Originally Posted by IndySam (Post 1183783)

This thread has officially jumped the shark!

the old guy shark :)

Originally Posted by techhelpbb (Post 1183785)

Hey I'd love to see new features that go beyond that RFQ that people want.

Originally Posted by Andy Baker (Post 1183796)

I'd love to see a simple, robust system that connects quickly and dependably.

Andy

Originally Posted by BigJ (Post 1183780)

Sorry, let me rephrase. Most game developers at this point are not using Kinect very well. I am not sure if this is a limit of their time and budget or of the Kinect technology. However I have a hard time believing that a lot of FRC teams can do better with Kinect than the developers of a AAA video game (Steel Battalion).

http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2012/...y-armor-review (Might have strong language, I didn't re-read it too closely)

Although Steel Battalion has a bunch of problems aside from the Kinect control, the Kinect controls it is using are relatively simple and apparently fail to work well enough for that stuff.

Not to say that some developers aren't using Kinect well (see Double Fine's Happy Action Theater/Sequel): http://www.giantbomb.com/quick-look-...equel/17-6467/ (This one most likely does have strong language but I did not re-watch it)

Notice that the Happy Action Sequel mostly just uses detection to paint things on the scene and record the players.

Again, it's one of those things that is possible, but unless the bonus is VERY high, most teams will use that time to improve their in-robot autonomous, or spend more time in driver practice. If the bonus is very high, then you have the high disparity between teams who could get it to work and have enough experience, and those that couldn't.

Rereading your post, I think you probably weren't trying to refute me or anything, but after compiling the post I figure this is good information for everyone to see anyway.

Originally Posted by Hjelstrom (Post 1183802)

I'm excited to see USB support being considered for the robot controller (lets get kinects on the robots!) and I still think there is value to doing vision on the robot.

Originally Posted by techhelpbb (Post 1183803)

Under the COTS rules you can put a laptop with it's own battery on the robot. That laptop could connect to a Kinect right now. You don't even have to run Windows there is work underway for Linux. It really doesn't differ in any way from the way the existing fields connect to the Kinect.

Originally Posted by Hjelstrom (Post 1183802)

Probably the main problem is that the Kinect has enough latency to make it not very suitable for direct control of a robot (e.g. using your arms as the joysticks). Games have the same problem. The games that seem to work best are the ones where you are mimicing an action rather than directly controlling something. Kinect will probably be utilized nicely in a game design like 2008 where you can choose between specific goals or tasks.

I'm excited to see USB support being considered for the robot controller (lets get kinects on the robots!) and I still think there is value to doing vision on the robot.

Originally Posted by Tom Line (Post 1183836)

I am entirely against the Kinect as a robot control system. The processor of the driver station is a direct contributor to latency, and it conveys a large advantage to teams who can throw down a large chunk of change for a high end laptop. We already have one, so i don't say this out of self-interest. It's for the hundreds of cash strapped and rookie teams that will be put at a large disadvantage if it is forced upon them. Kinect in the robot could be very interesting assuming they provide the software on the crio side so all the teams can make use of it (assuming again that it's essential to the game as had been suggested).

Originally Posted by http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/frc-kit-parts-supplier-toolkit

Computers for Kinect Stations

A foreseeable need for the 2013 season is computers to support the competition. Here are the basic (very basic) system requirements for the need we have:

Qty required: 60
Due Date: 11/30/12

• At least a Celeron-ish processor (I don’t know if there’s anything on the market that’s too slow for our application, it’s very basic)
• At least 16GB hard drive (Flash or locking hard drive preferred, the environment isn’t always delicate)
• At least a 15” display
• At least 1 Ethernet port
• No OS necessary as we can image the machines ourselves.

Originally Posted by techhelpbb (Post 1183800)

Let's frame that:

Simple as in all in one piece with no room for wiring error or simple as in connect these wires here...here...and there?

In the current system the connect time is determined more by the D-Link robot AP and field than the cRIO. Point being: where is the line between the control system and accessories that FIRST provides?

To elaborate if someone makes a system that can boot, connect, and be ready to run in < 15 seconds. Then a user comes along with say a laptop and that takes 1.25 minutes to boot added to it is that an issue for the control system developer, FIRST or the user?

What about the amount of time to upload software into the control system?

Just curious.

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli (Post 1183873)

Cory is right. Last year FRC business (including team sales of the Victor and other FRC specific items) was about 1% of VEX's business, not IFI's business. If you include Rack Solutions and that little toy company called Hexbug, then I imagine it is less than 0.3% of the total IFI business. So we would not depend on the revenue if we decided to propose.

Paul

Originally Posted by ebarker (Post 1183878)

I'm kinda feeling this one