![]() |
[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:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
So how do we get more encoders on more motors?
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
#2encoders |
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Those numbers are really cool and interesting to go through.
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
Plus, the USDigital encoders that we've always used have such small wires... it seems we're always breaking one or more of them! |
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Coolest thing I saw:
Code:
Lang Count Percentage |
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
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. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
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. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
Sorry, had to do it. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
![]() |
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
|
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 :) |
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
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. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
|
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).
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
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. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
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... |
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
95% sure that row 130 is 254.
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
|
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. :)
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
As for the where, either check my Sig, or the post above. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
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. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
[cue Mark McLeod with the real numbers... wait, CD doesn't work that way] |
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
2363 Triple Helix should be row 861.
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
|
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 |
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. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
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. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
I know it was based on team number and the number of controllers we have listed only happened for 1 match at NC DCMP. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
Quote:
What team would like to claim line 508 - 2005 year... 7 Jaguars... in CAN?! Bold move cotton. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
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. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
A tip of my hat to the team who made the old tech work! Jason |
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
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. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
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. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
I could definitely understand it if something similar happened with another few projects. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
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. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The 2016 Season, by the Numbers 2
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
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