Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!
 

A Frisbee has a a defined weight, so weighing them is one strategy for counting how many in a goal. A strain sensor with +/- 300 grams is a great choice, settlement time may be an issue.

But scoring does seem to be a problem. And since HindSight (tm) is always 100% there may be better ways.

So how would you have scored?

As a VEX and Arduino guy, I would done an pair of Sonar Senors. Mounted on each side of the top opening pointing down and across to cover the opening. Two sensors triggered = score.

But since the Sonar needs a pulse (so there is a read/write cycle), I would go with a short distance IR sensor, then I can get a constant read.

What would have been your plan?

Re: Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!
 

I would stick with weight, but use noise filtering and comparative score tests. Count score at the end of autonomous, then zero the scale.

I have a feeling frisbees are actually mostly the same weights, so I think weighing can be done.

Re: Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!
 

I would have planned for a streamlined human-based solution from the start. Something along the lines of how it was done in 2009, with handheld boxes with tactile buttons for real-time, and manual counting at the end of the match when the goals are emptied.

When was the last time we had an automated solution that reliably handled large quantities of game pieces being scored in parallel? (Answer: it's never.)

Re: Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!
 

Yeah, I was just going to point to 2006 as an example where the automated scoring system caused a ton of problems. It's hard to create a flawless system and this is the type of situation where it needs to be flawless. In 2006, I remember there were tons of issues with the scoring when the goals got clogged by the onslaught of balls and they had to implement a human-based system then.

Re: Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!
 

There were two issues in 2006, one was the goal getting clogged and needing the pokey stick to unjam, and the other was inaccurate sensors, especially in the low goal that tried to detect balls in parallel with a camera. They resorted to guys with counters watching each goal. The sensors had a tendency to miscount and the RTS couldn't be trusted at all.

In 2010 and 2012 they used low numbers of balls and single-file scoring to improve the system, although they still had their issues (including the infamous bounce-back DOGMA penalties in 2010).

2009 was human-counted from the start, but was horribly inaccurate because humans just couldn't estimate it as well as they needed to, or count fast enough for the large loads that got dumped in trailers.

Counting discs as they enter the goal is an issue because a) it's very hard to ensure you don't get a double-count and b) discs that don't stay in the goals aren't counted, and a pass-through sensor can't account for that.

At least this year they can recount the discs after the match...

Re: Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!
 

That's a good point. Pro sports that have automated scoring only have one ball (eg. hockey, basketball, etc.)

Re: Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!
 

I don't even think those sports have auto scoring. It sure take a long time from the score for my TV to update.

Re: Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!
 

I know for a fact hockey and basketball use sensors and cameras to count.

Re: Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!
 

They're not automated, though. If something is unsure to the referees in real-time, they go back and look at the tape. Why FIRST doesn't allow the same thing, who knows...

Re: Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!
 

Similarly to 2011, I think they need to have humans manually putting the score on a touchscreen interface at opposite ends of the field. Yes, there could end up being errors, but I think it'd be a lot better than what we have now...

Re: Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!
 

Hockey does not use an automated system. There is an official sitting behind the goal that turns on a light when he sees the puck go in. And the on ice official will make the call as he sees it.
Basketball scoring also isn't automated, how would a sensor know if it was a 3 or 2 point shot? the ref signals the number of points and a human increments the score.

The only sport that is close to automated, we could say is FIFA. This year they're going to is goal line technology that will alert the official's wrist watch when the ball crosses the line.

I'm not making any excuses for this years FIRST system but hardly any professorial sports are automated.

Re: Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!
 

I'd funnel the frisbees into slots and trip a light beam (and let them drop into bins). Give a couple engineers a day and some materials and they could design a shape that prevents jams.

Re: Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!
 

This is a robotics competition. Of course it should aspire to have autonomous scoring. They can't look at the engineering challenge of autonomous scoring and say "nah, that's too complicated. Let's just count things by hand". Not after what they asked us to do.

Re: Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!
 

If manual counting works better I certainly hope they would.

Re: Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!
 

I started running through multiple ways to count the score in realtime automatically.

Short version, the current version (weight) is the simplest method for both transport and programming. However, as noted, there is a drawback of settle time and if there's a bit of a force applied.

Now, the 2 short-range sensors with both triggered = score is next simplest in execution, at least for transport. However, instead of both triggered = score, I would set it up to that 1 THEN 2 is a score. You can do that--in fact, it's how balls were counted in 2010 and 2012--and it will be pretty accurate. You can also set it to descore if 2 THEN 1 happens, to account for bounce-out (note that a trigger should be both on and off). But you do have to line the whole goal entrance to some extent.

The toughest method to implement would be an inline counter. Not because it's the hardest to program--it's easier than the above solution--but because you have to get incoming frisbees into line, when they're bouncing and sliding around in there. And that takes space and weight that may or may not be available. Slope (to get them to where you want them) can take a lot of material--and then you have to build in something to stop automode scoring at the end of automode, after a semi-reasonable delay to allow for the settling time.

Re: Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!
 

One of the most important engineering principles you can learn is that sometimes, the flashiest, highest-tech solution is not always the best one.

Re: Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!
 

remember discs can go into goals then bounce out

Re: Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!
 

How would you guys prevent the chains from tripping the sensors? Because of the chains "dancing" afterwards, you would need to put them both far to the front or back... the back doesn't work because some low-velocity frisbees never make it back that far. You could put them both close to the very front, but then you wouldn't have much spread available.

Also, I've seen several points at which multiple frisbees converged to enter the goal at almost exactly the same spot and almost exactly the same time. A laser or ultrasonic sensor would have a very difficult time discerning this.

Also extreme wide-angle shots... you would possibly see a frisbee tripping multiple beams at once.

I think weight, despite its current issues, is still the best way to count frisbees.

Re: Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!
 

I think weighing after auto and then zeroing the scales for tele. Then after the match while emptying the goals they double check the scores with lexan tubes that stack the discs to count them. Weight is the only way I can think of for doing real time scoring but they need some way to double check it with the inaccuracies shown during the week 1 regionals.

Re: Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!
 

One of my early mentors gave me wise words -- when designing a system to compile & analyze information, your first design choice should always include consideration of a stack of 3x5 file cards. :D After 30+ years is IT, I've yet to find a reason to disagree with him.

Re: Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!
 

field reset usually takes longer than the regional expected. imagine having the refs fiddle with a video of the match each time something wasn't clear. this could easily take 5 additional minutes and the time adds up quickly.
I'm not saying that this is fair, but there is no way FIRST could run events this way.

Re: Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!
 

Where we gonna get the video? The feed that goes to the big screen is often not clear, especially when shrunk down to a laptop-size screen. How often do we hear that you can't see very much when you're watching webcasts?

And more likely than not, the camera will be focusing on something away from the event in question. This isn't the NFL where we have dozens of HD cameras looking at many different angles of play. It would hardly be fair to reverse some ruling based on being lucky that the camera saw it, when it couldn't be seen on the video in the last 4 protests.

Re: Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!
 

I think there are a lot of strong arguments for having video replays, but, as pointed out in other posts, it's simply not financially feasible at this time.

Re: Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!
 

So it seems like there aren't many simple ideas that are foolproof for real-time scoring. The weight sensors seemed like a good idea but I think the biggest problem is that the discs not only exert force on the bottom of the bin but also on the sides (which leads to the settling problem).
In my opinion they should use through-beam sensors running top to bottom in the goal . They would have the sensors (receiver on top and emitter on bottom or something like that) spaced out evenly in a row right in the opening of the goal with no gaps big enough for a disc to slip by without triggering a sensor. Then they would have a duplicate set spaced 2-3 inches farther inside the goal than the first set.
This would allow them to not only sense the discs presence in the opening of the goal but also it's direction of flight. If the first set is triggered first and the second next then the disc is entering. If the back sensors are triggered first then the disc is bouncing back out. You might actually have to look at the other end of the sensor spike just in case of a disc not going all the way past the sensors. If the first sensor turns off before the second then the disc has gone in whereas if the second sensor turns off first then the disc was leaving the goal.

Re: Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!
 

I guess this idea still doesn't work with designs like 1503's where all four discs go in at once.

Re: Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!
 

Might be able to do it with both top/bottom and side/side, but that could get pretty nasty pretty fast. You'd get a "I know there's something at points X, Y, Z that could be a disc", but then you have to figure out if it's big enough and how many there are.

Re: Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!
 

Got a source for that fact? I'm curious how the basketball sensor identifies a 3 point shot versus a foul shot, and how the hockey sensor detects the puck in the net when it is under the goalie's pad.

I know they use cameras to record and replay but am willing to learn more about the "automated" scoring systems of which you speak.

Jason

Re: Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!
 

What about the use of RFID? They put RFID tags in all kinds of things now for tracking purposes. In the triathlon world it is very effective at tracking athletes on a course. They can even embed them in the ear of my dog. So I don't think size would be a major drawback to performance of a game piece.

Biggest drawback is added cost to game piece.

Re: Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!
 

I think weight works fine. I believe the problem is that to empty the goal, they poke it with a big stick. I can't believe that that doesn't damage the weight sensors. If they had a less aggressive way to remove game pieces, I don't believe that weighing would be a problem.

Re: Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!
 

Hmmm.... That COULD work. However, there are a number of potential concerns I would have.

1) Range. Where I've seen RFID used tends to be very short-range applications, like reading a badge. I'm not saying it can't be long-range, because I don't know the maximum range, but that's a definite consideration.
2) Cost. You need to be able to get the equipment and use it with every game piece (though reading equipment could be used year-to-year as needed).
3) Putting one in every game piece...time is not in your favor.
4) Read speed--with the volume of pieces coming in at any given time, a quick read is a must--there isn't very long where a piece is in range.

Re: Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!
 

What about crowd sourcing video of the goals without being regional specific? Lots of people are watching live, it wouldn't be too hard to get a few to count Frisbees for CD reputation points or something.

Just an off the wall suggestion.

Re: Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!
 

dots, they are just dots, nothing else, just dots.

Re: Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!
 

So it tells me every time I add to somebody's reputation...