b, c, and d materials from the local Home Depot." Oh, and the KOP will include items that are not in component form.
All I'll say is that it's happened before, back in the "Dark Ages" before alliances.
Now go look at those robots from the early to mid 90's. (Aside from many of them being built to handle balls...) What do you see? Creativity.
GillSt.Bernards
08-01-2009, 14:24
No, they are not letting us get 'extremely creative', they are forcing us to be 'extremely creative'. The fact that this game has so many rules, forces us to be 'extremely creative'. Be grateful for the challenge, it is preparing you for life.
That's true.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.