![]() |
Team Update 1
http://www.firstinspires.org/sites/d...al/2016/01.pdf
Update 1 has been released. G11 issue settled! |
Re: Team Update 1
It seems its a little late (time wise, not date wise) for this to be released, good catch!
|
Re: Team Update 1
Well, that settles the G11/G21 discussions pretty thoroughly.
|
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
The update to G21 is clear but potentially concerning. |
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
Blue End: https://firstfrc.blob.core.windows.n...BlueEnd.vr.jpg Center: https://firstfrc.blob.core.windows.n...6Center.vr.jpg Red End https://firstfrc.blob.core.windows.n...6RedEnd.vr.jpg Spy Box: https://firstfrc.blob.core.windows.n...6SpyBox.vr.jpg |
The update to G21 seems a little too much. It's not a clarification, but an entirely different rule. Why'd they make it regardless of who touches who?
|
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
Basically, the situation was that if Blueabot was in RedaPassage, and Redabot came along and hit Blueabot, TECHNICALLY (due to the usage of "contact" as a verb), Blueabot didn't contact Redabot, so Blueabot doesn't get a penalty; Redabot is blocked from using RedaPassage (potentially), and Redabot is at risk of a G11 for trying to cause Blueabot to get a penalty (but there's a risk of it going to Blueabot for a strategy aimed at trying to get Redabot a G11 penalty). By clarifying that it's regardless of who initiates the contact, the GDC ensures that the Passage remains open, the G11 loop doesn't start, and removes any ambiguity. But, they also allow Blueabot (in the above example) to enter, thus ensuring that a different chokehold (hoarding balls in the Passage) doesn't happen. |
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 1
I'm kinda surprised they didn't tack the same wording onto G28 to cover courtyard contact in the last 20. The G11 blue box A section implies the same "regardless of who initiates contact" interpretation.
|
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
If the Boulder props open the door so I can back of into the neutral zone? If the Boulder is in the moat, and I drive over the boulder? I wonder what prompted that clarification? I noticed there wasn't any clarification regarding spys and carrier pigeons. |
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
I'm sure the carrier pigeons update will be forth coming! Steve |
Re: Team Update 1
Looks like the GDC reacted solidly to several whispers on the wind. I hope they are ready for the true storm when Q+A shows up.
|
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
No drones.....Lol. |
Re: Team Update 1
Hard to disagree with the intent, but the "intent" wording of the new blue box opens up a gigantic can of worms for referees.
|
Re: Team Update 1
Teams playing defense just got a whole lot harder
|
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
Scenario: RED robot is scoring boulders in BLUE Courtyard. There is a BLUE robot playing defense against that RED robot. RED robot has no boulders available except for one sitting in BLUE Secret Passage. RED robot travels into BLUE Secret Passage in attempt to pick up the boulder. BLUE robot sees them traveling in to the Secret Passage to retrieve the boulder, follows them in, and continues playing defense (bumping, pushing, mainly trying to get between RED robot and the boulder, etc). Would this be a G11? I would argue it is not a G11 and is in fact a G21 because they are not trying to intentionally cause a TECH FOUL, they are trying to play defense and keep an offensive robot from retrieving a game piece. However to an untrained eye, or maybe a passing glance by a ref, it would appear to be a G11 because of the repeated contact by BLUE onto RED in the Secret Passage and they could see it as trying to rack up TECH FOULS. Or maybe I'm reading the update completely wrong and it would always be a G11 on the BLUE robot? |
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
G21 A ROBOT contacting carpet in the opponent’s SECRET PASSAGE may not contact opposing ROBOTS, regardless of who initiates the contact. |
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
Also, in your scenario it's a lot easier to argue that the BLUE robot really is trying to draw a foul on RED. BLUE is actively threatening RED with a penalty for the sole purpose of keeping RED from collecting that ball. All that said, RED can turn that right around by tagging BLUE in the SP and then continuing on to bulldoze the ball in any particular direction. Then it's obviously a G21 by blue box standards. So yeah, chasing boulders in an enemy secret passage is an extremely dangerous activity with enemy robots nearby. |
Re: Team Update 1
Dangit - they still did not resolve the ambiguity of how thick the drawbridge door is. Field drawing says 1/8, manual says 1/4. I want to know how bendy it is. I can't imagine it is the 1/8, but I don't want to buy some and be wrong (it's a big piece!).
|
Re: Team Update 1
G11 Blue Box Part B
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 1
Looks like they put section 4 of the administrative manual in as section 4 of the game manual in the latest update. So, I don't have full detail on the bumper rules, but...
This seems to make at least some types of scaling a disabling offense: Quote:
Quote:
There may have been some comment about an exception to bumper rules while scaling in Section 4.7, but like I said, the admin section 4 is in the new game manual, and I don't have a second copy. |
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
From GE-16048 DOOR ASSEMBLY, DRAWBRIDGE Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
I suspect the original design had a single 0.25" piece with wood print on one side. They obviously realized that would scar very easily, and are now going with the 0.125 sandwich with the wood print in the middle. EDIT: And sniped. Ah well. |
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
This rule is meant to stop people from making designs that remove their bumpers for any reason. Similar to the height rules that allow for lenience when the robot is not oriented straight |
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
If you're going for a boulder in the SP, be fast, don't be slow and don't get touched. |
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
Although with the emphasis on measuring the robot as it would be flat on the ground, I'd assume that Ri3D 1.0's climb would indeed be illegal. |
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
The intent seems to be that your robot can't get into a configuration so the bumpers are out of the zone that would cause you to miss another robot's bumpers in a collision. |
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
Also, I second Kevin Leonard's point. This calls into question the legality of the Ri3D 1.0 robot's scaling mechanism. That design either violates the new G19-1, since the bumpers are vertical, or it may violate the 15 inch rule for extensions beyond the frame perimeter. If I consider the floor to be the plane at the robot's wheels when it's folded up, then does that mechanism extend 15 inches beyond the bumpers? I can't tell from the video. |
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
From the looks of it, even if there is no defense being actively played, going into the opposing secret passage will be dicey... It seems that there are going to be more than a few short robots about and one could, very unexpectedly, go racing through the low bar after the same boulder the daring offensive robot might be chasing... |
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
I do not understand how it violates the 15 in rule however. Could you explain that please? |
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 1
Effectively, [G19-1] and [R22]'s blue box stipulate that a robot which has bumpers at the lowest legal point may not use a manipulator to raise the front of the entire robot more than 3" without incurring a [G19-1] penalty. Robots which have bumpers at the highest legal point may not use a manipulator to raise the front of the robot at all.
What about if a robot pops a wheelie (intentionally or not)? Disabling for popping a wheelie could be a huge swing in a match... As a side note, I expect this to need to be demonstrated at inspection. |
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
Wheelies and a like are not included in this rule. Flipping sideways is not included in this rule. the flipping Ri3D bot seems to break the 15" outside of FRAME rule though. In my opinion. |
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
A. projected onto the plane of the floor. B. projected onto the plane defined by the original frame perimeter/bumpers/wheels. C. some other dynamically determined frame perimeter. I don't think C is a valid interpretation, thanks to the repeated declarations that the FP is fixed and not articulated. Given the updated bumper ruling and the robot height ruling with everything relative to robot orientation instead of world orientation, A is unlikely. I think the most likely interpretation is B. For Ri3D 1.0, the bot is clearly illegal if the measurement is A. It's so tall that the bumpers are well beyond 15" away from the mechanism. I don't think this is the likely interpretation, though. In the B case, I'd have to get a tape measure to determine the legality. It looks borderline-ish, but it's a rigid mechanism, so it's easy to put the robot on the ground and measure. No, my real concern is going to be short bots with tape measure/single point winch lifts. If the robot tilts over sideways during the lift, it seems highly likely that the tape measure will be outside the 15" envelope until the robot completes its lift. I'm going to pose that one to the GDC as soon as the Q&A opens, since I don't think it's been consistently called or even thought about in the past. In 2010, for instance, the cheesy poofs' tape measure lift would've been illegal under this interpretation. Although in this game, the penalty is a 5 pt foul and eventual disabling, which is still a net 5 pt gain. |
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
A possible intent for them not using "fully supported by" language would be to allow teams to score points even if, for example, they were parked on top of another robot. (Not saying that's a good idea) |
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
Also with the in contact language, it seems like it might be possible for you to scale by doing a hand-stand with maybe something to touch the rung? Depends on how they want to interpret whatever you stick up through your now upside down base to touch the rung. |
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
My question is, why would a team choose to SCALE by parking on another robot when CAPTURE needs each robot in its own zone? |
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
Quote:
1) touches the Rung; and 2) Lifts its bumpers above the line (and leaves the rest of the robot behind). |
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
Team A cheesecakes Robot B to have a simple mechanism that dispatches a rare earth magnet and some string on an arm. Robot A (Team A's robot) is designed for another robot to drive on top of it and then lift both robots. Robot B drives on top of Robot A. Robot A lifts both so that both sets of bumpers are above the low goals. Robot B then extends the arm to bring the magnet close enough to the empty rung to touch it and "stick" to it via the magnetism. Robot C scales or has scaled the remaining side of the tower. Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 1
This worries me that any robot that can't maintain a near-perfect center of gravity would be illegal if it tipped overmuch while scaling the tower....
Because if you only pay attention to the definition of the BUMPER ZONE a winch-bot is safe, and if you only pay attention to the 15" outside from a horizontal plane a winch-bot is safe, but if you must satisfy both then you're pretty much going to have to keep your bumpers level as if you were on solid ground if you want any hope of scaling the tower. "Think it'll work?" "It'd take a miracle." |
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
The ROBOT's BUMPER ZONE moves as the ROBOT moves. If the ROBOT tips over, then the BUMPER ZONE tips too. See the picture in the blue box under G17. While this is demonstrating that a tipped ROBOT doesn't violate the height limit, it would also apply to the BUMPER ZONE. If that's to scale, the BUMPERS are 5" wide, and on the tipping ROBOT the top of the BUMPER is about 16-18" off the floor. That can't be a violation. It follows that since your BUMPER ZONE is defined by your FRAME PERIMETER, then as your ROBOT tips the FRAME PERIMETER tips too. When the ROBOT tips in an attempt to SCALE, all parts must be within 15" of [the projection of] the tipped FRAME PERIMETER. That sure looks to be farther than 15" on the video. Nice try guys, but I think it's time for version 2.0, or at least 1.5. (Aside: How were they going to put BUMPERS on the front end of that thing anyway? Sure, they could attach a frame section to do it, but that might interfere with the treads.) EDIT: Regarding the jacking device, this would change the location of the BUMPER ZONE, because the jack pushes the ROBOT and the attached BUMPERS upward. While the FRAME PERIMETER doesn't change size, the BUMPERS are jacked up so they are outside the BUMPER ZONE. Because the jacking device is still on the ground. Or if on the BATTER, then figure out where the BUMPER ZONE would be if the ROBOT was on flat ground. EDIT 2: There's a blue box following R22 that states (more succinctly) what I've expounded above regarding the BUMPER ZONE of a tipped ROBOT. |
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 1
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 22:42. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi