Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 

I don't think they will change it again at this point. These seem to be the available options:

Revert the rule to pre TU3. This would create massive confusion and would shake confidence more.

Leave as is. This would only create moderate confusion (the is no confusion-less model at this point). This is the most enforcable, and likely way.

Allow teams to choose which version to use. This is the hardest to enforce but easier on teams. How will the refs keep track of what team on the field uses which cylinder orientation?

Remove horizontal restrictions when climbing ( leave the 54" pyramid buffer). Hurts confidence and adds confusion, but not as much as reverting TU3.

Any other options?

I think they will leave it as is because they want to encourage climbing and not many teams could both climb and shoot well under pre-TU3 rules.

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 

In the past, IIRC, games were developed by the GDC later in the year, which meant that there was less time spent on the writing of the rules, and as such there were occational errors. We dealt with the grammar/spelling errors and moved on.

However, that was not the case here, correct? I believe this game was conceptualized and developed quite a while ago. So, in theory, they had a lot more time to develop the rules, critique them, re-write them, brain-storm ways teams could bypass the rules, re-re-write the rules, rinse, repeat, until they had an iron-clad document. The wonderful folks on the GDC are intelligent, experienced people, and they should know ways that teams think, and write rules that avoid ambiguity. They should never have had to make this big of a rule change had the rules been properly vetted, and it looks bad on their part.

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 

I find the wording of the update to be very confusing, to the point where it may be that what you suggested is what they meant. Sadly I thought the rule was pretty clear before this update.

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 

I bolded the last option because I actually believe it's a good one. I don't think it would hurt confidence; it might restore some (it would for me, because it's more reasonable, and fair to teams that already had a workable design). It would not be very confusing, and easier to enforce.

It would be good to hear from some past inspectors and referees on the enforceability question.

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 

Can we have a few more dimensions?

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 

See this thread I started showing the 54in cylinder, pyramid, and typical robot profiles. It works. It's close, but it works.

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 

I meant his robot dimensions. It seems awfully small to keep his arm inside the frame perimeter for starting.

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 

Good, just making sure. :)

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 

I just got the answer to my Q184.

(emphasis mine)

As I read it, previous designs should still be legal. I'm pretty sure ours is. Woohoo!

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 

Woo! Back to the old design! Thank goodness...

I feel like they could have been far more clear on the wording, but hey - I'm quite happy!

EDIT: Cal beat me to it.

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 

You are right it is a pretty small bot the frame is in the 20" x 23" neighborhood. Tight fit for all of the electronics but doable. The arms would have to be extended up right to fit inside the frame perimeter/starting config, but would be shorter than 60"



Thank you GDC. I don't have to pull my hair out now. I only had to give away about half of the trade secrets. :)

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 

I'm happy with the (pretty liberal :P) interpretation of the word "relative" here. Hopefully the temporarily-illegal teams didn't redesign everything over the course of the school day.

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 

I was sure working hard at adjusting the geometry of our current design to make it legal. I was having to make some pretty significant compromises though. But hey, I'm sure I learned a thing or two about it. Will probably be able to make our current climbing mechanism more compact.

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 

Check out Frank's Blog post for today:
http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...date-1-15-2013
Emphasis in original quote.

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 

That's one problem solved, I think. This was the best way to handle the issue.

Among the remaining problems is that the competitive balance has shifted: now climbing is an easier task, and thus teams that chose to do it may not be as unique as they were counting on. But that's definitely a lesser evil.

Also, teams that constrained their designs according to the original rule now have to decide whether they're still competitive in this somewhat larger design space (with robots that don't obey the original constraint). Although they're not forced to rework their design, they may nevertheless choose to do so, for fear of being less effective. Given the particulars of the challenge, I think that's at worst a medium-sized evil—but most likely a non-issue for most teams.

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 

Welp. Those of us who had decided to concentrate on frisbee manipulation, design a simple ten-point hang, and not think about anything higher until after Stop Build Day are in luck. Thanks for the "temporarily illegal" design ideas, guys... I feel kind of dirty having seen them, but I can't exactly forget 'em now.

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 

First off...THANK YOU GDC for the common sense approach to these design constraints.

Secondly, even with the relaxed design constraints this task is far from easy. "Climbing" a robot through three levels of pyramid, with at a minimum of maybe 3 (probably more) distict climbing motions is still the hardest thing we have had to do with a robot.

This challenge is frustrating even the very best designers in FRC.

If your design is not well thought out, designed for robustness, and executed perfectly you are probably not going to be attempting to climb the tower for very long before you fall off and break some or all of your robot.

Most designs we have thought of required total integration into the chassis, drivetrain, shooting, etc..., this is not just something you add on an event.

Good luck to all that attempt a 30pt climb.

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 

Adam, I second that... THANK YOU! Did the GDC do this simply to inject more excitement into the build season? Good thing my doctor just changed my blood pressure medication.

The climbing parts we ordered just arrived a few hours ago, and now it's back to our original design. We'll see how successful we are getting it to work.

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 

With this clarification the rule change just changed to one of my favorite updates from the GDC. This allows for the sizing cylinder to be parallel to the pyramid while the frame is not, which really opens up the design options.

Time to re-analyze the design again!

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 

I haven't read all of the thread, but a question was answered on the Q and A that implies that if the robot can fit in the 54" cylinder at all, it is legal. To find the question, download the PDF of the answered questions for Game, and search for "G23-1." It is the only question referencing this rule at the moment.

Now is the moment to read what was so wisely written on the back of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galexy: "Don't Panic."

Edit: Just saw.

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 

You are welcome ;) . I am just glad the GDC clarified this the way they did. Although, I did have a pretty sleepless night over the whole thing. I can say that I will be printing out that question and answer to take with us to competition so that if we are questioned at all by the refs we can show the ruling to them on the spot.

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 

I apologize, but I must correct this HUGE misconception ;)

"...it has the words "DON'T PANIC" in large, friendly letters on the cover."

Emphasis mine.

-David

(just poking fun)

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 

Reposting for everyone to be sure to read.