[FTC]: FVC (Vex) VS. FTC (Tetrix) [Archive]

NalaTI

13-08-2009, 13:35

<snip> no omnis,<snip>
Actually there is an Omni this year... you can find it at ftcrobots.com (where you get the official parts).

(Tetrix) is much less well made
<snip>
I have not competed in VRC though, or the "new" FTC.
Interesting, Your opinions are pretty vehement for someone that hasn't used the new equipment... my team has, and one of the things (last year) that was allowed was using VEX structural materials. We did that for some basic shielding and found that the VEX parts had to be filed and cleaned up because of rough edges to pass inspection, the Tetrix stuff didnt. The VEX stuff definitely seemed cheaper and flimsier - enough so that we were glad we didn't use it for framework materials.

requires you to machine your own aluminium and polycarbonate parts for some features
That can be taken as a good or a bad thing... if you want to have the opportunity to construct your own unique part, you can do that...

Some of the points Chris raised are extremely valid, the parts are more expensive, there's some gears and some other stuff that's also missing. But, it seems to me that each system has it's advantages.

It's going to be an interesting discussion, I think you will find that there will be a lot of vocal opinions from the people that used VEX in the FTC and didn't transfer to the new system. They have a huge investment in parts and knowledge that is hard to discount. But those of us who started last year have no such issues.

Akash Rastogi

13-08-2009, 13:36

I would have to 100% agree with Chris.

Just because of the way some things in FIRST work, we had to have two FTC teams but also signed up VRC teams for the new year. Nobody on the team wanted to even spend money on, what we thought, was the over hyped FTC tetrix kit. If we didn't also have a FTC team though it would look bad for a team's image.

Our kids really hated the kit from this year. The cost was nowhere near competitive enough to keep us out of VEX and the quality of the VEX parts is that much better as well.

If we had the choice that didn't make the team look bad for dropping FTC altogether, we would just have 5 VRC teams at the high school. The school even questioned why we spent money from the budget on FTC kits if the kids didn't like them.

bellpride

13-08-2009, 14:57

If we had the choice that didn't make the team look bad for dropping FTC altogether, we would just have 5 VRC teams at the high school. The school even questioned why we spent money from the budget on FTC kits if the kids didn't like them.
I don't think other teams would think worse of you if you choose to make that decision. When FTC switched to the Tetrix kit, 254 and 1114 both switched exclusively to VRC (1114 already had a VRC team), and a quite a few FRC teams started VRC teams this year, like 148. Others like 294 chose to keep both and participate in three programs.

I don't think there can be a clear comparison between the two. IFI has chosen to keep costs low and to provide a cheap(er) way for students to participate in robotics, but FIRST seems to have other ideas. We are very happy with our VRC program - we fielded 5 teams last year, and will probably register more this year. In the end, they both give kids about the same experience (I think VRC is better since there are many more teams involved), but VRC does so for far less money, especially as for veterans and multi-team programs.

Rick TYler

13-08-2009, 15:30

I don't think other teams would think worse of you if you choose to make that decision. When FTC switched to the Tetrix kit, 254 and 1114 both switched exclusively to VRC (1114 already had a VRC team), and a quite a few FRC teams started VRC teams this year, like 148. Others like 294 chose to keep both and participate in three programs.

We've never done FRC, but we had three FTC teams in 2007-2008 (and two the year before) when FIRST used VEX. In 2008-2009 we had five VRC and three FTC teams. No one in the local FIRST community has said a single negative word about our participating in VRC. I wouldn't worry about it in any event, but it's good to remember that the FIRST volunteers and students who "get it" won't care which program you participate in as long as you remember the mission of service to youth.

I don't think there can be a clear comparison between the two. IFI has chosen to keep costs low and to provide a cheap(er) way for students to participate in robotics, but FIRST seems to have other ideas.

Based on what our students want to do and the realities of the relative costs, we are fielding one FTC team and 6-8 VRC teams this upcoming year. The deciding factors came down to three things: product ease of use and reliability, cost, and our experience at championship events. Most of our students prefer the VEX platform, the mentors prefer the cost of VEX, and the VEX World Championships are a LOT more fun for the middle-sized robotics teams than Atlanta. I know FIRST tries, but Atlanta is for FRC -- we felt like second-class citizens at Championships (at least in 2008).

Somewhere around here I have an Excel spreadsheet that some team put together comparing the programs in detail. Send me a PM if you would like a copy. This is NOT my spreadsheet, by the way, I'm just passing along someone else's evaluation. Unfortunately, I do not know who wrote it originally. YMMV.

ttldomination

13-08-2009, 15:59

The VRC vs. FTC is a debate all on its own.

For VRC, I like the fact that there is simply more that you can DO with the VEX kits. There's virtually nothing stopping you.

In FTC, I find that the competition experience on its own is nice, although this past season, the issues surrounding the new kit (mainly programming/connectivity) got to be extremely frustrating, but I would like to do it again simply because of what we CAN do. I love have metal gears, I love having stronger motors to work with. I don't like how the weaker motors aren't very compatible with the new kit.

It's an interesting thing, but I can say that they both carry their own little charisma.

Rich Kressly

13-08-2009, 17:12

Disclaimer:
I'm a part time VEX consultant with IFI as most of you know, however...

I'm also a huge advocate for FIRST and its ideals and, as a full time teacher, I also run an FRC team - we run Jr. FLL Expos and I just ordered an FLL kit for a team in my home community. When I was serving on the FTC GDC during the time when FIRST was changing platforms to the new one, I had a decision to make. There are only so many hours in a day, only so many good causes I can get involved with, and I always look for the opportunity to inspire the most students possible as part of fulfilling FIRST's mission.

Also at the time of the changeover our school district had started a robotics course, we were heavily invested in VEX equipment, and we heavily invested in teacher and student training as well. VEX in the curriculum, VEX after school as a "junior varsity" to our FRC team, VEX as part of our affordable and portable outreach program. It all made sense for me and for our team to stick with VEX going forward. 1712 members have volunteered at FTC events and I did what I could to help transition work of the FTC GDC, but it was clear to me how I could most efficiently serve our mission.

I suppose it all comes down to what you want out of the experience and how you desire to serve the mission. If your organization can handle the higher fees and equipment prices and you want to have a team experience competing in FTC with FIRST, great for you. If you want to have teams in both FTC and VRC and you can afford it and you have the expertise to pull it off, good for you.

If you want to inspire the highest number of students possible, integrate in the curriculum in middle school or high school, want to be able to demo multiple robots at the same time without the need for laptops and bluetooth communication, then to me there really is only one choice at this point in time in history and in the foreseeable future.

I'm good friends with some who serve FTC and I wish them the best going forward to serve so many students who have yet to be reached by any robotics/STEM activity. I'm hoping not too many folks out there are worried about "image." Almost everywhere I go, our team gets great feedback on all of our activities regardless of program affiliation. NASA, FIRST's biggest supporter, has always supported a wide variety of related STEM activities, including Botball and VRC. I believe there's even a "Dave Lavery Award" in Botball.

I know not everyone shares my opinion of this, but our program at 1712 will go forward proudly with FRC, VRC, and a host of other things if they make sense for us too. We proudly display both logos on our website at dawgma.lmtechclub.org and we proudly market our program, documenting the strengths and benefits of all we are involved in. If someday that ever hurts my team's "image" in the eyes of anyone related to FIRST, then so be it. I can't help for, nor do I worry about anyone else who may be shortsighted as to the goals of our mission. The REAL elephant in the room here is "does this hurt my team's chances of winning award xyz?" I would submit that it would all be helpful, however if a judging panel were to view it otherwise, then I suppose it would be an award my team wouldn't care too much for anyway.

namaste
-do what serves the mission best in your community.

Akash Rastogi

13-08-2009, 17:31

Chris is me

13-08-2009, 20:26

Interesting, Your opinions are pretty vehement for someone that hasn't used the new equipment... my team has, and one of the things (last year) that was allowed was using VEX structural materials. We did that for some basic shielding and found that the VEX parts had to be filed and cleaned up because of rough edges to pass inspection, the Tetrix stuff didnt. The VEX stuff definitely seemed cheaper and flimsier - enough so that we were glad we didn't use it for framework materials.

I haven't competed with the equipment or done any extensive bench testing (as I'm not a real engineer), but these were my first impressions. You're right in that my opinion should hold a lot less weight than those who competed with it, but these are sentiments many of my peers share, or at least the ones I've talked to.

That can be taken as a good or a bad thing... if you want to have the opportunity to construct your own unique part, you can do that...

I kind of think that should be FRC turf, personally. If you get a leg up by finding a machine shop and making stuff, why not just go full size?

I'll leave discussing "FTC is good" to the people that have competed with it, but in my short time working with the material I hated it.

jbbjjbt

14-08-2009, 07:55

We do VEX and I have reffed FTC so I have some experience with both.

The thing to remember is that they are tools and the experience depends on the teams and mentors that the students work with. Both are great and provide lots of fun learning opportunities.

You have to look at your area and which can provide your students with the best experience. Here in Indiana VEX is big and there is little FTC activity so VEX is the way to go here.

To put a plug in for VEX I will say that the international experience at the VEX World Championship is amazing.

We're from Virginia and have competed in Virginia, Maryland and Delaware in FTC using both Tetrix and Vex systems. In VA, FTC is very popular with over 60 teams. In Maryland both FTC and VRC are popular. At the state level FTC has been a fantastic experience with incredibly caring and dedicated volunteers.

Could you tell us more about the VEX World Championship experience?

Thanks,

JesseK

14-08-2009, 11:22

The REAL elephant in the room here is "does this hurt my team's chances of winning award xyz?" I would submit that it would all be helpful, however if a judging panel were to view it otherwise, then I suppose it would be an award my team wouldn't care too much for anyway.
This hit the nail right on the head. Teams can get burned out on awards. I know mentors do, all the time. There are two major points I'll make:

We've moved away from being 'Team 1885' driven for our county-wide initiatives and more 'Prince William County' driven. We take all of our FIRST 'awards' and used them as leverage for more corporate support, and now we're seeing huge county-wide benefits for it. Simply put, it's become such that we no longer need FIRST's recognition (via awards) to garner corporate support for county-wide activities. The school board has been a key stakeholder in this process, yet I can honestly say that I believe FIRST falls short in recognizing that potential on a national level.

Any 9th grade student would easily become overwhelmed by our history and the 5 robotics initiatives 1885 and 2068 have started in the county since our inceptions. Eventually all of our robotics students participate in these initiatives via mentoring, so it can be overwhelming for a first-time student.

That said, 1885 did FTC last year so that our students would be better-versed in LabView should we use it in future years in FRC. I like the simplicity of the 'new' FTC and the fact that championship-attending FTC teams in 2009 had double the average regional score. On the contrary, VEX can be extremely complicated to do if students only use the kit for 1 year of competition. We also told ourselves 'Let's face it -- our students will never be able to compete on the same level as VRC teams who have 4th-year students'; that and other reasons made the choice very obvious for our specific situation.

FRC isn't sustainable in all 10 county high schools, so we had to figure out how else to continue the vision of FIRST, including exploring other non-FIRST avenues. That said, VEX is primarily done in our middle schools in STEM-specific classes though it started as VEX only, not VRC or FTC. FLL is now being done in middle schools' general curriculum and some elementary school extracurricular activities, and jFLL will be done in many elementary schools. On top of that, we have the only* underwater robotics competition curriculum in the country that's implemented in all high schools county-wide (SeaPerch (www.seaperch.org)). Finally, since I'm completely against students getting to have all of the fun, the proposed new VEX controller will probably be exactly what I want for my master's program research project, which won't start until January 2011 (so get working on it IFI!).

The whole FTC vs FVC debate, to me, is moot. Do what fits in your local situation, but never lose sight of the big picture. Awards matter for leverage and egos only, so use them wisely and move on. Judges seem to get bored after two hours of explaining the what's, why's and how's for everything a team has accomplished so don't burn yourself out on it. FIRST is nearing perfection for mentor-based science & engineering education on a large scale, yet I believe students still need to be "given a kit, go off to a corner, build a robot in X time, and compete with it" ** at some point so they can learn their own individual potential.

*that I've found
**sorry Dave :/

bellpride

14-08-2009, 14:51

Could you tell us more about the VEX World Championship experience?
I was at Atlanta in 2008 and Dallas in 2009, and I think that the VRC championship in Dallas was a much better experience, mostly because:

We felt like a sideshow at Atlanta (somebody already mentioned this). Obviously, there were teams with large cheering sections in FTC (Overdrive, Driven), but for the most part the crowd watching the FTC fields was pretty insignificant compared to the ones on Newton and Archimedes on either side and Einstein behind us.
Dallas had more than twice the teams that Atlanta had, partly because the registration was a quarter the cost. IFI also chose to mix different divisions in the pits, which provided much better opportunities to meet other teams than the separated pits in FTC 2008.
Because the registration fees were so low in VRC, schools could afford to field multiple teams (involving more people). There were 3 people in 254's FTC pit, but 15 in our VRC pit, divided among 5 teams.
The team party was significantly better than Atlanta. It doesn't really matter to FRC teams, but the Atlanta party is also the day after FTC ends.

VRC also has large regional tournaments like Championship of the Americas and the Pan-Pacific Championship, which provide the same atmosphere as Dallas for a slightly lower cost.

gblake

15-08-2009, 11:44

Something to add to JesseK's list of comparisons is the list of 5 (at least) open VRC tournaments available within a 2 hour drive of Virginia's Prince William County; and the two (a scrimmage plus a regional) "closed" tournaments the county schools are going to put on for the school system's middle schools.

I enjoy being able to take my team to several VRC Regional tournaments each season (Starting Oct 31st this year and ending shortly before the World Championships). I enjoy seeing the 5-ish teams from two county high schools out there cooperating and competing with us.

I enjoy organizing one of those tournaments; and I enjoy volunteering in the rest (and in the FTC events, and in some FRC events). These several VRC Regionals aren't quite as fancy as the MD and VA FTC championships, but they are more plentiful.

For both FTC and VRC I like that good middle schools students can hold their own against older students.

For both FTC and VRC I enjoy that 4H clubs, home schooling groups, and plain old clusters of friends are finding their way into the programs; and are often excelling.

I think FTC has an edge in explicit connections to college scholarships. For students nearing the end of high school that can be an important reason to form an FTC team.

I like that VRC has a college-level division. Our local community college system just used Vex parts in a couple of summer workshops for students. Now, if they care to, they can use the workshop's equipment to enter the college level competition.

Finally, being able to easily (I think) organize an official VRC regional by finding a modest number of teams, a modest amount of money, and then just following the tournament rules, is one aspect of VRC's lower barriers-to-entry that I like about the VRC program. I feel like it is a good step in the direction of having STEM/Robotics become a part of each community (like little league baseball, soccer, dance lessons, Scouts, etc.). The SEAPerch program Jesse mentions has similar low barriers-to-entry advantages.

Blake

Rick TYler

14-09-2009, 15:01

I've collected some "typical" cost data for FLL,VRC, and FTC. The FLL and FTC cost data came from FIRST WA and USFIRST sources, and the VRC data came from me :) (we are in our fourth year running a multi-team VEX program, so I consider "me" a pretty reliable source). I've included FLL as it is FIRST's middle-school program, and VRC is also used by a number of middle school programs.

Disclaimer: Like Rich Kressley, I consult for IFI.

I estimated costs for a classroom-sized team with four robots for all programs, and estimated costs for the initial year of competition, and then the second year when fewer parts must be purchased. None of the cost estimates include shipping or taxes. Link to spreadsheet: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2285

First year cost estimates for four teams:

VEX Robotics Competition: $3,596
FIRST LEGO League: $3,095
FIRST Tech Challenge: $6,796

Additional year cost estimates for four teams:

VEX Robotics Competition: $800
FIRST LEGO League: $1,365
FIRST Tech Challenge: $2,796

If you go to the linked spreadsheet it is pretty easy to change the values to ones that seem good to you. I hope you enjoy playing with the spreadsheet, and make sure you look at the "Expense Graphs" tab, too.

JesseK

14-09-2009, 16:36

Using "me" as a credible source sometimes leads to the paradox of knowledge: you can't unlearn what you now know as fact and don't remember not knowing so long ago.

Sigh, the rest is in a PM. :rolleyes:

Rick TYler

14-09-2009, 18:58

JesseK sent me a thoughtful PM, and I encourage you to do what JesseK did -- pull up the spreadsheet and enter your own figures.

This year, VEX is introducing a new WiFi controller and field management system, which some tournaments will require this year and others won't. The spreadsheet has a line item for this, which was left blank when I ran my numbers. If you include the $149 upgrade as a first-year expense, and purchase an extra remote control and some extra $20 motors, the first year VRC expense for four teams goes up to a little under $5,000.

Similarly, I based the FTC numbers off of what FIRST says, including $300 for "additional parts." Last year, our FTC teams spent far more than that -- at least $500 per team, mostly for extra gears, motor and servo controllers, and replacement motors. Since the new FTC rules seem to allow ANY LEGO component, and not just the ones in the FTC kit, I foresee teams spending more on LEGO than they did last year. Your mileage may vary, so pull up that spreadsheet and put in your own numbers.

JesseK also said that the recurring costs are higher than I estimated. In our experience, we plan to budget about 20% of parts cost per year in upgrades and replacements. I used lower figures than that for both FTC and VRC, but for MY teams (who tend to spend pretty heavily) we would use the higher numbers. I included lower numbers for recurring costs than our own teams' expenses, but we also buy things like aluminum frame kits and all the new parts that come out, so we are at the high end. I see lots of successful VEX robots that clearly cost less than ours. We are also a fourth-year program that has never stopped raising money, so we can afford the new toys.

Honest, I wasn't trying to pull a fast one here. Use the spreadsheet (or don't) to figure out the financial aspect of which is the best program for you. Obviously, money is only one aspect of this decision, so don't forget to look at other things like how well a certain program meets your own educational goals, local tournament availability, and local volunteer support.

Akash Rastogi

14-09-2009, 19:07

LOL

so this morning I got an email from our robotics teacher that the kids in our Elementary Robotics course chose the VEX game and kit over the FTC game and kit. 22 kids in each of the elem robotics classes didn't want to work on the FTC robot at all....that's kinda telling me something important.:rolleyes:

I liked the FTC game A LOT this year and I'm pretty bummed I won't be mentoring a team to build a robot for it.

Chris is me

14-09-2009, 22:41

I'd pick the Vex kit, but the FTC game personally... I'm surprised that not one person would want to do FTC...

Anyway, this means that you and I have to make a team! :D

ttldomination

15-09-2009, 07:17

artdutra04

15-09-2009, 14:41

I'm pretty sure that these students were given some prior information other than simply "Hey, choose one." That would probably have influenced their decision.Actually playing with the kits will usually do it.

With Vex, they have lots of wheels and tank treads and spur gears and roller chain and omni wheels and bevel gears and differential gears and worm gears and high strength chain and grippy tank tread attachments and intake rollers and motors that don't burn out and a huge variety of metal parts and linear glides and the list goes on and on.

Whether there is a FIRST or VEX banner at the competition, the kids still have fun and still get inspired. (And isn't that the whole point of this? To inspire kids?) So it comes down to the kits (and costs), and practically everyone I've talked to (students and mentors) gives the advantage to Vex in both categories hands down.

NalaTI

15-09-2009, 20:51

This is really kind of a religious/political argument (like Mac vs PC)

Both sides have reasons they like what they do, and there are people that are adamant that they are right and there are people that can go either way.

artdutra04 wrote:
Whether there is a FIRST or VEX banner at the competition, the kids still have fun and still get inspired. (And isn't that the whole point of this? To inspire kids?)

That's really the most important thing.

When you compare the two, the students that have used both and prefer VEX have good points. But the people that I've talked to that made the decision to switch from VEX to Tetrix also have really good things to say about the new stuff.

VEX is a more mature product, Tetrix is the new upstart. Yes, strictly from a cost standpoint VEX is cheaper. Strictly from a structural quality, Tetrix is better. We could go on and on with a comparison, but really it's more of a preference thing.

We decided to go with Tetrix because A) we'd never used either, B) we wanted to stay within the FIRST organization, C) since it was new, and so were we, we'd all (all the teams) be starting at the same level playing field.

If I was a brand new team that had no experience with either VEX or FTC this year, I'd probably come to exactly the same decision, for exactly the same reasons...

JVN

15-09-2009, 21:18

Strictly from a structural quality, Tetrix is better.

Want to explain that one?

NalaTI

15-09-2009, 21:34

Want to explain that one?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_sTlYdhwqT5w/R9A2KgMkx2I/AAAAAAAAABw/BpN_Ajyoaxk/s1600-h/channel-weights.jpg

Rick TYler

15-09-2009, 21:36

Want to explain that one?

Their 2008-9 robot makes good use of VEX materials: http://www.technoguards.org/sites/default/files/images/DSCN1638.jpg.

Chris is me

15-09-2009, 22:03

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_sTlYdhwqT5w/R9A2KgMkx2I/AAAAAAAAABw/BpN_Ajyoaxk/s1600-h/channel-weights.jpg

I can't say I've ever bent a structural component of any Vex robot I've worked with (other than shaft, usually end up case hardening it). The metal material is rigid enough in my opinion... and considering it's half the price I can't really complain.

I still stand by my statement that Vex is an all around better platform. I don't like to use computers just to drive my robot, I like having my own controllers at competitions, I like having tank treads and not having to machine any parts at all (I have never had to build a vex robot with more than a hacksaw), I like IFI... if there are flaws in the Vex kit it's in the sprocket / chain system and plastic gears under high loads, but you can design around those and it's not like FTC's one upped Vex there.

bellpride

15-09-2009, 23:11

Strictly from a structural quality, Tetrix is better.
When a robot (any "middleweight" robot) is bending VEX metal, it's time to reconsider the design...

...and motors that don't burn out...
I've always been curious, because last year I had the impression that Tetrix motors were better than VEX ones. Looking at FTC matches at Atlanta, the robots weren't moving that much faster than VRC ones in Dallas. Is that because they were geared way down?

gblake

15-09-2009, 23:28

For those of us old enough to remember the ad campaign

tastes great
less filling

Tastes Great!
Less Filling!

Tastes Great!!
Less Filling!!

TASTES GREAT!!!!
LESS FILLING!!!

Etc.
;)

Rick TYler

16-09-2009, 01:18

For those of us old enough to remember the ad campaign

tastes great
less filling

That's funny, I was thinking of the Pepsi Challenge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepsi_Challenge

NalaTI

16-09-2009, 07:09

Their 2008-9 robot makes good use of VEX materials: http://www.technoguards.org/sites/default/files/images/DSCN1638.jpg.

Yep, it was a good, inexpensive bumper material. However, that was also the only material piece that we had to go back and smooth out the edges for safety. If there was some form of plate we would never have used it.

This year, VEX parts are not allowed - so we'll do something else!

NalaTI

16-09-2009, 07:15

When a robot (any "middleweight" robot) is bending VEX metal, it's time to reconsider the design...

Yep, definitely true!

I've always been curious, because last year I had the impression that Tetrix motors were better than VEX ones. Looking at FTC matches at Atlanta, the robots weren't moving that much faster than VRC ones in Dallas. Is that because they were geared way down?

The speed of a motor is not the same thing as the power of a motor. I saw some VERY fast (Tetrix) robots where they were geared up, and still had plenty of power. The problem with speed is controllability - If you go too fast, you can't do what you want either!

---

I don't disagree with any of the points that are made by people that prefer VEX. I've not used it in any great detail, so can't speak in valid comparison. What gets me annoyed is when I see someone bashing the Tetrix stuff without their ever using it as well.

As a Tetrix user, I realize there are lots of shortcomings to this system. But now it's what we've learned and know. Are we going to go spend the money for a new VEX kit, and then work to join an organization that isn't related to where we've been? Doesn't seem likely even if VEX was "better".

It seems to me that the best judge would be some new engineering students that have not used either... We don't have any of those here - so that's what makes this whole Religious/Political argument kinda pointless.

ttldomination

16-09-2009, 07:30

hahaha. this debate sounds a lot like another one of those with no answers. :P

I've worked with both platforms and I must say, that I was extremely dissappointed with Tetrix, simply of the compatability of LEGO parts was poor, and then the hardware option is pitiful compared to VEX, but if we look at the competitions...

I prefer FTC over VRC, especially this year with the two games. To me, hot shot just seems more exciting than clean sweep, and I don't think I need to explain this. Not to mention that this year, FIRST's extra materials list is extremely beast, and the designs are even more flexible than last year.

What I'm interested to see is the VEX high powered motor. Right now, the Tetrix kit offers super-motors compared to the VEX/Lego motors. But these more powerful motors allow for more powerful/robust designs. When VEX releases the powerful motors, I think that favor will go back towards VRC, because then, you can do almost EVERYTHING with more powerful motors, which you really can't do in FTC.

JesseK

16-09-2009, 08:45

So generally speaking, teams who have 4 VEX motors on their drive train and a 25-lb VEX robot will typically not move as fast as an FTC robot that weighs 25lbs with 2 motors on the drive train (#'s below). Yes, there are tradeoffs. It will be interesting to see where teams decide to fit all of the electronics for 8 Tetrix motors, 3 lego motors, 4 Servos, and a bajillion sensors...

FTC's structural components leave ALOT ... wait ... ALOT to be desired. They're difficult to work with to do tricky things, and I think part of the challenge for this year will be getting those structural components to become something that can move the balls into the goals. Alas, to FTC's aid, the GDC has allowed many extra materials.

----

FTC motors output just over 1.5 N*m of torque at 150 RPM whereas the VEX motors output 0.73 N*m at 100 RPM. (is that math right? I don't remember a 0.73 when I did it a long time ago...). For comparison, an FRC FP motor driven thru an AM Planetary has the same torque as the FTC motor but at a much higher RPM (4800-ish).

The tradeoffs: FTC motors require more complicated electronics, whereas the VEX motors already have a built-in controller. FTC motors require more power, which reduces performance at the end of the match if the robot constantly draws excessive power due to poor gearing choice.

BLAQmx

16-09-2009, 10:05

I don't like to use computers...

(out of context) this made me chuckle. It sounds like you are being dragged into the future kicking and screaming :D

Rick TYler

16-09-2009, 10:31

So generally speaking, teams who have 4 VEX motors on their drive train and a 25-lb VEX robot will typically not move as fast as an FTC robot that weighs 25lbs with 2 motors on the drive train.

Your conclusion as stated is unassailable.

Three of the robots we sent to VEX Worlds weighed a COMBINED total of 25 pounds. Tetrix robots tend to be very heavy. I expect that it is because the wheels, motors, gears, and batteries are heavy, and, despite using aluminum, the basic Tetrix aluminum is thick, large in cross section and weighty. We actually ripped some of the c-channel into thinner pieces to reduce bulk. It's strong, but since it only comes in one real cross-sectional size, you have to use the giant c-channel even where you don't really need it. Not all tools are hammers, and not all problems are nails.

As long as FIRST recommends not gearing up the Tetrix motors (see last year's Q&A) FTC robots won't have a big speed advantage. We tried gearing up the motors last year and broke gearheads. Shortly thereafter FIRST told teams to use direct-drive or gear down, so I'm guessing we weren't the only ones with the problem. A direct-drive FTC robot with 4" wheels has about a 2.6 fps potential. Certainly no faster than the average VRC robot, but it will have substantially more "pushing power" with the bigger motors (as long as they don't stall and burn out).

Some of the big steel VEX robots can be pretty darned heavy, too. Most of these are geared for about 2 fps. Five of our six VRC robots last year were geared variously at 3.6 to 4 fps. This video is a pretty good example of what lightweight robot design can do: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIsQckNv9zM. I don't think you could build that 8-pound robot with Tetrix parts.

Someone elsewhere in this thread mentioned that they didn't like people bashing Tetrix who hadn't tried it. That is a fair point. We had three FTC and six VRC teams last year, so I suspect that there aren't a lot of programs around that have wider experience in the two platforms than we do. Given our program's goal of delivering a high-quality competition robotics program to the greatest number of students for the least money, we have chosen to focus on VRC and not FTC. Especially when you start adding up the annual fee (275+149) times our 7-10 teams, the bang for our FTC buck starts to fizzle. For eight returning teams, which takes the kit cost out of the equation, FTC would cost us $3,392. VRC registration for eight teams is $250. We could fund an additional 2.3 (or so) VRC teams for that $3k, and reach 15 more students.

I do like the sensor suite in FTC, and the FIRST volunteers here in Washington are an outstanding bunch of folks. We will still have at least one FTC team as long as we have students that prefer it. I think we should all continue to share our experiences on Delphi, and remember that engineering and science isn't about cheerleading, it's about evaluating problems and designing or choosing the best solution. As lead mentor for our program, my problem was "STEM+fun bang for the buck" not "how many weights can I hang on a beam" and so we decided to focus future team growth on VRC. YMMV.

JVN

16-09-2009, 13:05

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_sTlYdhwqT5w/R9A2KgMkx2I/AAAAAAAAABw/BpN_Ajyoaxk/s1600-h/channel-weights.jpg

*Shrug*

http://www.vexforum.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=3951&original=1&c=9

VEX 1x2x35 C-Channel, $17.99 for (4X)
TETRIX (TM) Channel, $15.96 for (1X)
http://www.vexforum.com/gallery/files/3/vex-channel-endweighted.jpg

Rich Kressly

16-09-2009, 19:18

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to JVN again." ;)

ttldomination

16-09-2009, 19:51

Hahahaha. FTC, ball's in your court. :D

Akash Rastogi

16-09-2009, 21:05

*Shrug*

http://www.vexforum.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=3951&original=1&c=9

VEX 1x2x35 C-Channel, $17.99 for (4X)
TETRIX (TM) Channel, $15.96 for (1X)
http://www.vexforum.com/gallery/files/3/vex-channel-endweighted.jpg

rofl

NalaTI

17-09-2009, 07:16

JesseK

17-09-2009, 09:41

No question - Vex wins on cost. Price was never the issue.

Indeed, many people who do FTC don't do it because of it's superior cost analysis. Yet many people who approach this argument seem to only approach it from a cost perspective, or cost is always somewhere in the argument regardless of what the specific topic is. I like the original intent of this thread, and hopefully it will get back on track?

This list intentionally has cost left out of it, and is a composite of the posts thus far. I tried to only put things in the list that add to or subtract from a student's experience in either program. It also ignores the fact that teams may already have had substantial resources invested in one program or the other, since in the longer term everyone gets to that point regardless of the program. Swapping to the other is just a matter of making the decision and doing it, imo (of course...).

The "+N" means "N" people stated their opinions in this case, thus far. Don't agree? Post the opinion. Differing opinions should be stated as, for example "(+2)(-3)". Weighing facts with +/-N only serves as attempts to bias someone who's making a weighted decision.

FTC
Pros

Extra material is allowed, including sheet plastics, aluminum, & cord (allows more creativity, +2)
Better regional competition experience (+3)
Stronger motors & gears
Uses the NXT brick, which many of your mentored Jr. FLL & FLL teams are already familiar with for programming. LabView also transitions to FRC.
More connections to college scholarships
More & better (+2) sensors

Cons

Connectivity issues at competition (resolved though, right? Didn't see any issues in Atlanta)
LEGO parts aren't very compatible with the TETRIX parts (But if they ever are, look out! I know some 8 year olds with mad LEGO skillz!)

Need multiple laptops/blue tooth to demo multiple bots
Uses bluetooth (-1)

VRC
Pros

Amazing World Championships, better than Atlanta (+3)
More variety in the parts, including complex/intricate parts for more in-depth designs.
Generally speaking, more matches per event
Higher quantity of competitions per region
College level division
Steel parts for structure makes a stronger structure where needed
Established community where many collaborate on pushing the limits of the VEX system even outside of VRC.
Entire winning alliance qualifies for nationals
Online challenges for those unable to attend competitions (link?)
Skills challenges that are not based upon cooperation in competition

Cons

Relatively weak motors

Topics that haven't been discussed:

Number of mentors per student for each program

As Rich Kressly stated in his very well-worded post: you can't look at this from a sheer quantity of pros/cons perspective. Each must be weighed against your local situation and then the best decision can be made.

Rick TYler

17-09-2009, 10:30

FTC
Pros

Better regional competition experience (+3)

You are really going to have to explain this one.

Even the most ardent FIRST loyalist wouldn't describe the experience of the last year's FTC/LEGO competition season as anything other than a complete train wreck. I don't believe any VRC event was canceled because the field didn't work, or lasted until late until the night for the same reason, or only had two or three qualifying matches.

I would have added:

VRC Pros

* Better regional competition experience +10
* The whole winning alliance qualifies for a Championship event +3
* More regional competitions, more chances to play
* The Skills Challenges for programming and driver skills give more competition opportunities than simply winning the tournament +3
* The online design challenges are far more extensive than FTC's animation challenge, and provide another route to world competition
* Teams that are remote or can't afford to travel may still participate in the online challenges
* Finalist Alliances in North America qualify to participate in the Championship of the Americas -- another super-regional in addition to Worlds
* Doesn't use Bluetooth

* Allows schools, clubs and sponsors to expose a lot more students to STEM for the same money +100

JesseK

17-09-2009, 10:43

You are really going to have to explain this one.

+3 meant that 3 people in this thread said that. They're opinions, and not necessarily mine. Sorry I didn't put a little teeny disclaimer somewhere obvious, I thought people would actually read what I wrote.

EricH

17-09-2009, 10:46

Isn't FTC not available in certain areas, or am I still in 2008 on that? If it isn't available, that's a con, as VRC has more areas with competitions.

JesseK

17-09-2009, 11:08

Isn't FTC not available in certain areas, or am I still in 2008 on that? If it isn't available, that's a con, as VRC has more areas with competitions.

I'm pretty sure you're correct. In the very least, teams would have to travel long distances to compete in FTC competitions if they live in a remote location. For example, Alaskan VRC teams could do a youtube video of their Skills challenge submission, yet they probably wouldn't even bother flying to a state competition due to the large distances. I'm also pretty sure that in the more rural parts of the country there are few FTC competitions (though that's based on conjecture and I don't have time to look it up atm). I'd say it's more of a VRC pro than an FTC con.

JaneYoung

17-09-2009, 11:20

There are people around who are attempting to introduce and are introducing both competitions to areas. Both are developing and expanding. The programs, themselves, are creative in their recruitment and their impact.

EricH

17-09-2009, 11:29

I'm pretty sure you're correct. In the very least, teams would have to travel long distances to compete in FTC competitions if they live in a remote location. For example, Alaskan VRC teams could do a youtube video of their Skills challenge submission, yet they probably wouldn't even bother flying to a state competition due to the large distances. I'm also pretty sure that in the more rural parts of the country there are few FTC competitions (though that's based on conjecture and I don't have time to look it up atm). I'd say it's more of a VRC pro than an FTC con.
I was thinking more of MI, and the early years of FTC as FTC when there wasn't a single competition west of the Mississippi (which made L.A. residents unhappy...) Those aren't rural, yet didn't have a single competition. I think that part has changed, but still, it was not the best move, and many teams from those areas do VRC instead.

JaneYoung

17-09-2009, 11:53

I was thinking more of MI, and the early years of FTC as FTC when there wasn't a single competition west of the Mississippi (which made L.A. residents unhappy...) Those aren't rural, yet didn't have a single competition. I think that part has changed, but still, it was not the best move, and many teams from those areas do VRC instead.

As long as you stay around the business of robotics and technology, there will be change. It is at the core of their very nature. The trick is to appreciate that aspect of it, respect it, and remain flexible as the programs develop and grow. Who knows what will happen 2 years, 4 years, 10 years down the road. The goals and planning that are imperative to successful programs and their clientele, will help with that development and growth.

What we do know, and becomes readily apparent, is that some of the best and brightest of the FIRST program are involved in the success of VRC. Experience is a valuable asset.

Chris is me

17-09-2009, 12:41

This list intentionally has cost left out of it, and is a composite of the posts thus far. I tried to only put things in the list that add to or subtract from a student's experience in either program.

What student's robotics experience has money as no object, though? My FTC experience was very much limited by money; if my FTC budget of $800 would have just gotten me the KoP for Tetrix, and I couldn't machine anything as I was out of money, I would have a much worse experience. If money is irrelavent, you'd be able to afford FRC and the point would be moot really.

NalaTI

17-09-2009, 13:12

What student's robotics experience has money as no object, though? My FTC experience was very much limited by money; if my FTC budget of $800 would have just gotten me the KoP for Tetrix, and I couldn't machine anything as I was out of money, I would have a much worse experience. If money is irrelavent, you'd be able to afford FRC and the point would be moot really.

The members of my team wanted to do FTC because of the limited team size, not because they didn't want to do the big robots. Sure, we didn't have the money to do FRC, but we also didn't look for it. Since the team was only going to have four members, they didn't want to compete with teams of unlimited size. And no, there's no FRC team within 50 miles of us that they could have joined, we'd've had to start our own. If the team can look for and find sponsors, then budget is not the overriding item.

BTW, based on the budgetary number in another thread, $800 would be substantially less than is needed for a VEX competition as well.

If you are limiting your ideas based on money, then you are limiting your ideas...

Chris is me

17-09-2009, 13:17

I did Vex for $800 by getting the Kit for $200, $100ish on used regulation batteries and programming, then planned the rest of the robot very carfefully and ordered no more parts than needed. The robot didn't exactly "work" but it could be done. The one event I planned to intend was within driving distance. Not only could I not build the same robot with the Tetrix kit (no tank treads), it would definitely not be possible with just the Kit of Parts and a hacksaw.

JesseK

17-09-2009, 13:54

What student's robotics experience has money as no object, though? My FTC experience was very much limited by money; if my FTC budget of $800 would have just gotten me the KoP for Tetrix, and I couldn't machine anything as I was out of money, I would have a much worse experience. If money is irrelavent, you'd be able to afford FRC and the point would be moot really.

I never said "money is no object". The intent of the thread was to find out why else people like one program or the other and the Pro/Con list is meant to return it to that intent rather than squabbling over opinions like little kids.

Money is never irrelevant. In the professional world (and STEM funding world), reasonable cost is usually not the limiting factor when deciding whether or not to fund a program. Since reasonable is a relative term, it really depends on the situation and how well one is able to communicate the justifications and benefits of the cost.

For example, somehow most communities are still able to justify to themselves that they should pay for multi-million dollar high school football stadiums that pay for themselves over a 50 year lifespan. To us this may seem ludicrous, but in reality it just means that those communities haven't seen the immediate benefits or return on investment of FIRST or VEX.

Foster

17-09-2009, 16:52

So there are Pro's and Con's for both sides. As with everything in life there are trade offs, you need to look at them and make a decision.

I run a 503(c) to bring robotics to as many students/roboteers as possible. So I come to the table looking for the biggest bang for the dollars that I have. If I can get the same approximate experience for lots less, I'm going to go for the lower cost.

My biggest complaint is that people take catch phrases like "crappy plastic VEX gears" "much stronger metal" and make that into the single reason to change. One of the early posters pointed back to the original "Why we are changing FTC" blog entries and there were concepts bandied about in those entries that the Tetrix materials were significantly better than Vex. We've seen proof that's not the case, but people continue to natter on like it continues to be factual.

Sorry I didn't put a little teeny disclaimer somewhere obvious, I thought people would actually read what I wrote.

You must be new around here :rolleyes:

JVN

17-09-2009, 17:46

My biggest complaint is that people take catch phrases like "crappy plastic VEX gears" "much stronger metal" and make that into the single reason to change. One of the early posters pointed back to the original "Why we are changing FTC" blog entries and there were concepts bandied about in those entries that the Tetrix materials were significantly better than Vex. We've seen proof that's not the case, but people continue to natter on like it continues to be factual.

JVN's major pet peeve in ALL aspects of his life:
If you repeat a lie enough times it starts to become the truth. Not enough people do their own factual comparisons but instead they just repeat generalizations not grounded in quantitative analysis.

-John

IndySam

17-09-2009, 18:33

FIRST's decision to go with Pitsco sealed the deal with me. Never have liked them much.

The support from IFI is second to none.

Abra Cadabra IV

17-09-2009, 19:37

gblake

17-09-2009, 23:50

With a tip of the hat to John Godfrey Saxe and a wag of the finger to folks who might have a conscious or unconscious tendency to view this discussion as a competition instead of a coopetition; let me offer this:

"It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind
...
They conclude that the elephant is like a wall, snake, spear, tree, fan or rope, depending upon where they touch. They have a heated debate that does not come to physical violence. But in Saxe's version, the conflict is never resolved.
...
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!"

Maybe we aren't quite as divided as the six blind men of the story/poem; but I think we could do a better job of collaborating and of inspiring each other. I suggest that two successful programs serving a market that is a long, long way from saturated, is better than one.

Blake ;)

PS: This material is an excerpt from this Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

bellpride

18-09-2009, 01:10

http://tinyurl.com/krt2o9
Are you inviting JVN to do pull-ups using VEX parts?

Topics that haven't been discussed:

Number of mentors per student for each program

Zero for our six VRC teams. Many also have zero, some have one or two, very few have a whole bunch.

If you repeat a lie enough times it starts to become the truth. Not enough people do their own factual comparisons but instead they just repeat generalizations not grounded in quantitative analysis.
What was most disappointing about the transition was the truly ungracious way in which FIRST pursued it. Tetrix was introduced not only with subtle "lies" like the ones mentioned before, but even through making fun of the VEX Robotics kit (in one blog post, it was even called a toy). I can't imagine how much this offends long-time FIRST-supporting IFI employees, like JVN, Jason Morella, Karthik, and countless others, along with teams which thought their hard work was viewed as real engineering.

The past is the past though. Looking at the replies, I think the current FTC has a long way to go until it catches up with VRC.

Chris is me

18-09-2009, 01:22

What was most disappointing about the transition was the truly ungracious way in which FIRST pursued it. Tetrix was introduced not only with subtle "lies" like the ones mentioned before, but even through making fun of the VEX Robotics kit (in one blog post, it was even called a toy). I can't imagine how much this offends long-time FIRST-supporting IFI employees, like JVN, Jason Morella, Karthik, and countless others, along with teams which thought their hard work was viewed as real engineering.

Rereading those posts now it's really a lot more brutal than I imagined. "The new kit is a true robotics prototyping platform" and other cheap veiled shots like that. I was particularly upset with the apparent lack of communication with IFI that they were switching platforms, and that they decided to drop Vex before having a better alternate available (and they still don't). Oh well, I guess it got me into FRC ?

Akash Rastogi

18-09-2009, 01:50

In related news, our team did receive emails from unmentionable names in FIRST repeatedly questioning why we didn't register FTC teams this year. We felt that the explanation of cost benefit and the fact that the students did not want to use the Tetrix kit would be enough, yet we still feel a little bad about it. :/ Oh well.

Andrew Schuetze

18-09-2009, 14:36

I suggest that two successful programs serving a market that is a long, long way from saturated, is better than one.

Blake ;)

Let's not lose sight of this true statement. There is a lot of room in this arena which is a larger issue. How best does one program or the other attack this program is a local and personal issue. VRC & FTC are not the only players in this market. BotBall and BEST come in on either end of these two in terms of cost. They each have pros and cons to their programs as well.

NalaTI

19-09-2009, 05:58

The primary reason this whole subject bugs me is that it always seems to be brought up by the VRC proponents who seem to want to prove that their kit-of-choice is the only viable option for intelligent people.

In reality, I'm not sure of the reason for arguing! I enjoy the FTC system, because it's what I know, and because it keeps my teams in the FIRST family, and the IFI teams enjoy theirs. Great! You won't see me starting a topic complaining about VEX teams. I defend the FTC product, but I know that BOTH systems have their limitations and their strengths.

That's why I've continually called this a Religious/Political argument. It is not a technical discussion, it is an unwinnable argument between different philosophies.

If you want to use VEX and you are promoting the (non-technical) values that FIRST focuses on, then great - you have my support and appreciation. If you use FTC but are just in it to win, with no recognition of the other FIRST values, then you don't get any positives from me.

Rick TYler

19-09-2009, 11:29

It is not a technical discussion, it is an unwinnable argument between different philosophies.

(Nala triggered the following comments, but is not the "you" in this post.)

This contains an especially important point. You cannot evaluate alternatives without establishing decision criteria, whether it is technical, educational, financial, or emotional, I believe you need to decide what is critical before you start. Every decision can only be made in the context of your own goals and needs.

So, comments such as "the 12V LEGO/Tetrix motors are more powerful" are factually true, but may be irrelevant to a particular team, as is "the VEX platform gives builders more design choices." If your team feels more powerful motors or more design choices are not relevant selection criteria, then they don't matter.

For lack of a better term, Exothermic Robotics is an evangelical organization. Our mission statement explicitly calls for us to let students of the appropriate age join our club, no matter where they go to school or how much money they have, and to then have those experienced students help start new teams in their schools or home-school groups. Knowing our mission statement, we can then evaluate a program based on our goals. Since we have grown from 5 to 18 to 40 to more than 60 students, we look for affordability, portability, ease of learning, and the quality of the educational experience. With OUR criteria in mind, we chose VEX, and -- ultimately -- I chose to make a major career change and seek a position with IFI. (I highly recommend that you find a way to get a job doing for money what you also do for fun.) I don't have the opinions I do because I work for IFI, I work for IFI because of my experiences as a customer. YOUR mileage will vary.

Anyway, know what's important to you and your school or club, and you will make the right decision. Evaluating choices, in engineering or any other area, without knowing your criteria is an exercise in building your house on the sand.

gblake

19-09-2009, 14:04

The primary reason this whole subject bugs me is that it always seems to be brought up by the VRC proponents who seem to want to prove that their kit-of-choice is the only viable option for intelligent people.

So many (none of them productive) thoughts come to mind :D

Oh by the way - I wonder if Jon Thompson - the original poster in this thread - got any useful information from this discussion?

Blake
Tastes Great!
Less Filing!

Chris is me

19-09-2009, 14:58

The primary reason this whole subject bugs me is that it always seems to be brought up by the VRC proponents who seem to want to prove that their kit-of-choice is the only viable option for intelligent people.

I don't think anyone in this thread has been making ad hominem attacks about the "kind of people" that use various robotics platforms, as that's pretty ridiculous.

In reality, I'm not sure of the reason for arguing! I enjoy the FTC system, because it's what I know, and because it keeps my teams in the FIRST family, and the IFI teams enjoy theirs. Great! You won't see me starting a topic complaining about VEX teams. I defend the FTC product, but I know that BOTH systems have their limitations and their strengths.

Where has anyone been complaining about any kind of team? The thread's mainly consisted of people presenting pro / con arguments as they see them for robotics kits.

That's why I've continually called this a Religious/Political argument. It is not a technical discussion, it is an unwinnable argument between different philosophies.

There are aspects of this similar to religious / political, yes, but there are many actual, verifiable facts that can be talked about here too (e.g. the strength of metal components, strength of motors, control options for various platforms, etc). That's what I've been trying to stick to, at least. Just because people have differing opinions doesn't mean a topic is unworthy of discussion.

I've pretty much said everything I can about either system, so I don't think I'll post more, but it's not a bad discussion to have, if only because I wanna see JVN do a pullup :P

jbbjjbt

19-09-2009, 22:52

So many (none of them productive) thoughts come to mind :D

Oh by the way - I wonder if Jon Thompson - the original poster in this thread - got any useful information from this discussion?

Blake
Tastes Great!
Less Filing!

I did get some useful information, especially about worlds. I also got some good entertainment. I've wanted to see the VEX channel with weights for a long time.

I think this is a good discussion that needs to take place. I hope it continues throughout the year.

I am personally on the fence. I love all the people in FTC but certain things drive me crazy. I spent way way too many hours trying to hook up Bluetooth. As a team we spent way too may hours building a robot and developing code just to be beaten by the Field Management System. Somehow busting gears and twisting axles was just more fun.

NalaTI

20-09-2009, 08:42

I don't think anyone in this thread has been making ad hominem attacks about the "kind of people" that use various robotics platforms, as that's pretty ridiculous.

Wasn't trying to say so, just when I look at the message that's coming across, I get the feeling that someone has an agenda that's anti FTC. That's the part that annoys me. I'm not anti-IFI, I am pro FTC. The two are not mutually exclusive, and yet in some cases that's what it feels like.

Where has anyone been complaining about any kind of team? The thread's mainly consisted of people presenting pro / con arguments as they see them for robotics kits.

Sorry if it came across that I thought someone was specifically complaining about a team. It's not the case.

There are aspects of this similar to religious / political, yes, but... <snip> Just because people have differing opinions doesn't mean a topic is unworthy of discussion.

I agree, it's worth discussing, and as I said, I appreciate the good and the bad in both systems.

but it's not a bad discussion to have, if only because I wanna see JVN do a pullup :P

See? We agree on lots of stuff!

lynca

20-09-2009, 11:00

I did get some useful information, especially about worlds. I also got some good entertainment. I've wanted to see the VEX channel with weights for a long time.

I think this is a good discussion that needs to take place. I hope it continues throughout the year.

I am personally on the fence. I love all the people in FTC but certain things drive me crazy. I spent way way too many hours trying to hook up Bluetooth. As a team we spent way too may hours building a robot and developing code just to be beaten by the Field Management System. Somehow busting gears and twisting axles was just more fun.

I am also getting useful information and interesting discussion about both programs. Regardless of politics, Pitsco and IFI will continue to compete and improve their VEX & TETRIX product line. This is much better than LEGO which has no competitors (FLL should be screaming for more corporate competition) !

I'll throw in my experiences with VEX. The people in VEX are amazing and the competition experience has undergone growing pains. The VEX Robotevents site has been somewhat difficult to register a team. However, in the last few months they have improved drastically ! The VEX clutches do eventually round out and plastic gears sometimes lose teeth (high strength gears should fix this problem).

JaneYoung

20-09-2009, 11:49

I have a good idea of the cost difference but what about things like what the kids learn and how much fun they had?

This is the part of the question that I would like to learn more about. It would be nice to have more of the students from the VRC and FTC teams contribute to the discussion.

BLAQmx

20-09-2009, 12:56

... certain things drive me crazy. I spent way way too many hours trying to hook up Bluetooth. As a team we spent way too may hours building a robot and developing code just to be beaten by the Field Management System.

Fixing these pain points has been one of the primary goals for the developers working on the FTC software and FMS for the 2010 season.

Rich Kressly

20-09-2009, 16:09

This is the part of the question that I would like to learn more about. It would be nice to have more of the students from the VRC and FTC teams contribute to the discussion.

Jane,

While more student feedback would be awesome, I think that getting a handle on the student perspective of fun/learning alone won't tell us what we really need to know due to the largest intangible of all ... the teachers/mentors involved.

The right adult leadership can make carrying a full refrigerator up a muddy mountainside a tremendously fun and enriched learning experience. I've been fortunate enough in my life to be around a few of these folks. So, the questions then become,

"What is the "energy/resource expense" for those adult leaders involved over time?"

"How long can the adult leaders involved sustain that effort?"

"How many students are inspired/positively touched each year through that effort?"

Like I've said in the past, it depends on what you want to achieve with your program and what experiences you have. If you're already deeply invested in equipment and training in Tetrix/NXT then you'd probably think about staying the course. If you're already deeply invested in equipment and training in VEX then you'd probably think about staying that course.

If you're running teams only and aren't looking for larger amounts of equipment to affect curriculum, then the FTC program seems like it might work well.

If you want to embed robotics in curriculum, VEX wins hands down right now. FTC currently lacks curriculum resources and affordable bulk purchasing options to put the hands-on experience in the classroom at an acceptable level IMHO. Even with FTC curriculum resources being developed at two wonderful places right now, without the ability to deploy affordable equipment to schools, such curriculum with go underutilized.

Couple that with the fact that you need a laptop/workstation for every FTC robot and management software to run multiple robots simultaneously and you have a confluence of hurdles that can stifle even the most energetic of teachers and classroom situations. COMPARE that to VEX in the classroom setting where up to 9 robots can be run simultaneously, right out of the box, without intensive programming, for a mild investment in two $50 crystal kits.

I'd love to stand here and tell you that the "FIRST program" is the best option of these two. Most of you have no idea how many sleepless nights I've spent thinking about what "might have been" and how often I've regretted not being able to get some folks to see a few things.

However, right now, if you're a BRAND NEW team looking at these two options, VEX is without a doubt your best investment. Right now, if you're a brand new school deciding between these two platforms to use in curriculum, VEX is the best choice by far - three purchasable curriculum options, gobs of free curriculum resources available over the web, an enriched Inventors Guide, etc.

In the end, we're all serving EXACTLY the same mission, so I begrudge no one's efforts in any direction at all. However, when anyone asks my opinion, I always talk about positively affecting the largest number of students possible and right now VEX is the better, more flexible, more affordable way to get it done on the "intermediate" scale. I love my FRC team, and FIRST's ideals, so to me the FRC/VEX combination in a school-based model is tough to beat pound-for-pound on learning, fun, and inspiration.

namaste

Rick TYler

20-09-2009, 17:41

This is much better than LEGO which has no competitors.

:) http://rollingrobots.com/robotics-camp

http://rollingrobots.com/files/u1/VexB1.jpg

ttldomination

20-09-2009, 18:22

Hahaha.

Well its obvious that no side is backing down...and luckily for us, our economic system is capitalist, which means that people will undoubtedly go for what they like the most, and we can argue and argue as to what is better, but it is ultimately people's experiences with the event that'll matter the most so...

I think I've seen this argument in this thread each year in the past, and in a similar manner, people eventually get a little on edge, and we loose focus of what's what. I personally will focus in what I've chosen, and will move on from this silly debate.

Mike Soukup

23-09-2009, 14:16

Fixing these pain points has been one of the primary goals for the developers working on the FTC software and FMS for the 2010 season.
So we can expect this season's FTC competitions to be smooth and relatively free of delays? The 2 hour delay at the beginning of the Chicago event, the 10+ minute match cycle, and the insistence by the FIRST staff (Ken & James) at the event that the field & controls problems were the teams' fault turned me off of FTC forever. FIRST replaced a solid product with a half-baked solution before it was ready and the teams suffered because of that decision.

Chris is me

23-09-2009, 15:26

So we can expect this season's FTC competitions to be smooth and relatively free of delays? The 2 hour delay at the beginning of the Chicago event, the 10+ minute match cycle, and the insistence by the FIRST staff (Ken & James) at the event that the field & controls problems were the teams' fault turned me off of FTC forever. FIRST replaced a solid product with a half-baked solution before it was ready and the teams suffered because of that decision.

To be completely fair, I experienced similar headaches with FTC (Vex) in 2008 in Atlanta. Repeated interference happened for Thursday matches (at one point, the drive team turned off the controllers and held them autonomous style, and the robot continued to drive), that was repeatedly blamed on our antenna placement, later discovered to be a field fault.

The point of the above isn't to complain about the past or anything, but "issues with the control system" is a fairly common robotics problem. It's not pleasant (and at the time, I was very, very upset, as I'd just spent a month raising the money to compete at the event), but it's sadly not unusual, in my experience. Whether or not this is something one SHOULD expect from events... probably not...

Dave Flowerday

23-09-2009, 16:13

To be completely fair, I experienced similar headaches with FTC (Vex) in 2008 in Atlanta. Repeated interference happened for Thursday matches (at one point, the drive team turned off the controllers and held them autonomous style, and the robot continued to drive), that was repeatedly blamed on our antenna placement, later discovered to be a field fault.
Veering off-topic a bit here, but... the symptom of your robot driving on its own when it's supposed to be in driver mode cannot be a field fault. It's physically impossible with the VEX equipment. The cause in nearly every case of this was that the VEX microcontroller reset because either too much current was being drawn from the motors (improper gearing, etc) or a software bug in the team's code.

In a nutshell, if someone told you it was a "field fault" when your robot drove on its own, they were wrong. I saw a lot of FTC(Vex) teams that would insist that "something was wrong with the field" only to find a bug in their code after someone helped them look through it.

I've been to a lot of VEX events (FTC(Vex) and VRC), and I've never seen anything remotely as bad as what happened in FTC Chicago last year. And, I've heard many reports that the Chicago experience was common at other events too. That's the basis of Mike's point.

Chris is me

23-09-2009, 17:09

I don't remember the specifics, but I believe it was something to do with the field's enabling and disabling of tethered controllers, and radio interference from the other Vex field. The motor use was fairly standard and the code issues did not happen at the previous event. Anyhow, this is a bit of a digression.

I do know from what I've heard at FTC events from friends and peers still participating in it, the field problems were worse than anything I'd seen.

BLAQmx

24-09-2009, 09:41

So we can expect this season's FTC competitions to be smooth and relatively free of delays?

That is certainly the goal. Part of this is purely technical; addressing connectivity issues and making the system more robust (an example of this is improved LabVIEW templates that remove all of the Bluetooth lag). Part of this is ease of use. Hopefully these two things (among others) will make competitions move more smoothly. The one thing we cannot account for is user error. Because all computer based systems are inherently complicated it is not a trivial task to train the volunteers who run competitions and matches. This being said our volunteers are not the problem (I <3 FIRST volunteers and staff), but rather the solution will be the developers ability to make the system simple, elegant, and most importantly: well documented.

On a note of documentation I am going to stress (again) how essential it is to read the FTC Getting Started Manual. We have made a considerable investment in documentation this year (Help files and the Getting Started Manual). While the Getting Started Manual is mostly geared towards LabVIEW development it contains a lot of good information that any team can put to use.

JesseK

24-09-2009, 12:39

I'm pretty sure that since FIRST is broken down into regional organizations, each region was responsible for its own FMS and setup. Our regional director was in communications with teams asking for feedback on comms issues and even setup a scrimmage with the actual FMS software a couple weeks before the VA competition. At the DE, MD, and VA competitions our teams attended, there were temporary hiccups. Yet those were simple matters of restarting the FMS laptop and/or swapping field within the division. Having 2 fields for each division made everything very smooth, yet I suspect that such a setup is a regional and not a national decision. At all 3 competitions, we were out of there by 7pm, which isn't bad considering that the previous year (FTC/VEX) it was 9pm.

A 2 hour delay due to FMS comms tells me that someone needs to light a fire and get someone motivated to test things ahead of time. Along the same lines, I wouldn't expect FIRST to ignore the complaints teams had from last year, and I would expect improvements all around.