Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148831)

Hallry 07-06-2016 12:25

[FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Posted on the FRC Blog, 6/7/16: http://www.firstinspires.org/robotic...-the-numbers-2

Quote:

The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2

Written by Kevin O'Connor, Robotics Engineer.


One of the under-the-hood features of the FRC Control System software is a system called Usage Reporting. This system tracks what WPILib objects are created in each team's code and reports the data back to FMS when the robot is connected to the field. This data helps FIRST and our Suppliers understand how teams are using the Control System which can give us insight into things such as adoption of new features or usage of legacy classes.

Here are a few numbers from the data that teams may find interesting:

152,572

The total number of Usage Data records captured by FMS

22,607

The total number of motor controllers used on 2016 robots

6,402

The total number of USB input devices used to control those motors

2,156

Total Encoders used to get feedback from those motors

1,4021

The number of teams that used pneumatics (with the PCM) on their 2016 robot

764

The number of USB cameras streamed back to the Driver Station

489

The number of Digital Outputs used to control non-actuators (lights, sensors, etc.) on 2016 robots

17

The number of Analog Outputs used to control non-actuators (sounds, lights, etc.) on 2016 robots



1

The number of teams using the GearTooth sensor class which was made for the GearTooth sensors from the 2006-2008 KOP

The complete processed data set can be found here.



A few notes on this data:

- The data has been semi-anonymized. Team numbers have been replaced with rookie years and the data has been resorted so teams are not in order by team number.

- We can only track the objects teams create in code. If you create extra motor controllers that aren't on your robot2, they will still be captured by this system. If you create motor controller objects of the wrong type, that wrong type will be captured by this system.

- Counted objects and TRUE/FALSE show the largest number of any given object used in any one match (i.e. if a Robot had 2 Encoders in match 1 and 3 Encoders in match 7, 3 will be reported). Language and Framework report what was used in the last recorded match.

- Some objects naturally result in double counting (Encoders use Digital Inputs)



1Compressor may not show for C++ and Java teams that didn't use the Compressor object. Counting the # of teams that had > 1 Solenoids is a more accurate count of teams using pneumatics.

2Example: 43 teams report more than 4 relays with only 4 relay ports on the roboRIO.

marshall 07-06-2016 12:46

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
So how do we get more encoders on more motors?

notmattlythgoe 07-06-2016 12:49

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by marshall (Post 1591772)
So how do we get more encoders on more motors?

Require 2 encoders to be declared per motor. Because 2 > 1.

#2encoders

Thad House 07-06-2016 12:50

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Those numbers are really cool and interesting to go through.

Quote:

Originally Posted by marshall (Post 1591772)
So how do we get more encoders on more motors?

One thing to remember is that Encoders hooked up through CAN Talons would not show up. I saw a decent amount of teams doing that this year, which would probably help raise that some more. But I do agree more teams need more encoders or potentiometers, as that greatly increases the performance of robots.

notmattlythgoe 07-06-2016 12:54

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Thad House (Post 1591775)
Those numbers are really cool and interesting to go through.



One thing to remember is that Encoders hooked up through CAN Talons would not show up. I saw a decent amount of teams doing that this year, which would probably help raise that some more. But I do agree more teams need more encoders or potentiometers, as that greatly increases the performance of robots.

It also probably isn't taking into account optical sensors used as counters for shooter wheels.

Jon Stratis 07-06-2016 12:56

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by marshall (Post 1591772)
So how do we get more encoders on more motors?

I think the key to this is figuring out how to make tuning the PID loops easier. We've been using encoders and potentiometers with PID loops for years, yet it still takes our programming team a ridiculous amount of time to get each one tuned correctly. There just isn't enough time to get them set up correctly most years, and even though we put them on the robot and try to get them working, it seems like we end up commenting them out when we get to competition and have run out of time to get them working.

Plus, the USDigital encoders that we've always used have such small wires... it seems we're always breaking one or more of them!

Anupam Goli 07-06-2016 13:03

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis (Post 1591777)
Plus, the USDigital encoders that we've always used have such small wires... it seems we're always breaking one or more of them!

Once you go Grayhill, you never go back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thad House (Post 1591775)
But I do agree more teams need more encoders or potentiometers, as that greatly increases the performance of robots.

Depends on the application. If I have a 2 position arm or mechanism that doesn't need precise operation, I can get away with just using a limit switch. And I'm sure that you don't really need encoders for intake rollers, either; but teams should definitely be using them for their drivetrain and shooter wheels. (Hell, 1648 used a banner sensor and a piece of retro-reflective tape on a belt for our shooter's feedback)

Conor Ryan 07-06-2016 13:14

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Coolest thing I saw:
Code:

Lang        Count        Percentage
C#        1        0.03%
C++        435        13.97%
Java        1526        49.00%
LabVIEW        1116        35.84%
Python        33        1.06%
Unknown        3        0.10%
Total        3114        100.00%


Joe Ross 07-06-2016 13:43

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hallry (Post 1591771)
Example: 43 teams report more than 4 relays with only 4 relay ports on the roboRIO.

It shows that we used 3 relays, when we used none. I suspect something else is being misreported as relay. 330 is row 148, in case anyone is interested.

Thad House 07-06-2016 13:46

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Ross (Post 1591784)
It shows that we used 3 relays, when we used none. I suspect something else is being misreported as relay. 330 is row 148, in case anyone is interested.

WPILibJ doesn't currently report Relays. So relays are not shown for any Java team. That should be fixed next season however.

notmattlythgoe 07-06-2016 13:47

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Ross (Post 1591784)
It shows that we used 3 relays, when we used none. I suspect something else is being misreported as relay. 330 is row 148, in case anyone is interested.

How did you figure that out? Did I miss the "Flipped back over to secure the win" column?

marshall 07-06-2016 13:53

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Thad House (Post 1591775)
One thing to remember is that Encoders hooked up through CAN Talons would not show up. I saw a decent amount of teams doing that this year, which would probably help raise that some more. But I do agree more teams need more encoders or potentiometers, as that greatly increases the performance of robots.

Are you certain about this? I would think they would still show up per WPILib... I am likely wrong though.

As for tuning PID... I think we need to release some directions on how we do it... that or Omar should put his method out there. We spend maybe a couple hours tuning it and then we play with values a little here or there as needed but typically we get it right pretty quick. I'll see if I can't get a student to explain the method they use.

Thad House 07-06-2016 13:56

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by marshall (Post 1591788)
Are you certain about this? I would think they would still show up per WPILib... I am likely wrong though.

They don't. The encoder and counter reporting are only set when the WPILib encoder or counter classes are used. The encoders into the CAN Talons have no way currently of getting reported, as they are just methods in the CANTalon class.

So for like our robot, which is on 1885, it only shows 1 encoder, as we only had 1 hooked into the roboRIO, and the other 2 were directly into CANTalons.

marshall 07-06-2016 13:58

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Thad House (Post 1591789)
They don't. The encoder and counter reporting are only set when the WPILib encoder or counter classes are used. The encoders into the CAN Talons have no way currently of getting reported, as they are just methods in the CANTalon class.

So for like our robot, which is on 1885, it only shows 1 encoder, as we only had 1 hooked into the roboRIO, and the other 2 were directly into CANTalons.

Well then... there are likely a lot more encoders not being *ahem* counted for then.

Sorry, had to do it.

notmattlythgoe 07-06-2016 13:59

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by marshall (Post 1591790)
Well then... there are likely a lot more encoders not being *ahem* counted for then.

Sorry, had to do it.


Cothron Theiss 07-06-2016 14:21

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Conor Ryan (Post 1591782)
Coolest thing I saw:
Code:

Lang        Count        Percentage
C#        1        0.03%
C++        435        13.97%
Java        1526        49.00%
LabVIEW        1116        35.84%
Python        33        1.06%
Unknown        3        0.10%
Total        3114        100.00%


I am very curious as to what the three unknown's are. Also, I had completely assumed that LabVIEW would comprise the majority, or at least be the most commonly used.

feverittm 07-06-2016 14:37

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Another interesting statistic is the number of PID controllers.

There is some team out there with a reported 100 PID Controllers. I really don't believe this, but it is interesting. Also it shows there are 31 teams with more than 10 PID Controllers.

As was already said... interesting :)

Andrew Schreiber 07-06-2016 14:52

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by feverittm (Post 1591797)
Another interesting statistic is the number of PID controllers.

There is some team out there with a reported 100 PID Controllers. I really don't believe this, but it is interesting. Also it shows there are 31 teams with more than 10 PID Controllers.

As was already said... interesting :)

I'd be willing to bet that team is doing something funky with creating it and then (hopefully) tearing it down rather than disabling it.


I'd be interested to know if they just took the state of the robot in the last match or if they aggregated it over the season.

Jon Stratis 07-06-2016 15:23

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cothron Theiss (Post 1591793)
I am very curious as to what the three unknown's are. Also, I had completely assumed that LabVIEW would comprise the majority, or at least be the most commonly used.

This actually doesn't surprise me very much. Java is the language used for the AP Computer Science exam, and thus the option that is probably taught in schools the most. I'm sure many teams made the decision to go with Java for just that reason!

BigJ 07-06-2016 15:30

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe (Post 1591787)
How did you figure that out? Did I miss the "Flipped back over to secure the win" column?

I was able to find mine (forgot the row number now) by process of elimination using Rookie year (2005) -> Command-based -> No robotdrive class -> yes smartdashboard -> 2 Joystick classes -> No solenoids. At that point there was 3 or 4 left and I could pick the correct one based on number of digital ins and motor controllers.

Jon Stratis 07-06-2016 15:38

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BigJ (Post 1591810)
I was able to find mine (forgot the row number now) by process of elimination using Rookie year (2005) -> Command-based -> No robotdrive class -> yes smartdashboard -> 2 Joystick classes -> No solenoids. At that point there was 3 or 4 left and I could pick the correct one based on number of digital ins and motor controllers.

I tried something similar to identify my team... and came up with 0 rows. I started with year and language, then filtered out by motor controllers and pneumatics I can't find any row for 2007 rookies using Java that really looks like it could even be close to ours!

BigJ 07-06-2016 15:50

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
I tried to identify by numbers of objects as little as possible (except for things I know there was 0% chance anything was different, like Joysticks and solenoids) as I think there are some quirks with their tool. Our row had way more PIDController objects that I thought we should have, but it could have been a weird thing with a robot resetting midmatch, or etc (I don't think we were ever remaking our controllers).

notmattlythgoe 07-06-2016 15:55

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BigJ (Post 1591810)
I was able to find mine (forgot the row number now) by process of elimination using Rookie year (2005) -> Command-based -> No robotdrive class -> yes smartdashboard -> 2 Joystick classes -> No solenoids. At that point there was 3 or 4 left and I could pick the correct one based on number of digital ins and motor controllers.

I must be having an off day. Nobody is getting my humor.

Pault 07-06-2016 16:46

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber (Post 1591800)
I'd be interested to know if they just took the state of the robot in the last match or if they aggregated it over the season.

Quote:

- Counted objects and TRUE/FALSE show the largest number of any given object used in any one match (i.e. if a Robot had 2 Encoders in match 1 and 3 Encoders in match 7, 3 will be reported). Language and Framework report what was used in the last recorded match.


Also, I am pretty surprised by the Language numbers. Unfortunately I don't have a source, but I clearly remember hearing a few years ago that the split was about 50% Labview, 30% Java, 20% C++, and a small handful of Python users.

FlamingSpork 07-06-2016 16:53

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe (Post 1591818)
I must be having an off day. Nobody is getting my humor.

I found my team's code by filtering on "Got stuck on moat" and making sure it was exactly once. :)

GeeTwo 07-06-2016 16:56

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pault (Post 1591826)
Also, I am pretty surprised by the Language numbers. Unfortunately I don't have a source, but I clearly remember hearing a few years ago that the split was about 50% Labview, 30% Java, 20% C++, and a small handful of Python users.

Many teams shift languages over the years. We helped two local teams switch from to Java (IIRC both from LabView) this year, as well as two rookie teams to start on Java. I'm sure there are teams going other directions as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe (Post 1591818)
I must be having an off day. Nobody is getting my humor.

Me too. Lythgoe says I'm nobody:p .

Edit -finding 3946:
with Rookie Year, Language, Framework, and minimal numbers for CANTalons,Talon SRs, and solenoids, down to 2. Several further points indicate that we're record 1603 in the table. A few interesting things learned there, most of which are confirmed as I view our source code.

Andrew Schreiber 07-06-2016 17:11

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pault (Post 1591826)
Answer to my question in a quote...

Ah thanks, that's what I get for skimming article.

Seems like a sub-par way to collect data as "oh we had a victor on hand for this quick fix then swap it back out to a talon when it gets in" I'd almost like to see the final state numbers for teams.


Edit: Also - I really wish this wasn't anonymized data.

notmattlythgoe 07-06-2016 17:49

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber (Post 1591834)
Ah thanks, that's what I get for skimming article.

Seems like a sub-par way to collect data as "oh we had a victor on hand for this quick fix then swap it back out to a talon when it gets in" I'd almost like to see the final state numbers for teams.


Edit: Also - I really wish this wasn't anonymized data.

Me too. I would love to be able to correlate this to teams to see what other teams are doing.

PayneTrain 07-06-2016 17:53

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe (Post 1591840)
Me too. I would love to be able to correlate this to teams to see what other teams are doing.

I don't know if they didn't release it because maybe this is data we as teams never actually consented to release? I wish we knew because personally

A) Let's not pretend I read that form

B) I don't really care whether or not people know which of the 8 2000RYs that used C++ we are...

Jared Russell 07-06-2016 19:33

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
95% sure that row 130 is 254.

jtrv 07-06-2016 20:41

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Conor Ryan (Post 1591782)
Coolest thing I saw:
Code:

Lang        Count        Percentage
C#        1        0.03%
C++        435        13.97%
Java        1526        49.00%
LabVIEW        1116        35.84%
Python        33        1.06%
Unknown        3        0.10%
Total        3114        100.00%


C#? Who? What? When? Where? Why?

virtuald 07-06-2016 22:44

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
I'm quite happy that there are 33 teams using Python. I would have guessed ~15 when the season started. :)

virtuald 07-06-2016 22:45

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jtrv (Post 1591868)
C#? Who? What? When? Where? Why?

https://github.com/robotdotnet/WPILib

Thad House 07-06-2016 23:03

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jtrv (Post 1591868)
C#? Who? What? When? Where? Why?

I created the port last summer as a personal project to get better at coding and building an end to end system. Plus it got me a good look into the wpilib system. It was fun, and I personally like the language much more then java. My own team didn't use it as they wanted to stay with Java, but I did talk with the team that did, and the only problems I heard about were with the dashboard, and I'm looking into that now.

As for the where, either check my Sig, or the post above.

nickbrickmaster 07-06-2016 23:05

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by virtuald (Post 1591883)
I'm quite happy that there are 33 teams using Python. I would have guessed ~15 when the season started. :)

From ChiefDelphi, I thought there would be more as well.

Proud to be part of the 1%. All the judges and teams we talked to were very surprised and interested to learn that we used a unique language for programming. I'd love to see it take off more.

catmanjake 07-06-2016 23:12

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Conor Ryan (Post 1591782)
Coolest thing I saw:
Code:

Lang        Count        Percentage
C#        1        0.03%
C++        435        13.97%
Java        1526        49.00%
LabVIEW        1116        35.84%
Python        33        1.06%
Unknown        3        0.10%
Total        3114        100.00%


What does the 3114 total mean? Is that how many teams participated in an event this year?

team-4480 07-06-2016 23:31

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nickbrickmaster (Post 1591891)
From ChiefDelphi, I thought there would be more as well.

Proud to be part of the 1%. All the judges and teams we talked to were very surprised and interested to learn that we used a unique language for programming. I'd love to see it take off more.

We actually forget to even mention that we use Python to the judges or anyone at North Star. This was our second year using it and I guess we just were used to using the language with little to no problems so it wasn't exactly on our minds at competition(fantastic job virtuald!).

bobbysq 07-06-2016 23:54

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe (Post 1591840)
Me too. I would love to be able to correlate this to teams to see what other teams are doing.

Here's some de-anonymized data from a survey I took on /r/FRC a while back.

GeeTwo 08-06-2016 00:04

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by catmanjake (Post 1591895)
What does the 3114 total mean? Is that how many teams participated in an event this year?

That sounds about right. The sad truth is that half of the FRC teams that ever existed do not exist any more. The good news is that the longer a team manages to continue, the better its chances are to continue to continue.

ATannahill 08-06-2016 00:17

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by GeeTwo (Post 1591907)
That sounds about right. The sad truth is that half of the FRC teams that ever existed do not exist any more. The good news is that the longer a team manages to continue, the better its chances are to continue to continue.

I wouldn't go quite with half, I'd guesstimate at a third. FIRST will usually leave a gap between the last rookie of year x and the first rookie of year x+1. I know one year they skipped every other number for a certain range. This allows for if a team splits or if there is another reason to use a number from a previous year without having two teams have had the same number at a different time.

EricH 08-06-2016 01:16

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rtfgnow (Post 1591909)
I wouldn't go quite with half, I'd guesstimate at a third. FIRST will usually leave a gap between the last rookie of year x and the first rookie of year x+1. I know one year they skipped every other number for a certain range. This allows for if a team splits or if there is another reason to use a number from a previous year without having two teams have had the same number at a different time.

And of the teams that do fold, sometimes they'll come back under a rookie number. Or under their own number for a season or two (FRC23). That can drive the team numbers up with respect to teams that have competed.

[cue Mark McLeod with the real numbers... wait, CD doesn't work that way]

notmattlythgoe 08-06-2016 08:30

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
2363 Triple Helix should be row 861.

marshall 08-06-2016 08:37

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe (Post 1591932)
2363 Triple Helix should be row 861.

900 The Zebracorns are highly likely to be row 355.

Greg Needel 08-06-2016 08:48

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
As a Supplier we really appreciate that FIRST released this data.


There are a couple of insights that we can gain from looking at this, which help us to make some choices about our future products and their uses.


We had some interesting thoughts, specifically related to motor controllers

The number of total motor controllers reported used is probably lower than it actually is, mainly due to the number of teams that use Y cables to power their PWM motor controllers.

The types of PWM motor controllers reported likely has some errors in it, as the report out is based on library choice in code and all of them are the same (victor, talon, SPARK, etc). The total number of SPARK's used for example is considerably less than the number that are "in the wild" which means either people used different libraries in their code or a significant portion of them are used in practice bots or for testing ( I suspect a bit of both)

There are 8 teams that show having zero motor controllers.....:confused:

The average number of controllers per robot is 7.25



I am 99% sure line 1089 is 2848

MechEng83 08-06-2016 08:58

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
I was slightly thrown off by the lack of "encoders" considering we had 6 incremental and 1 absolute encoder, but I'm 95% sure that line 592 is us.
Most of our encoders were plugged directly into the TalonSRXs.

Not a lot of 2006 Rookie year C++ teams with no pneumatics. We definitely had more than 7 Talons on our CAN interface, though I don't remember 10.

Greg Needel 08-06-2016 09:52

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MechEng83 (Post 1591937)
I was slightly thrown off by the lack of "encoders" considering we had 6 incremental and 1 absolute encoder, but I'm 95% sure that line 592 is us.
Most of our encoders were plugged directly into the TalonSRXs.

Not a lot of 2006 Rookie year C++ teams with no pneumatics. We definitely had more than 7 Talons on our CAN interface, though I don't remember 10.



This leads to another question about the data....when was it taken? If this was from the first time robots connected for the season it would be a lot different than if it was from a team's last match. Maybe it is an average or maximum for all of the categories.

marshall 08-06-2016 09:57

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Needel (Post 1591944)
This leads to another question about the data....when was it taken? If this was from the first time robots connected for the season it would be a lot different than if it was from a team's last match. Maybe it is an average or maximum for all of the categories.

It was based on team number and I'm 93.2% sure it is based on the last time the team connected to the field so you are seeing the output from the final run.

I know it was based on team number and the number of controllers we have listed only happened for 1 match at NC DCMP.

GeeTwo 08-06-2016 10:14

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Needel (Post 1591944)
This leads to another question about the data....when was it taken? If this was from the first time robots connected for the season it would be a lot different than if it was from a team's last match. Maybe it is an average or maximum for all of the categories.

It's in the original [re]post - the largest for counted objects and latest for language and framework:
Quote:

Originally Posted by OP
- Counted objects and TRUE/FALSE show the largest number of any given object used in any one match (i.e. if a Robot had 2 Encoders in match 1 and 3 Encoders in match 7, 3 will be reported). Language and Framework report what was used in the last recorded match.


Conor Ryan 08-06-2016 12:32

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by catmanjake (Post 1591895)
What does the 3114 total mean? Is that how many teams participated in an event this year?

...the total number of data points on the sheet. likely equal to number of the teams that competed this year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Needel (Post 1591936)
The number of total motor controllers reported used is probably lower than it actually is, mainly due to the number of teams that use Y cables to power their PWM motor controllers.

This is supported Strongly by the fact that there are 6962 Talons reported and 7731 CANTalons reported. Given the learning curve involved, I would expect the number of talons used to be much higher.


What team would like to claim line 508 - 2005 year... 7 Jaguars... in CAN?! Bold move cotton.

Greg Needel 08-06-2016 12:44

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Conor Ryan (Post 1591964)
...the total number of data points on the sheet. likely equal to number of the teams that competed this year.



This is supported Strongly by the fact that there are 6962 Talons reported and 7731 CANTalons reported. Given the learning curve involved, I would expect the number of talons used to be much higher.

All reported PWM motor controllers: 14821
All reported CAN motor controllers: 7750

Based on the observational data across events that REV folks attended we think that the number is actually somewhere like 2/3 of teams use PWM and 1/3 use CAN, so the error bars on the data might be pretty wide. I suspect the CAN data is more accurate due to the way that they are addressed in code.

AlexD744 08-06-2016 17:12

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Needel (Post 1591936)
There are 8 teams that show having zero motor controllers.....:confused:

I can see this happening if they only had a drive base and initialized it with the RobotDrive constructor that takes in port numbers instead of motor controller objects.

Alan Anderson 08-06-2016 22:03

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexD744 (Post 1591996)
I can see this happening if they only had a drive base and initialized it with the RobotDrive constructor that takes in port numbers instead of motor controller objects.

I encountered more than one LabVIEW-using team that used Drive for all of their motors, not just drivebase ones.

dtengineering 08-06-2016 22:28

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by marshall (Post 1591772)
So how do we get more encoders on more motors?

Shouldn't the question be "How do we get more magnetic gear tooth sensors onto robots?" :D

A tip of my hat to the team who made the old tech work!

Jason

PayneTrain 08-06-2016 22:44

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by marshall (Post 1591772)
So how do we get more encoders on more motors?

I feel like mixing it up and adding something worthwhile to a conversation so let's try to workshop this.

The adaptation of something by a FIRST team might go something like this.

We give the team a fish (the kit of parts frame), we show them how to get that fish (build season) and ideally, the activity of teaching them to fish can lead them to an event that can show them other people's fish and those people can show them how they caught them.

Wow, what a terrible analogy. I'm leaving it anyway.

So I believe CTR gave everyone a magnetic encoder in the kit this year. I think if someone who is qualified in programming and/or is more intelligent/motivated than myself can create a video tutorial and/or workshop that can show teams a useful application for the encoder and how to get the most out of it, that can only lead to bigger and better things for more and more teams. Probably... maybe.

I also do not know if this is available, but if we get the DigiKey and AutomationDirect or other relevant vouchers, maybe FIRST can work with experienced mentors and the suppliers to create a "Top 10 Ways to Use Your Voucher" guide that you can access through TIMS.

bobbysq 08-06-2016 23:06

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
The magnetic encoder in the KOP wasn't helped by being a Talon SRX encoder, which only connects to a Talon SRX without a breakout.

PayneTrain 08-06-2016 23:17

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bobbysq (Post 1592058)
The magnetic encoder in the KOP wasn't helped by being a Talon SRX encoder, which only connects to a Talon SRX without a breakout.

Talon SRXs were free through a voucher.
CTR Breakouts are $10 a pop.

Not quite all around perfect but it's pretty close. It would be interesting to know the redemption rate for the IFI/CTR voucher and the breakdown of motor controller options.

Christopher149 08-06-2016 23:56

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by marshall (Post 1591772)
So how do we get more encoders on more motors?

For me? Get over one bad experience in 2011 with USDigital? encoders on the drive train. If I could trust the hardware, there'd be encoders on a lot more.

Knufire 09-06-2016 01:07

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher149 (Post 1592061)
For me? Get over one bad experience in 2011 with USDigital? encoders on the drive train. If I could trust the hardware, there'd be encoders on a lot more.

Which model encoder?

Christopher149 09-06-2016 01:09

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Knufire (Post 1592065)
Which model encoder?

Probably the KOP ones (don't remember model off the top of my head).

Knufire 09-06-2016 01:25

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher149 (Post 1592066)
Probably the KOP ones (don't remember model off the top of my head).

Probably the E4P. These work great when installed correctly; the problem is they're very easy to assemble incorrectly or damage while assembling.

I've had much better luck with the S4/S4T. This is nearly the same encoder, but has a integrated shaft instead of a through hole. Part of the outer body is threaded so there's no need to open the encoder itself to mount.

Cel Skeggs 09-06-2016 02:37

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexD744 (Post 1591996)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Needel (Post 1591936)
There are 8 teams that show having zero motor controllers.....:confused:

I can see this happening if they only had a drive base and initialized it with the RobotDrive constructor that takes in port numbers instead of motor controller objects.

There are some other explanations. At least two of the teams with no reported motor controllers are due to our framework - we don't report usage data currently, due to it not being a high priority for us compared to the other goals we could work towards. See rows 525, which is our team, and row 1951, which is another team that we know uses our software. These rows pretty much only report the language.

I could definitely understand it if something similar happened with another few projects.

BrendanB 09-06-2016 11:21

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by marshall (Post 1591772)
So how do we get more encoders on more motors?

If suppliers like Vexpro and Andymark included their integrated encoder options in the pages of the products they work with it could help teams who don't know they exist to look into them.

Take it a step further and have more experienced teams make tutorial videos on how to add sensors to mechanisms (installation, wiring, programming, and basic debugging).

I know from experience that sometimes when teams are building a robot it can come down to the lead purchaser saying, "I saw this on their website maybe this can be useful too". The teams who surf CD daily or eagerly wait for the new product launches aren't as large as one would think. Many teams don't use certain parts because they either don't know it exists or don't know how to use them. Cost can be a factor as well but I'd put it lower on the list on the why teams don't use them.

Andrew Schreiber 09-06-2016 11:33

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BrendanB (Post 1592081)
If suppliers like Vexpro and Andymark included their integrated encoder options in the pages of the products they work with it could help teams who don't know they exist to look into them.

Take it a step further and have more experienced teams make tutorial videos on how to add sensors to mechanisms (installation, wiring, programming, and basic debugging).

I know from experience that sometimes when teams are building a robot it can come down to the lead purchaser saying, "I saw this on their website maybe this can be useful too". The teams who surf CD daily or eagerly wait for the new product launches aren't as large as one would think. Many teams don't use certain parts because they either don't know it exists or don't know how to use them. Cost can be a factor as well but I'd put it lower on the list on the why teams don't use them.


I'd also add "get more teams using CAN" to that list.

I've been around a long time, I've done a lot of stuff with closed loop controls. But I still prefer to run something with limit switches or cylinders if possible. Call it laziness if you want. But the fact is that being able to set a motor to a speed and then stop it is really easy and can solve a LOT of problems. But this year with CAN, once tuned (with a web dashboard might I add) I essentially just had to set the desired position in code and it handled the rest.

frcguy 09-06-2016 12:17

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
If anyone is curious, 95% sure that row 2725 is 5940. Looks like we are the only rookie that used Java and had 5 Talon SRXs, so that's how I determined it.

AWoL 11-06-2016 00:29

Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
 
225 is row 118. Everything matches up to a "t," except I have no idea why the system would think that we have a single, old Talon... :confused:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:43.

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