Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Einstein 2012 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106034)

lorem3k 29-04-2012 02:20

Re: Einstein 2012
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bduddy (Post 1163679)
While I understand the idea, I'm not so sure about some of the things it might lead to. If Galileo loses they'll be forever known, rightly or wrongly, as "the alliance that only won at Championships because of field problems", and they deserve better than that.

I think some people may already (wrongly) have this impression of them.

EricH 29-04-2012 03:30

Re: Einstein 2012
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by qzrrbz (Post 1163789)
Pretty sure 1717/469/2471 would have rather have played all their matches with all guns firing! Were there others?

Pretty sure I can say the same thing about 330 and 68--both had extended time periods where they were immobile. Kept the division semis close...

qzrrbz 29-04-2012 03:43

Re: Einstein 2012
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1163800)
Pretty sure I can say the same thing about 330 and 68--both had extended time periods where they were immobile. Kept the division semis close...

Didn't realize alliance 3 was sitting still, too -- the "luxury" of viewing remotely and being a slave to what the cameramen thought "interesting" at the time. That makes this whole result even more disheartening.

There's always IRI...

EricH 29-04-2012 04:00

Re: Einstein 2012
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by qzrrbz (Post 1163803)
Didn't realize alliance 3 was sitting still, too -- the "luxury" of viewing remotely and being a slave to what the cameramen thought "interesting" at the time. That makes this whole result even more disheartening.

Watching the webcast, there was at least one time when both 330 and 1717 weren't moving at the same time, same area of the field (Red's scoring side). Not fun. In another match (F-1, I think), 68 spent much of the match immobile.

(For those not paying attention, this particular set of matches was Newton Semi 2, 1717/469/2471 against 68/330/639.)

And agreed on IRI. I think that IRI needs to have two sets of "special" matches: MAR champs/MSC champs and Einstein Revisited. Single elimination, comm issues are an immediate match reset.

qzrrbz 29-04-2012 04:46

Re: Einstein 2012
 
OK, that's Newton #1 (on Einstein), #2, #3 all immobile at some point or other.

How about the other divisions?

Botwoon 29-04-2012 07:00

Re: Einstein 2012
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by qzrrbz (Post 1163808)
OK, that's Newton #1 (on Einstein), #2, #3 all immobile at some point or other.

How about the other divisions?

The Curie alliance was fine on comms on our field.

George Nishimura 29-04-2012 08:39

Re: Einstein 2012
 
So what happens at the end of this hypothetical "Einstein revisited"? Especially if 180/16/25 don't win, what exactly does it achieve? The winners won't become World Champions [especially because the conditions are different, you can't claim that this result is what would have happened on Einstein].

If it's for fun, and everyone's good-natured about it, and all teams are willing to participate, I'd be all for it.

But I fear it's not going to end well, and it's not going to bring any justice to proceedings.

Don Wright 29-04-2012 09:37

Re: Einstein 2012
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnishi2011 (Post 1163824)
So what happens at the end of this hypothetical "Einstein revisited"? Especially if 180/16/25 don't win, what exactly does it achieve? The winners won't become World Champions [especially because the conditions are different, you can't claim that this result is what would have happened on Einstein].

If it's for fun, and everyone's good-natured about it, and all teams are willing to participate, I'd be all for it.

But I fear it's not going to end well, and it's not going to bring any justice to proceedings.

I agree 100%. Let IRI be IRI...

I also believe that even though there are a lot of smart people in here discussing ideas about what is the problem and how to fix and things about the field not being used, etc...I don't think that many of you know really how everything operates and what goes on behind the scenes. (neither do I). It's all conjecture.

What we do know is that I'm sure this is now a priority at all levels of FIRST and something will be done about it. We may not hear a public statement from them until kick-off or until beta testing 2012... But I bet things change.

Chi Meson 29-04-2012 10:26

Re: Einstein 2012
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnishi2011 (Post 1163824)
So what happens at the end of this hypothetical "Einstein revisited"? Especially if 180/16/25 don't win, what exactly does it achieve? The winners won't become World Champions [especially because the conditions are different, you can't claim that this result is what would have happened on Einstein].

If it's for fun, and everyone's good-natured about it, and all teams are willing to participate, I'd be all for it.

But I fear it's not going to end well, and it's not going to bring any justice to proceedings.

Also agreed. We don't want to require that the winning alliance must show up to validate their win.

LeelandS 29-04-2012 11:01

Re: Einstein 2012
 
All controversy aside, congratulations to the new world champion, 16/25/180, The Raider Spam Squad (I toyed with Baxter Spam-Botics, but it doesn't sound quite as nice).

And a round of applause to 233/987/207. They were great matches (complications aside). 1126 has a soft spot in our hearts for PINK. We had the honor of teaming with 233 at IRI last year, and got to work with an amazing team (for a brief time, but nevertheless). 233, like ourselves, is one of the teams considered one of the best to have never won the world championship (not saying we're anywhere near the level PINK is. Not even close). PINK is one of my favorite team, they always build great robots, and we hope they don't need to wait too much longer to win the big one we all know they deserve.

Personally, I was hoping the 2056/1114/4334 alliance would take the gold home, but complications obviously prevented that.

I feel there is an unnecessary amount of backlash towards FIRST. One of the major selling points of FIRST is that we're every bit as fun and competitive as a sporting event, but we all conduct ourselves in a professional manner. Right now, that's not what I'm seeing. Yes, the complications on Einstein are disappointing. We all want to see the best of the best square off on Einstein and put on some great matches. Yes, I'd like to know what happened. But a lot of people seem to be crucifying FIRST for field issue when no one really knows what happened.

What a friend of mine hypothesized was that the targeting systems and such on the robots sucked up too much bandwidth from the FMS, and the easiest way to relive that pressure was to shut robots off for a while. We experiences a similar problem at Finger Lakes, and every team was asked to lower the Frames per Second of their camera. While I'm not sure if that's what happened, and I know I'm not really well versed in how the FMS operates, it seems like a logical idea, and certainly proves that maybe it wasn't JUST the field that was the problem.

What I'm getting at is, maybe it's a little premature to be seeking a pound of flesh from FIRST when we don't know the whole story. Maybe it was the robots, maybe it was the field, maybe it was the robot's interaction with the field. I suggest we wait and see what FIRST says on the matter, if they say anything. Until then, we're largely jumping to conclusions.

rjbarra 29-04-2012 11:09

Re: Einstein 2012
 
It is time to get CISCO or Juniper as sponsors and put in a bullet proof network. Einstien should have been tested with practice matches. I will be talking with Cisco this week.

Anupam Goli 29-04-2012 11:13

Re: Einstein 2012
 
In 09 and 10, how effective were the Linksys modules?

rjbarra 29-04-2012 11:23

Re: Einstein 2012
 
http://www.automation.com/content/ni...modules-for-io

sgreco 29-04-2012 12:06

Re: Einstein 2012
 
It's too bad that Einstein came down to this. I don't know the details of the problem, but if FIRST addresses nothing else this off-season, they need to address comm problems on the field. This simply cannot happen on the biggest stage, or any lower stage for that matter. It's disappointing in a sense for the teams that won to know that even though they were very deserving champions, there will be some form of an asterisk next to their championship title. It's also disappointing for the teams that lost on Einstein because they will never know exactly what could have happened if they were given a fair chance, with all the robots moving, to win. It's very possible that the winning alliance would have won anyway, regardless of comm issues since everyone was suffering from them. They are very deserving, and I congratulate them on what they were able to do. The Einstein finals were shaping up to be epic. We had a rookie appear on Einstein, 1114 and 2056 were allied together. Hall of fame team 16 was going for their first championship, along side 25 who already had a title to their name. Pink, arguably the best team never to win a championship, was battling to finally take home the hardware with 987 who had beat them on Einstein in 2007 (feels like yesterday). I believe 118 was making their first trip to Einstein along side 548, who was right in the middle of playing their best competition ever to date. It's really a shame, and I hope FIRST addresses this very soon. Something needs to be done about the comm issues. It's been a big problem for teams at all levels of competition, and it simply cannot happen again. We will never know quite how epic these finals could have been, but it will go down in history as yet another FIRST championship, and hopefully successes of next year will overshadow everything that went wrong this year.

Dad1279 29-04-2012 12:49

Re: Einstein 2012
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by LeelandS (Post 1163858)
.......I feel there is an unnecessary amount of backlash towards FIRST. ......

Then you have probably never had your robot randomly die, with no chance to debug/repair/fix a problem that may or may not repeat itself, and may be better or worse at a different regional. It has happened to us, our alliance partners, probably 10% of the teams at any given regional, and has determined the outcome of many (if not all) regional events for the last two years.

This should have been addressed sooner (last year), Obviously the problem was acknowledged by adding the data logging this year. The FTA should make debugging info available, and First should release enough info about the FMS to allow us to debug the situation.

Just to put a dollar amount on it, I'd wager the average team spends more than $10,000 per event. 10 matches per event, $1000/match, $3000 per alliance, $6000 per match for 6 robots on the field. If I was paying a vendor $3000/minute for communications & control, I'd think it reasonable to expect 100% communications.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:37.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi