![]() |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
Definitely going to be a must-see division. |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
45 70 118 329 610 1325 1425 1806 2169 2485 2512 2630 2729 3528 3941 4069 4334 17 total by my count, a lot of this is based off of the spreadsheet in page 2 of this thread, which is still incomplete. But it looks like lots of very good FCS in our division should be exciting |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
I guess our blocker will find some use then. ;)
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
A few things about our robot:
We were running without a working vision system at the MAR Championships and think we know what the problem was preventing our camera feed from displaying on the Smart Dashboard. We hope to have this system back up and running so that we can shoot "lasers" (Dustin Benedict) across the field more frequently. You may see a few matches online where we had some jams, this was completely fixed prior to the MAR region playoffs. Here's some video of our matches and the GoPro Camera on our robot - http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...KNL4-zpW4oeAyr Looking forward to next week! Nate |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
I thought I'd post a highlight video from the Midwest regional here (2338). Some quick information about our bot over the last 2 regionals:
-Won the Wisconsin regional as a 2nd round pick defensive bot with 1732 and 111 -Came back to Midwest after some practice and programming tweaks as one of the best cyclers in the regional -Seeded 2nd, picked 111 and 1675 -Reliable 18 pt auton -5+ cycles per match -quick passive 10 point hang And here's the video! http://youtu.be/xBD_LEpQ8bg |
How many cyclers are in our division thy match 1114 in just cycling? I know that 50 pt climb makes them better, but still how many really good second picks are there?
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
the question becomes how do you define superior cycler
obviously a high accuracy >90% i would think but the tough question is how many cycles does a superior cycler make? 5? 6? |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
My team did 4 runs easily every match with defence played on us, and could make 5 without defence. Hopefully we can break through for 6 at st louis. |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
I think it about the consistency of a cycler. If they can make 10 with a miracle that's great but how reliably can they make those 10? At what point does a cycler sacrifice consistency for speed? I think the good cyclers have an alternative when defense is played on them. If a team can only shoot from a certain spot on the field, it's easier to shut them down and play defense. A good cycler should be able to do fine with defense as any good robot.
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
I was about to say....I've never seen 7 cycles anywhere consistently, and I watched 610 at BAE.
1772 is working on 5-6 cycles. 1114 did 4-5 average everywhere I watched them. 4452 did 4 average at Peach-tree and 624 did 5-6 average at Peach-tree. |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
In my opinion a minimum of 4 or 5 cycles, with defense being played against them, makes a good cycler. Wanting 6+ is asking for a bit too much from one robot. Plus with the limited # of discs available at the feeder station limits how many cycles the cyclers on an alliance can make anyways.
I'll have to check out some of those teams you all are listing, I haven't seen many average any more than five. We're currently maxed out at five, with a quick 10 point hang at the buzzer. I think that having two cyclers, and then a floor pick-up, will probably make the most stable alliance. The two capable of doing at least 5 cycles with any amount of defense, and the pick-up shooting anything they find laying on the floor, and, of course, getting that early lead in auton. 1114 and 118 just sound perfect for each other in this case. But who knows if either of them will be seeded first by the time quals are over, or whether or not any great cyclers/pick-ups will be left when third pick comes around. Like what Joel said; keep an eye on 2337 |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=i5xB3PIq1ms |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
Team 2485 is looking forward to playing with so many amazing teams and machines! |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
They always kept out of his way! :p |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
There's been a lot of talk about 610 here...
And here's some more! They've just released some more material - a highlights video and spec sheet. Check out this thread. :D |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
A 6 CIM DriveTrain. No wonder no one can play defense on that robot.
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
Were there any other matches where they were able to get 7 cycles though? |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
If the "preliminary preliminary preliminary" schedule stays true, holy match 109!
Qualification 109: 842 / 2481 / 2512 vs. 610 / 1114 / 111 Pretty close to what most people have been suggesting for bot style match-ups on Einstein. Any other great ones? http://www.usfirst.org/sites/default...ual_prelim.pdf |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Match 7: 1241, 4334, 1477 vs 1675, 1114, 1806
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Match 86 (1325 & 1806 with us) are both FCS's. Expect to see a high score then for sure.
Match 124 will be a good test for us against 1114. |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Prediction: Match 109 will set a world high score that will last until IRI.
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Match 61 should be fun.
10:26 Qualification 61 Red: 358 125 1806 Blue: 4026 27 118 |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
I used the preliminary match schedules to simulate the matches using OPR and then calculate the standings. I used each team's best OPR from Ed Law's spreadsheet for calculating their contribution to a match. I also used each team's world Auto, Teleop, and Climb OPR from Ed Law's spreadsheet for calculating the rest of the standings.
Code:
Rank Team Wins Losses Ties Matches QP AP TP CPCode:
Match Red 1 Red 2 Red 3 Blue 1 Blue 2 Blue 3 RScore BScoreCode:
Match Red 1 Red 2 Red 3 Blue 1 Blue 2 Blue 3 RScore BScoreCode:
Match Red 1 Red 2 Red 3 Blue 1 Blue 2 Blue 3 RScore BScoreEdit, now corrected to include match 134. |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Thanks for the info Joe!
You're missing match 134. :) |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Seeing our number come up in so many of the top matches is exciting. Hope we can stand out :)
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
Yeah...basically that match is where us and 842 will have to prove our defensive worth before each of us gets on that pyramid for 30 and dumps all 6 discs between us. 2512 will be able to go nuts shooting because all three of those teams can't block a FCS. If they can manage to shoot all 45 discs, we may have a shot because we'll beat them on climb points by a significant margin. Now, when I say 'we have a shot' I really mean like we may be able to pull this off 1 match out of a hundred...but that 1 time just has to happen in match 109 on Friday. Anyone up for the Galileo miracle? ;) Match could be tied at 66 after autonomous (each side has a 5 disc and 2 18s) If we can collectively slow 1114 to 3 cycles, 111 to 3 cycles, and 610 to 3 cycles that's 108 tele-op points (or 36 discs). Hell, they'd easily score the full 45 for 135 tele-op points undefended. Climb points should be 70 (2 30s and a 10) to 50 (30 and 2 10s) with 30 points in pyramid discs (6) to 20 points in pyramid discs (4). That's 100 to 70 on the pyramid. That means, 2512 has to score at least 26 discs with their full court shooting for this to happen if 1114/610/111 are limited to 36 discs with our defense. 2512 would have to score at least 35 discs if 1114/610/111 put up all 45. That would be 244 - 244...which is a very high score, for either side. That tells me that this is at least possible with the amount of variables in play... Yeah, I believe in miracles :) |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
Those results don't look right, I ran a similar analysis and got the same results as Joe. |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
On another note, I see that some teams have 9 matches while others have 8. I'm guessing that the T or F next to the team number on the version FIRST released indicates whether or not it's a surrogate match. |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
VLOOKUPS require sorted fields for searching. Sort the OPR data by team number, not by OPR. |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Similar to Joe's Post, here is what I pulled up from my database:
Code:
Rank Team Wins Losses Auton Teleop Climb |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Looking at OPRs is fun, but they should be taken with a grain of salt.
After all, if matches were determined by the numbers, we wouldn't need to have competitions. I'll probably be more surprised than anyone if my team manages to go undefeated. |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
/sarcasm |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Suppose for a second though, that 610 (inexplicably, given their lack of 7disc floor pickup [they had a 5disker at ONWA, but removed it]) DOES seed #1.
Who do they pick? 118? 1114? someone else? 1114's scoring prowess is huge, but that would leave their alliance likely without a 7disc auto. |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
But I think we're in the fourth layer of this hypothetical right now so I'll just wait here for Wednesday at 2:30 to get here so I can be in the car to StL. |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
610, 1114, 1323 |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
On the PRELIMINARY schedule, there is a match with 1114, 610, and 111 on an alliance (against 842). That should be fun to watch.
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
Blue: 842: Phoenix Regional Winners, Reveal Video 2481: Wisconsin Regional Finalists, Hanging Video 2512: Midwest Regional Winners, Reveal Video Red: 610: BAE Regional Winners, Waterloo Finalists, Finals at BAE 1114: GTR East Winners, GTR West Winners, Waterloo Winners, GTR East Finals 111: Wisconsin Regional Winners, Wisconsin Final-3 I know that we, 2512, are looking forward to this match. We are expecting it to be a very high-scoring endeavor. |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Our (2046's) projected rank is 96th with a record of 1-7-0... we're hoping, with some of the new tricks we've been working on, to do a little bit better than that :P but with matches against 1114, 118, 610, and 1477 to name a few... it seems like the scheduling gods were not smiling upon us. I think we have a decent chance at coming out of quals 5-3-0 though. And there's always that possibility that these Preliminary schedules change... We'll see how it goes :)
Good luck to everyone this week, we'll see you in St. Louis. |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
-RC |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtoXDBQhvXI Also, Wisconsin F-3 is the one where we were unfortunately tipped (don't worry, zombie mode has been added so there's zero chance of that happening again). Wisconsin F-1 and F-2 are much better matches for showcasing 111 and 2481 head-to-head since we're both upright throughout... :) F-1 = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLIJPHtv904 F-2 = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b82Kvb_e6zY |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Just finished data crunching. Here's our ranking (matches up with Joe Ross)
Code:
2000 ranks 1 QS 16 AP 352.14Here's some interesting data of how OPR of teams affects their rank. (assuming auto OPR stays the same - don't take this too seriously) It uses a range of +/- 30 OPR and when their rank changes, outputs it. (so "2000 ranks 39 when OPR is 33.56411516" means that 2000 with rank 39 until their OPR hits the next rank (35.964115160000034)) Code:
2000 ranks 39 when OPR is 33.56411516Code:
2000 ranks 14 when OPR is 39.86411516000009Code:
2000 |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
In other news. We'll see what happens tomorrow.
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
1114 just lost
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
What was the announcement about scoring changes?
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
The scores of the first 5 matches were fixed because they were miscounted. The only match which the outcome was different was match 3 in which the blue alliance actually won
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
I believe that they have because blue is now listed as winning match 3
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
Quote:
Either the original Auto score was correct, or something else was wrong. Cutting the Auto scores in half was definitely wrong. |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Getting our asses handed to us...currently 0-3 :(
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
The auto discs were counted both as auto discs and teleop discs (the number entered for teleop was the total discs in the goal). This is why the AP was unchanged after the scores were corrected.
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
The webcast and updates from Galileo are having issues.
1. There was no audio for the 1st 10 matches Friday morning. 2. The 4FX match results have not been updated with any Friday matches (as of match 62) 3. The realtime score banner on the webcast is being omitted from multiple matches. 4. the match results match from champs page goes to 404 Hopefully someone who is at the event, can ask the field crew to help fix a few of these issues. |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Does anybody know why the scores aren't updating for Galileo on the USFIRST website?
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
I'm having the same problem as well. Results on the FIRST website and on FRC Spyder update for all the other divisions, but have been spotty for Galileo. :mad:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
The 404 error on the link from the Championship page is due to an extra space in the URL.
Correct match results url: http://www2.usfirst.org/2013comp/eve...chresults.html Incorrect URL from Championship page: http://www2.usfirst.org/2013comp/eve...esults.html%20 That doesn't directly explain why the results aren't being updated, but it does make me wonder if there's a similar typo in the script or whatever that's supposed to be posting the results... -Steve Tarr Mentor, team 1425 |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
...And I now see that the match results are up to date. I guess someone found the problem and fixed it during the lunch break.
Thank you, whoever you are! -Steve Tarr mentor, team 1425 |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Its killing me not knowing the rankings! I have to watch the feed very carefully just to see the match results...
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
The page is back up: http://www2.usfirst.org/2013comp/eve...chresults.html
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
The results and rankings seem to be back up and were just updated to match 85. I hope it keeps working!
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
118 just won their match and guaranteed themselves the #1 seed.
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
QF4-1: Redabot1 pushes Blueabot1 into Blueabot2 who is climbing. Blueabot2 falls off the tower.
Penalty? Refs said no. I feel like it should be a 30pt climb+tfoul. |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
On another note, the 1241, 610, 1477 QF-2 was really exciting, with both alliances scoring over 200 points. Who knows what the third match will bring? It seems like traffic is going to become a problem.
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
SF 1-1.
43 fouls points for red. Did anyone hear what they were for? |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
Quote:
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
So many high-profile matches lost because of Technical Fouls...
|
WOW! Team 610 heads to the finals! Ontario and the Lone Star state looking for Einstein!
Amazing play and hats off to all the teams! Congrats to Crescent School and Team 610! |
Re: Galileo Division 2013
I think it's time for the feather boas to come back
|
Re: Galileo Division 2013
1241, 1477, and 610 are heading to Einstein!
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 18:51. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi