Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   What will be the next technical growth leap for the average team? (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=154615)

JesseK 02-02-2017 14:26

Re: What will be the next technical growth leap for the average team?
 
I'm with Andrew and others - the VP was a major advance that changed how easily our mechanisms could be iterated through in 2013 and onward.

Vendor proliferation of hex shaft -based COTS components was the next big leap IMO. It takes most of the design work of power transmission around a shaft, allowing us to focus on mechanism design rather than pouring effort into that particular detail.

In the last 3 years, the mechanical technical leap seems to been many more options for intake wheels when interacting with non-compliant game pieces.

Other than that, more DIY-based CNC's & 3D printers have helped more than a few teams increase their capabilities.

s_forbes 02-02-2017 14:33

Re: What will be the next technical growth leap for the average team?
 
I want to be allowed to use hydraulic systems.

Andrew Schreiber 02-02-2017 14:41

Re: What will be the next technical growth leap for the average team?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by s_forbes (Post 1639546)
I want to be allowed to use hydraulic systems.

/s?

With the number of leaks I see in pneumatics I'd rather nobody shoot Lincoln[1] on an FRC field.

[1] Disney had a leak in their hydraulic system on an Abe Lincoln model. The fluid was red, it looked like he'd been shot.

Cothron Theiss 02-02-2017 14:44

Re: What will be the next technical growth leap for the average team?
 
I'll echo what several others have already mentioned in that the biggest difference for the most amount of teams is made by available COTS items. The hex shaft system makes a subtle but monumental difference. I don't even want to think about having to use keyways or interference fits or clamping hubs or tapers or set screws every time I want to transfer torque on a robot. I'd love to see hex shafts adopted by real-world industries, but I'm not holding my breath.

As for the next big technological advancement that will impact teams? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say mid-scale advanced manufacturing services. Already we're seeing things like the Wazer or other small scale CNC machines. While I don't think these are viable for anyone just yet, within 5 to 10 years, affordable CNC manufacturing on an FRC-esque scale could be a thing. Also, mid-scale additive manufacturing is a possibility. A vast amount of teams already have small desktop 3D Printers. There's lots of research and development being done all over the world with large scale additive manufacturing. *ahem* But to the best of my knowledge, there's barely any work being done to create printers in between the extremes. So I think we'll start seeing additive manufacturing machines much more on the FRC scale start coming from industry R&D, and then we'll swoop in to reap the benefits.

s_forbes 02-02-2017 14:50

Re: What will be the next technical growth leap for the average team?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber (Post 1639551)
/s?

No, I really want it to be allowed! Limit the fluid volume and give the field crew some bags of kitty litter. If you don't put hydraulic items in the KOP then they will likely only be used by teams that go out of their way to make a system that works correctly.

It would be a lot of fun. I like fun!

ToddF 02-02-2017 14:52

Re: What will be the next technical growth leap for the average team?
 
I tend to look at this question from a mechanical perspective. Agree with Jesse that the last big step forward was the standardization of interchangeable parts for hex shafting. That single change allowed us to devote our time iterating on mechanisms instead of wasting time fiddling with shafting fitment issues.

#2 has been the availability of COTS drive train solutions. This allows teams to focus their build season time developing and building scoring mechanisms instead of struggling to get a drive train up and running.

I think the next major technological leap will be when someone puts an affordable COTS swerve module on the market. We've wanted to run a swerve drive for years, but can't justify the ridiculous cost of COTS swerve modules. And, without advanced CNC manufacturing capability, we don't have the resources to make them ourselves. In the fall, someone posted a design for a swerve module made completely from waterjet cut parts. We'll be looking at that design this summer to perhaps become the basis for an in-house swerve module. But, we'd MUCH rather just buy the parts COTS. I'm betting there are a lot of other teams out there that are itching to go swerve who are in the same boat. Just look at how quickly West Coast Drive trains spread, once we had a few affordable options for COTS shifting gear boxes.

s-neff 02-02-2017 15:49

Re: What will be the next technical growth leap for the average team?
 
Re: Cameras: 192 had a *fantastic* student-built vision tracking system for variable-distance shots off a 270-degree turret in 2009, making 80%+ of our "sniper-type" shots. Not enough ball storage & rate of fire to win a regional that year, got wrecked by 254's crazy dump at both we attended.
Did win the Innovation in Controls award at every regional we attended that year. Did not win any regionals.

100% agree that 1/2" hex products with VersaPlanetaries feeding them is the recent "sea change" of capability available to the average team.

Having 3+ medium size high-quality suppliers (VexPro, AM, WCP, many more) competing to bring the best possible components and products to FRC is what enabled that. Back when we were picking between AM, Banebots, and in-house, in-house won most of the time and we'd spend the most time figuring out how to get torque off a shaft and second-most figuring out how to not smoke the Banebot. Since then AM has stepped up it's game to compete with VexPro and WCP, there's been a ton of standardization (to 1/2 hex), and every supplier is coming out with fantastic new products every year.

I don't know what's coming next, but I know it'll come a heckuvalot more quickly than 1/2 hex did.

marshall 02-02-2017 16:16

Re: What will be the next technical growth leap for the average team?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Turing'sEgo (Post 1639465)
we have team 900 who used the same technology in self driving cars in 2016

Meh. Trust me, we aren't revolutionizing anything yet. Just teaching students how to do cool stuff.

Personally, I'm eager to see what happens with COTS computing devices, solid state LIDAR, encoders, IMUs, and batteries in the next two-ish years. Prices are going to keep falling and the technology will become more accessible to your average team with better UIs and easier integration as it becomes used and documented.

Fields 02-02-2017 17:02

Re: What will be the next technical growth leap for the average team?
 
HOVERCRAFTS!!!!

But more seriously, as someone mentioned before, manufacturing servicing available to everyone including rookies.

(yes, I know it's already available, but many younger teams don't have the right resources to get the right resources right away)

iyportne 02-02-2017 17:03

Re: What will be the next technical growth leap for the average team?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber (Post 1639551)
/s?
...Disney had a leak in their hydraulic system on an Abe Lincoln model. The fluid was red, it looked like he'd been shot.

The man just can't catch a break!

USAC once experimented with hydraulic 4WD sprint cars with the tubular frame as the reservoir. Perhaps someone thought that was a technical leap...well...until that first crash. But don't worry, things like that rarely happen in FRC, and especially not this year.

Jon Stratis 02-02-2017 17:10

Re: What will be the next technical growth leap for the average team?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by s_forbes (Post 1639546)
I want to be allowed to use hydraulic systems.

It's already hard enough for Field Reset to keep the field clear of debris and the carpet patched up between matches. I doubt we'll be adding hydraulic fluid to their headaches anytime soon.

Rangel 02-02-2017 17:30

Re: What will be the next technical growth leap for the average team?
 
From a software perspective, I would like to see vision targets that don't use reflective tape come back in order to push teams to make more advanced vision software. Or maybe design a game that uses reflective for one task and non reflective for another. As basic tracking becomes more and more accessible, it seems like adding harder and more complex vision tasks would be the next step.

Tom Line 02-02-2017 18:53

Re: What will be the next technical growth leap for the average team?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris is me (Post 1639476)
I don't think this is a super accurate version of the events.

To some extent, machine vision has been a thing since 2006 - teams used cameras effectively that year for the high goal.

The main reason camera tracking was not a thing in 2009 was the new control system combined with the moving, non-lit target. Teams certainly did use camera tracking to some extent, but often / usually, manual tracking was faster.

In 2010 and 2011, your robot started in a known location facing a stationary goal, so what was the camera even for?

In 2012, a similar argument applied, but when teams started moving around the camera got beneficial. The rules also opened up to start allowing coprocessors sometime before 2012 which was a big help. 341 was a notable, highly visible example of camera tracking, certainly, and they had an effect, but I think it's a bit simplifying and disingenuous to suggest that camera tracking wasn't taken seriously until 341 demonstrated it being used effectively.

In 2013 and 2014, see 2010 and 2011. 2015 doesn't count.

So 2016 was really the only opportunity since 2012 for camera tracking to be an advantage. You had to cross defenses before shooting which made the physical position of the robot on the field not nearly as certain. This is why you saw a lot more cameras for autonomous that year - as well as flashlights for teleop.

So really, the use of cameras is much more driven by the game than by the coolest example of it from a particular year - and cameras have been an available option to FRC teams in one way or another for many, many years. There certainly was a dramatic shift in capability between the pre-2009 CMUcam and the 2009 NI system, as well as a shift in 2012 the first year coprocessors were allowed when a camera was a8 potential advantage. But camera use is really a response to the conditions of the game more than anything else.

I agree. There are many well-known examples of vision process being used for over a decade. Even in 2012, I could list a number of robots other than 341 that were highly successful with their vision system. Vision is still very difficult. For the most part, only teams with prior expertise or a single skilled individual use it.

Two years (3 years?) ago was the NavX. Then the Spartan board, and many others with extremely high quality gyros. That allowed for much better navigation and vibration rejection - just look at crossing the barriers last year. I'd add in versa planetaries too.

The current 'revolution' going on is thanks to CTRE. The can-bus system seamlessly integrated into the control system was a huge step. Built in current monitoring. Pneumatic control integration.

The motor controllers that implemented easy speed control, and now motion control, have been transformative. Many, many teams struggled mightily with speed control for years. It was never a simple thing. Just look at the discussions about sampling rates versus rpm, the correct sensors to use, etc. Last year for many teams it was as simple as plug-and-play.

The next true revolution? I suspect it will be brushless DC motors. They allow for lighter weight in a smaller package, etc. The minute they are allowed, they will become ubiquitous among top flight teams.

iyportne 02-02-2017 19:41

Re: What will be the next technical growth leap for the average team?
 
There is also a subtle revolution taking place as more districts are formed. North Carolina took one huge step forward last year, their first year in districts, in terms of qualification and OPR rankings at Worlds over previous years, and is looking to repeat that this year. The average team now has at least two events with 12 qualification rounds and more time to grow, improve and be inspired. The district model also seems to have brought more teams together to collaborate and share technology and resources, as regional alliances form within the district. This year we will have two full practice fields that should further the advancement of skills and tech exchange. An interesting stat claimed by the one full practice field last year is that every team that came to practice and/or utilize the space earned a blue banner. Granted, those who recognize the value of practice and take advantage of it are more likely to perform better, but it is interesting none the less. "Chance favors the prepared". Clearly, success is motivating, inspiring and contagious.

And finally, as a district we are granted 15 spots at worlds this year. That means more teams are playing in an environment with elite and above average teams and experiencing a new way of thinking. That definitely leaves a mark and brings that experience back to the district for others to consume. Not everyone on CD would agree, but I think FIRST HQ knows what they are doing with creating growth.

Jared Russell 02-02-2017 20:16

Re: What will be the next technical growth leap for the average team?
 
The general pattern for these things tends to be:

1. Innovation - Some enterprising team develops some technical innovation on their robot and has at least modest success with it (and often the most visible team to have success with something isn't the first team to try). Often this involves crossing some barrier to entry (overcoming manufacturing challenges, creative sourcing of a non-standard FRC material, advanced software expertise, lots of iteration, etc.) that keeps most other teams from being able to do the same thing immediately.

2. Early adoption - Other teams (whether nearby, of similar expertise, and/or related to the somehow through the diaspora of alumni and mentors) are inspired, and adopt a similar innovation and add their own twists to it. Whitepapers are released, code/CAD is open-sourced, etc.

3. Commoditization - Vendors take note...the AndyMarks, Vex's, West Coast Products, REVs, WPIlibs, etc., of the world begin to offer partial or complete solutions that significantly lower the barrier to entry for the average team. New companies spring up around the new products (Kauai Labs, CTRE, 221, etc). FRC "standards" emerge to allow for modularity in design and avoid vendor lock-in. Teams of "average" means and expertise can now utilize the idea.

(This is the standard lifecycle of adoption of a new idea...)


I've watched this all unfold time and time again. I can remember a time when each of the following had not yet attained ubiquity among "average" FRC teams...15 years ago there were entire regionals which would not have featured a single instance of:
  • 6 wheel dropped-center drive trains
  • #25 chain
  • 5mm HTD belts
  • Dog-shifting gearboxes
  • Modular planetary gearboxes (VersaPlanetary)
  • Wheels using incline conveyor belting (roughtop/wedgetop)
  • Omni wheels
  • Mecanum wheels
  • Swerve
  • 1.875" bolt circles for wheels, hubs, gears, and sprockets
  • Half inch hex
  • Quadrature encoders
  • Gyros/IMUs
  • PID controllers
  • Vision tracking of a stationary target using Rio or driver station laptop
  • Linear output, high-update rate speed controllers
  • CAN
  • Field-oriented driving
  • Sophisticated dashboards and telemetry

All of the above are now basically ubiquitous (and I'm sure there's a bunch more I missed); I can't remember the last time I saw a robot with none of these features.

To get back to the OP's question, I think there are a handful of ideas currently in the "Innovation" or "Early Adoption" phase. Yes, these are mostly on the software side (partially because I'm heavily biased, but also because FRC is far more mature mechanically than in software).
  • Multi- (more than 2) jointed arms
  • Motion profiling (this is on its way to ubiquity)
  • Offboard computing for "real-time" vision (ex. Tegra, Raspberry Pi, Android, etc.)...becoming more and more common.
  • Complex driving autonomous modes (2D path planning and trajectory following)
  • Depth sensing for object recognition (ex. Kinect or stereo vision)
  • Heads-up displays and "first person" driver control

...as well as a few capabilities that have not yet been widely featured on an FRC field, but might in the next couple of years. In most cases here, I think the real opportunity for innovation is from the commoditization of robotics technologies from consumer products and early-stage robotics industries ramping up capability while driving down cost:
  • 2D/3D Scanning LIDAR
  • Solid-state LIDAR
  • Torque control
  • Robot localization / SLAM - Precise drift-free robot pose estimation by recognizing landmarks on the field
  • Fast, accurate vision tracking of less structured targets
  • Brushless motors
  • Hydraulics and hybrid motor/fluid actuators
  • Low-cost, low-backlash gearing


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:12.

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