Chief Delphi
Page 4 of 10 < 123 4 5678910 >
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Ramps (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135644)

Gregor 11-03-2015 00:23
Re: Ramps
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1456299)
But let me ask one simple question. Let's assume that you see a ramp, on the far side of the field from your team, with no apparent tether to its parent robot. What is your assumption, and how does that affect your experience?
If you have to follow a tether to identify the team it's illegal per the blue box in R2.

EricH 11-03-2015 00:26
Re: Ramps
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregor (Post 1456327)
If you have to follow a tether to identify the team it's illegal per the blue box in R2.
Wasn't the rule I was thinking about. I was assuming that the ramp had all its numbers.

Fusion_Clint 11-03-2015 00:34
Re: Ramps
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Anderson (Post 1456319)
The ability to withstand a pull without breaking is not an issue for something like a passive tether/leash. Getting cut is what I'd worry about. A piece of material that's less than a millimeter thick seems likely to be easily damaged by robot wheels and gearboxes.

Eric's caution appears sound to me. I agree with the basic idea that you should also avoid making it difficult for people to see that you are following the rules, and a .035 wide line is going to be difficult to see.



For one thing, a tote stack in autonomous only counts if it is not in contact with a robot.
Again,

Don't worry about the effectiveness of a teams solution when it comes to whether it is within the rules or not. Again, anything that will cut a rope will also cut braided line.

"highly visible" is not a requirement in the rules. And the rule is supported by a robot, not touching a robot.

It is amazing to me that people with zero apparent experience with high visibility braided line are making such absolute statements about it.

I withdraw from this conversation on the basis that one should not argue with ....

EricH 11-03-2015 00:44
Re: Ramps
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fusion_Clint (Post 1456331)
And the rule is supported by a robot, not touching a robot.
All I will say to that is that if there is doubt as to support, the referees will not score the points--see the rules since Day 1. And touching is often enough to add in doubt.

Fusion_Clint 11-03-2015 00:57
Re: Ramps
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1456337)
All I will say to that is that if there is doubt as to support, the referees will not score the points--see the rules since Day 1. And touching is often enough to add in doubt.
If you think a 1/32" line laying on the ground touching a tote is considered to be supporting a stack, you should not be in a position of trust. That is way past a realistic interpretation of the rules and you have missed the intent of Frank's message about team experience.

Frankly, you are part of the problem.

Gregor 11-03-2015 01:05
Re: Ramps
 
1 Attachment(s)
The attached photo did not enhance my event experience.

BeardyMentor 11-03-2015 07:53
Re: Ramps
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fusion_Clint (Post 1456341)
If you think a 1/32" line laying on the ground touching a tote is considered to be supporting a stack, you should not be in a position of trust. That is way past a realistic interpretation of the rules and you have missed the intent of Frank's message about team experience.

Frankly, you are part of the problem.
Calm down, they are just trying to help. The idea is that it *could* be interpreted that way. If you have two options, one that could be ruled in such a way that you do not get the points and the other where there is no question, you should go for the option where there is no question. In the end it is completely your and your team's choice. The people here are just giving you their opinion and some simple justifications for it.

I am not so worried about the Refs saying the tether is supporting the totes, but of entanglement. I know that these thin very flexible lines have a good chance of getting caught in the rollers on mecanum and omni wheels. There would have to be a lot of testing done before we were to put anything that might pose an entanglement hazard to another robot on our alliance on the field.

Andrew Schreiber 11-03-2015 08:01
Re: Ramps
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fusion_Clint (Post 1456341)
If you think a 1/32" line laying on the ground touching a tote is considered to be supporting a stack, you should not be in a position of trust. That is way past a realistic interpretation of the rules and you have missed the intent of Frank's message about team experience.

Frankly, you are part of the problem.
Just like the elevator hooks leaning on top can't support it?

FIRST has almost always had "contact implies supporting" rules. Because otherwise it's a judgement call and those are worse than illogical calls (like 1/32 cable supporting 60lbs of game pieces) because they are inconsistent.

What Eric is saying is don't even give them a reason to not count it because there's a chance it won't get counted just so they are consistent.

g_sawchuk 11-03-2015 08:01
Re: Ramps
 
Wow, this conversation has really "ramped up" into quite the argument.

GeeTwo 11-03-2015 08:13
Re: Ramps
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMentor (Post 1456376)
There would have to be a lot of testing done before we were to put anything that might pose an entanglement hazard to another robot on our alliance on the field.
And with monofilament, by the time it is large enough to be visible, it does not lay flat on the carpet. This makes monofilament an entanglement hazard for rubber wheels as well.

(emphasis mine)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMentor (Post 1456376)
There would have to be a lot of testing done before we were to put anything that might pose an entanglement hazard to another robot on our alliance on the field.
And this is also why I do not expect to see tethers in play again, until/unless we have another "Step" game, in which the alliances must occupy different spaces, or at least have large exclusive zones from which they can effectively play the game. This year you can only be an entanglement hazard to your own alliance.

akoscielski3 11-03-2015 09:21
Re: Ramps
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rich2202 (Post 1456196)
I only saw 2 robots on that side. Could the ramp be a 3rd robot?
Unfortunately this camera angle is bad for you to see the other robot. It is behind the TV screen near the MC, running even with the scoring platform. You can see it's base and it's elevator sticking out.

We had 2 ramps connected to Team 1547 (our ramp called "RAMP RAMP RAMP" and half a tote that 610 used as a ramp). They were connected using bright orange fishing line that ran along the perimeter of the field.

Thank you to Team 1547 for being our valuable third robot! :)

rich2202 11-03-2015 10:02
Re: Ramps
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregor (Post 1456345)
The attached photo did not enhance my event experience.
Did they not count it as a STACK? As far as I know, the only stack with limitations is for an RC that can only be supported by gray totes ("by only scored Gray TOTES" in 3.1.2.3).

In 3.1.2.2, the requirement is only "supported by the STEP". The blue box goes on to say that "support" is transitive through other TOTES, which implies that it can also be transitive through other items, such as LITTER, or even an RC.

I suppose that one could argue whether the LITTER somehow breaks the "single column" requirement. But, that would be pretty lame.

ATannahill 11-03-2015 10:07
Re: Ramps
 
I do not see how saying support is transitive through totes implies that support is transitive through litter. Especially look at the Q&A response.

Please note, I am not saying I like the call, I am just saying this call is not surprising if you read the Q&A.

rich2202 11-03-2015 10:29
Re: Ramps
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtfgnow (Post 1456434)
I do not see how saying support is transitive through totes implies that support is transitive through litter. Especially look at the Q&A response.

Please note, I am not saying I like the call, I am just saying this call is not surprising if you read the Q&A.
QA439 is explicitly about RC's, which is what I said does not allow for transitivity through other items, and thus does not apply to this situation.

3.1.2.2 in the rule says "supported" without definition. In the blue box (which is a note) adds clarification that support is transitive. Since the clarification did not say transitive "only" through other TOTES, it can be reasonably implied that it is transitive through other items as well.

pntbll1313 11-03-2015 10:34
Re: Ramps
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rich2202 (Post 1456444)
QA439 is explicitly about RC's, which is what I said does not allow for transitivity through other items, and thus does not apply to this situation.

3.1.2.2 in the rule says "supported" without definition. In the blue box (which is a note) adds clarification that support is transitive. Since the clarification did not say transitive "only" through other TOTES, it can be reasonably implied that it is transitive through other items as well.
But it's not explicityly about RC's... "Gray TOTES 3,4,5 do not score because "support" is only transitive through TOTES and not LITTER."


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:17.
Page 4 of 10 < 123 4 5678910 >
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

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