Mad Dash for the Controls?
 

As per Team Update #7, there's a new rule that dictates team members must remain 3 feet away from the field barrier and control systems.

This means that, after the autonomous period ends, there's going to be a mad dash for your team's controls. Conceivably, this could affect matches adversely (in my eyes, anyway.)

I would hate to see matches won or lost because someone's not a sprinter. I know, it's only 3 feet. . . but, it just seems like this new rule is probably creates more of a safety hazard than already exists, and is to prohibit something that is probably just as easily accomplished by asking teams not to touch their controls during the autonomous period - or penalizing them if they do.

Any thoughts?

You are absolutely right, so all robots are going to stop while people go to the controls?

Someone could possibly set up their operator interface so that it extends almost to the line. That way, no running is required.

Split your chin open...
 

I'm worried that someone is going to trip, and catch their chin on that nice control shelf. FIRST should really consider changing this as I feel it WILL become a safety hazard.

Anyone agree?

Well... I don't think that anyone will get hurt. People are not *that* stupid. Besides, three feet is a step forward. Measure it some time... you really only need one large step.

What does concern me, however, is that FIRST seems to making more and more rules, making the entire competition unnecessarily complex (I don't mean robot wise, but administratively and competition-wise).

Nik

Worn control gear
 

Sounds like a clarification is needed.....it is sort of late in the game for such changes.....what about teams who are making "form-fitting" controls that become a "part" of the driver.

Will they have to stand back and then strap-em-on after the 15 second period? Like I said.....kind of late to lay this kind of thing on us.

Perhaps we can keep the wiring and interface stitched into the drivers cloths, and provide a quick connect connector interface that "plus" it all in with one quick connect.

Oh man....:(

It's not that hard to step over the railings onto the field either. But someone tripped, broke their leg, and now we have those wonderful gates...

Accidents do happen...

Are you sure about the 3' line?

The way I interpret the rule is that the Human Player and the Coaches must stand behind the 3' line but the drivers can be at the controls.

To me this whole line of rules makes absoulutly no since because the OI is will not send or the RC won't accept any input from the drivers so what is the point of making the drivers stand back?

Remember what was said at the kick-off about showmanship. I suspect that their motivation is to let the audience clearly see when the robots are autonomous and when they are controlled.

i just read team update 7, and i thought it said that the 2 other (as in, human players) and coach per team (as in, 2 coaches) have to stand behind the line for the duration of the competition (except for the time the human player is stacking, duh :p).

if we do indeed have a "mad dash to the controls" the only thing that will happen is problems.

excited rookie driver, or really any driver at all. buzzer sounds, they rush to the controls, rush a bit to fast, controls wind up in pieces on the floor. opps?

another excited driver, runs to fast, hurts themself smacking into wall/each other/controls/etc.

lastly, we have a girl on our team who is handicapped, but she may turn out to be a very good driver, because she has an electric wheelchair with one joystick, and we think she may be able to drive the robot pretty good because of that. now, she can walk, but she can't jump forward three feet in the same time as anyone who wasn't disabled could. if there is indeed a rush, this rule would alienate her, because then she would not be able to be a driver, because we would loose the precious seconds that it takes to get to the controls. she's also quite stubborn, so someone wouldn't be able to pick her up or push her in a wheelchair, she'd shoot them :p.

long story short, if we do need to rush to the controls, only bad things will happen.

each team has four (4) players... one from each team is stacking, so three are left, 2 students and 1 coach... the new rule is for initial setup, so while everyone is getting set up, at the beginning of the match, they want everything to be nice and even, they never say during the auto mode, or even during the stacking, the players can't move, they want everyone all equal at the start....

personally i think its a useless rule, but in their favor, it does make the start photogenic and no one can cry foul play because person A was taking to stacker B or some such nonsence... i think they are trying to solve problems before they can happen

Hey hey hey speak for yourself. Never ever underestimate the power of clumsy people. They can do things that you think you couldn't do. I once broke my own nose by kneeing myself in the face.:confused:

Well wysiswyg, your title is fitting.

On the topic, I agree with that I think it's coaches must stay behind the line. thats about 1' from the driver

As per the official message board,

So, while the wording of the rules may be unclear as to during what phases of gameplay the participants must stand 3' from the player station, this answer is pretty clear.

This wouldn't be the first time, though, I've seen several entirely different answers to the same question.

Control systems are not my area of expertise, but would doing this require the OI to be reset to accept input from a new device? I'm not certain if the Basic Stamp is plug-n-play :) If a reboot is required, that's even more time lost.

Would a three foot wire from the controls to the operator standing three feet away be legal?

As for making a control system you where and pluging it in after Autonomous period, I think it will work. If you look a the pinouts on the joystick ports it has you just pluging pots directly to the system making the control completely uni-directional, unless you want it bi-directional with feed back lights.

Although I don't see it causing a big problem overall, I do see this causing un-needed confusion and or tasks to complete. I think it will take significant portions of the matches away, and the majority will be without 10 seconds or so of getting to the controls.

.. as I understand it... at the end of the autonomous time, all floor team members will then enter the player sataion? ... glad we have a fast base driver :p

The rule is under section 7.1 which is initial setup, as for the human player period and the autonomous period, the players and coach arent limited other than they must stay in the control station. I interpret that as during the setup, you must stand 3' back from the controls, but during the 25 seconds of the competition before the controlled part kicks in, you can move up 3' to the controls. I could be wrong, but this sounds like what they mean.

Please read the quote I've provided, given as an official answer on FIRST's message boards. It directly contradicts your interpretation.

Heh, I have taken my own interpretation to rules before they were officially posted and found out that they were basically what I said, so lets try it again.

IF operators must be 3' away during the first 25 seconds, they should be allowed to move into position of joysticks within the last 5 seconds before control to the humans begin.

This is my guess of how FIRST will clarify it. It is NOT official

I think the key thing to remember here is how small 3 feet is. It can easily be crossed, quickly in 1 step. I've had to march 5 yards in 4 steps and that starts to get a little hard, but it won't be a problem.

3 feet is indeed small.
 

Like said before, 3 feet is not a "tripping" distance.

I can almost reach 3 feet with just the length of my arms.

However, it still becomes a problem to be reseolved for teams wishing to "wear" their control system.

Re: 3 feet is indeed small.
 

6 inches could be tripping distance. If you have a clumsy person who frequently trips over their feet (not me) they could fall.

I've had my leg give out when standing still. I doubt that 3' should be much of a problem. Take one GIANT step forward. *Thinks back to kindergarton*

Wearable controls...
 

It seems that obvious autonomy is the reason that FIRST is proposing this new rule.

I don't like it personally.

There are 2 main reasons.

#1, it is a lot of bother for little benefit. This is going to require that the refs watch one more thing and give penalties if it is violated. Excited drivers (and coaches) do a lot of silly things, I think this is just going to cause headaches for all concerned. And for what? To ensure that the audience is clear that the robot is driving on its own? This seems to be overkill.

#2, FIRST has always liked "wearable" Operator Interfaces. I think I have seen them award 10 or 12 prizes to teams just on the basis of such operator interfaces. This rule, while not specifically forbidding them, makes this type of Operator Interface much more difficult to implement. Again, for what benefit?

I don't see the need for this rule and I hope it is reversed.

Joe J.

P.S. it is possible that FIRST can not figure out a good way to prevent Operators from sending information to their robots in the human player time and this is a work around for that.

Note that disabled robots are just that, disabled. The RC knows what the OI joysticks and switches are doing, it is just that the RC cannot turn on any motors -- if a robot is merely disabled during the human player time, the drivers could send information to the robot that it could use during the autonomous time -- for example, go get the stacks at position XXX, YYY. Just a thought...

hey, how do you change your description (the little phrase below your name and above your avatar)? do you have to be a moderator or something? or just have a lot of posts?

Wouldn't it be possible to make extension cables for the ports on the OI? Just let them dangle in the air. I don't know if this would be legal or not...I'm guessing no...

as i said before, 3 feet is not a problem for me personally. the reason i dislike this rule is because it is very unfair for a member of my team.

she's handicapped, and won't be able to jump 3 feet in a couple of milliseconds like the rest of us. sure, she can move fast if she needs, but it's unfairly stressing her. for that reason alone, this rule should be thrown out the window completely. it's just the way i feel about it. sure, she might not drive at all, but i'd like her to drive at least one match, and that's more than enough reason for this rule to be removed. listen up FIRST, we're not thrilled with this rule, either make it more friendly (as in, coach/human player must remain behind line during game) or get rid of it completely.

i might be wrong, but long cords that could get caught on stuff isn't directly outlawed, but probably would be frowned upon... it would be a good idea if you could attach the cords to a spring so if you let go it slips back into the control board or something
________________________________________________

the custom words under peoples names is a reward for lots and lots of posts, 50 = senior member and some super high number gets you a custom name.... mods get moderator tags (obviously)

________________________________________________

the rule need clarification, because it has two perfectly good explainations, both with their own problems and what not....

first everyone not stacking boxes (one person stacking means 3 people per team not stacking) has to start off away from the controls - problems: why? because its photogenic, so the stackers don't get distracted? pretty much useless....

second prove that players aren't "aiding" their robot's during the auto-mode . . . again, why? they can't figure out how to get the robots to run on their own without the human interface broadcasting? that could be a problem, but like Joe said, the refs just get one more thing to watch, and instead they could add a mandatory code to people programs that disables input until given the right signal from the big clock computers....

i'm sure they will update this soon, so the best idea is to stop worring before someone gets hyperactive or goes into shock from all of the alarmist theories:ahh:

I don't see being 3 feet away as much of a problem because
a) take one step and you're there
b) you'll probably take 0.2 seconds longer if you're slow
c) most of the game is decided in the last 15-30 seconds (you can feel a big difference in the driver's place when time is running out)
d) if you think of this as a hazard, what about the teams that are trying to run their robot out because they're late
e) even if you are at the driver's place, slower reaction to them saying "go" will take longer than for people to take one step.

I see a number of solutions that would fit whatever FIRST eventually clarifies this rule to be.

A: It says you have to be behind the 3' line so just build a shelf
for your controls and C-clamp them to the shelf they have.
B: Program your autonomous mode to run for 20ish seconds or
until it starts getting data from your controls. This would also
help your robot from doing nothing in the event your drivers
are a little slow. Also everyone is familiar with FIRST
tolerences so 15 seconds could be a little shorter or longer
than expected.
C: Get a driver with 3ft arms, chances are he'd be tall enough to
see over the ramp as well.

The rule is pretty silly, and IS a very unsportmanlike disadvantage to handicapped team members, but it also looks nice on TV, so Joe Sixpack can see that the robots are moving and no one is near the controls.

Personally, I think it should be removed - I don't think there is any important benefits to be had from this rule.

this rule isn't a problem.

Think...3 feet. Who is honestly going to run to the controls?
By the time you got into a rnnning stride you would be about 10 feet into the field. 3 feet is one step for most people. And since only a driver and operator ned to get there instantly. What the big deal. With a 3 foot limit could reach and be about 1 foot away from the controls. I'm sorry but I think that you guys are over-analyzing the situation.

Well if she's handicapped wouldn't it be a better idea if she was in the wheelchair to start with and then get out of it. What if something happened and she needed to get away from the control station fast.

My 2c
 

I am 99.99% sure that the purpose of this rule is to prevent people from communicating in any way with the robot during autonomous mode.

Many have been asking the questions 'can we use the e-stop to cycle through programs', 'can we use the e-stop to let another robot pass by' and 'can we reset the robot during the autonomous period'.

In my blunt opinion these questions are from those who are ungraciously trying to redefine the word 'autonomous'.

Given the intent of this rule, I think it is very unlikely that FIRST will allow a 3 foot tether on the OI controls.

It sounds to me like Innovation FIRST does not have a way to control the OI to the extent that it intended to. It seems like if a fix were possible, it would be a very simple one. Perhaps this is a hardware issue inside each team's OI, and not something they can program or fix in the competition control system.

I agree with many that the 3' rule creates a safety hazard, and a problem for those with disabilities. Another solution is needed.

Eric.

Eric gets it.
 

(small flame on).

I am 100% sure that the purpose of this rule is to prevent people from communicating in any way with the robot during autonomous mode.

If everyone is upset about this rule, then you have no one to blame but yourselves. "Who, me?!??" Yes, you. All of you that, from the very first day following kick-off, have been trying to find loopholes, alternative mechanisms, sneaky approaches, and outright cheats to get around the fact that the first 15 seconds of robot operation in this year's game must be conducted solely through the abilities of an autonomous program, without human intervention.

Go back and read through all the threads and messages that discuss how to use the E-stop button to communicate with the robot during the autonomous operations period. Or use an alternative OI. Or send signals from the audience. Or send info from the OI during the human player period. Or send "program selection" information from the human drivers. Or use the optical sensors to send signals from the human drivers. etc. etc. etc.

Based on these messages, it is clear that some people either can't or won't understand that "autonomous" means "AUTONOMOUS"!!! The intent behind the autonomous period is completely obvious - make your robot "smart enough" that it can play for 15 seconds ON IT'S OWN. That means the robot runs without ANY communication from the human operators, team members, folks in the audience, your grandmother at home, or anyone else.

Since some people refuse to abide by the intent of the autonomous period, and insist on creating ways to get around the intent of the game design instead of trying to play the game within the rules, FIRST has been backed into a corner. YOU have forced them to create rules (and this is not the last rule you will see on this topic) that will make it difficult to circumvent the intention of the autonomy period (I hesitate to say "impossible" because as soon as I do, someone will come up with another way to weasel around the latest rules).

If, as a result, you don't like the impacts of this rule, or some advanced OI designs are impacted, or some teams become disadvantaged, that's life. Do you want to do something about it? OK, then the next time FIRST comes out with a rule like "you have to stay behind a line 3 feet from the player station" then don't immediately respond with things like "we can just C-clamp a 3-foot-long shelf on the operator station" or "just use a 3-foot cable to reach the controls" and searches for new loopholes and technicalities. Instead, try to understand WHY the rule is in place, and how you can work WITHIN the rule to design a better robot, build a better team, and have a better experience. In other words, stop being LAWYERS and start being ENGINEERS!

(small flame off).

Personally, I like the rule. Not only do I not think it should be overturned, I would encourage FIRST to make it stronger.

-dave

-----------------------------------------

Y = AX^2 + B.... ehhh, whatever

Eric Reed and Dave Lavery took the words right out of my mouth. I agree with them that this rule was enacted as a direct result of ungracious professionalism (trying to intentionally subvert the idea of autonomous mode) in the FIRST community.

Maybe FIRST will clarify the rule in an update in the future. I do not see anything wrong with 3 feet other then a minor safety hazard...3 feet is like 1 or 2 steps away from the controllers themselves. Not much to worry about. Unless somebody's feet get tangled up and they get sent flying forward!

im sick of watching this. this is so ridiculous. If you can carry a 130 pound robot on to the field you can stand for 25 seconds walk 3 feet and stand for another minute45. ITS ONLY WALKING POEPLE. This is what irks me the most. Stupid ideas when you cant accept the fact that its a rule. If you cant walk 3' to the controls without hurting yourself, then you shouldn't be driving. And the rule is for everyone. so everyone has to walk 3' not just you. so in the half second it takes to walk to the controls, someone who gets there in .45 seconds wont have that much of an advantage. Its not a saftey concern its to prevent cheaters from cheating. Because if its possible someone will try it. jeez stop complaining.

Gah. You need to have your attitude adjusted.

This rule does very little except add an additional safety hazard to the game. It's already a miracle there aren't more injuries, and I just can't see the point in adding on more and more idiosyncratic rules that are patching some problems and causing still more.

If they're going to make it so that the referees need to watch alliance members anyway, why not just make a rule that prohibits touching the controls at all?

For people that design wearable control systems, either rule represents an enormous problem, making such systems impractical. They're usually quite innovative and it seems silly that such a rule would stifle that creativity.

You're not going to walk to the controls, you're going to run. If it's meant to 'wow' the audience by proving that the robots are being controlled by programming, the lull in the game as action stops will do just as well to counter than 'wow.'

It all seems ridiculous to me any of this is an issue. You can't cycle through programs, or communicate with the robot in any way whatsoever. Those should be rules enough.

To tell you the truth....
 

I really don't care! i try not to waste time thinking about it, because even if i did dissaprove, it isn;t for me to worry about. Ever since i started FIRST has done an outstanding job at being "fair" and i can always tell that everything FIRST does has been thought through thoroughly.
So, instead of yelling about it, i'm gonna go get my sneakers on and practise my short distance speed burst's untill the rule is changed, or i go to competition:D

3' line
 

You people are really overanalyzing this. I have read all the posts and after reading Update 7 I posted the question to FIRST. Their answer explains everything. 3' is not a long distance, and I don't envision seeing or hearing about anyone tripping while taking one or two steps at the beginning of the human control period and you don't need to run (it is only three feet). If everyone involved just stays calm and doesn't run, we won't have problems.

Dave :cool:

P.S. For those of you who want wearable controls, don't make it so complex that it takes 5 minutes to put on, just make it a slip on affair.

as i said before, i have a handicapped member of my team who is a potential driver. i think she has what it takes, and i'm pretty sure she can be a pretty good driver. this rule would hinder her abilities to be a driver. why? CAUSE SHE CAN'T JUMP 3 FEET IN .000002 MILLISECONDS! sure, she'd be able to make it in a couple of seconds max, but she can't launch herself like everyone else. second, she can't use a wheelchair, and won't use a wheelchair. why? she's not allowed to according to another FIRST rule, and she'd rather walk then use a wheelchair when possible.

as you can see, this puts me in a very hard postion. i've told her that she can most likely be a driver, if she can drive the robot good in the shop. if we have this rule, it will more or less stop her from being a driver. for the rest of the team's sake, we can't be loosing because she has an unfair disadvantage.

to get rid of this rule, a simple solution. make the E-Stop button work once during the 15 second period. hit it, you're disabled till the beginning of manual mode. it's fair if you ask me. team has one chance to stop a crazy robot. shouldn't be that hard to add in, i would think.

in any case, this rule has made my life much harder, because i don't want to tell my team member that she can't drive because of a stupid rule which is completely unfair to her. this is the most un-FIRST-like rule i've ever seen before. as far as i know, FIRST has been about getting EVERYONE, not just the healthy (as in not handicapped) people. this rule kind of shatters that notion of mine.

darnyi forgot about her, maybe i should of thought..lol
but seriously, this rly stinks for my team, it's just plain unfair to hinder her abailities even farther. Please consider this, that;s all i am going to say..... OH and btw, i DO NOT want a "special case" situation for this. This is not something i want to be put against my team, or even brought up to say we have some sort of unfair advantage.... Comon, i know FIRST would be willing to change this, or atleast contemplate it.... Because this isn't a matter of how much money we have availiable to us, or where we are from, or what our resources are. I don;t mean to be another person who yells about "unfairness in FIRST" just a person who would like some human decentsy in light of a person who deals with "unfairness" constantly.
THANKS

Hmmm.....
 

It seems that there is a rule (GM6) that allows your driver to use her wheelchair in the Alliance Station. If you have her in her wheelchair and use another member to push her to the station, you should have no problem. It seems that FIRST has to be more liberal with their allowance of mobility aids in the alliance stations because of this rule.

Dave :cool:

:yikes: P.S. FIRST has spoken on the E-Stop issue. According to team update 9, if you press the E-Stop button during Autonomous mode, your robot will be disabled not only for the duration of the autonomous period, BUT THE FIRST 30 SECONDS OF THE HUMAN CONTROL PERIOD!!!

If this rule stands, I'm sure FIRST would make exceptions to the rule, especially in circumstances as you described. I think if you simply emailed them, or asked in the team forum they would clarify.

I can't believe that FIRST would discriminate in ANY way against the disabled. Heck, if your friend drives I would think Deano would do everything to make it easier for her. How would she feel about driving from an IBot?

I wholeheartedly agree with M, this rule seems unnecessary. If they simply enforced the stated rule of "no communication with the robot" then it wouldnt be an issue. The new E-stop rule will also change the strategy behind an autonomous shut off. I think the only time a team will push the E-stop button now is if their robot is going to commit autonomous suicide.

Ricksta-
I hope you trip on your way to the controls, just to prove that accidents DO happen, especially to those who are cocky about it. Even the most sure footed people stumble sometimes...

Hmm You would think First would have to make people use their wheelchairs in the first place even if they technically can move without them. It would probably be a big safety issue if they didn't. Three feet isn't that long of a distance. I know I am not going to run to it.

Wait, Something doesn't seem right
 

This coming from the guy who broke his nose by kneeing himself in the face:D lol

but I do agree, three feet isn't much. If the teams think about it, there shouldn't be too much panic

Dave:cool:

Well in all honesty I was practicing judo which can be quite brutal if you are new to it.:) I know somoene who broke her sholder bone because she landed incorrectly. Of course breaking your nose by kneeing it I think that is a first. I wrote a 8 page essay about my karate experience. It is quite funny.:D

Real nice. Theres no need to say somethin like that at all. I said no one will fall and you go and say you want me too. And havent heard of very many accidents happening behind the glass. as long as your team knows which controls they are going to no problems should insue. I hope no one falls at all. I would never wish bodily harm on anyone in first. way to represent.

Ricksta-
I did not wish you any bodily harm.
I just wanted to prove a point. You told everyone off for caring about what we view as a potential safety issue. As always: way to represent!
As M said: Your attitude NEEDS to be adjusted.

Always think safety. I HAVE seen competition accidents before. On the field, in the booth, and in the pits.

john and wysiswyg:

it's not that i want her to be able to use a wheelchair. i know she can get away with that, hell, we even joked about getting her an iBot (she wouldn't complain :p). but, it comes down to this. she wants to be independent. she can walk, just not fast. i've walked across the school with her. took maybe twice as long, but she likes being able to walk, not tied to her chair. so, that means she'll refuse to use a chair. and she's stubborn, you don't have your way with her. she has her way with you. :p

i don't think she wants to be singled out as "special" though either. i may be wrong about this part, but i'm pretty sure she'd rather be a driver, and just have fun. so, for the umpteenth time, this rule should be removed. and now that the E-Stop button isn't an issure, problem solved, i would think.

I surprised thw whole issue of wheelchairs or accomidations for disabilities hasn't come up before. FIRST has a rule that says a drivers feet has to be on the ground, well obviously that excludes anyone in a wheelchair from driving. Even if someone has cruches it would take them longer to move forward if there behind some line. Its unfair no matter how short the distance.

I've got an easy solution. Have the drivers put there hands on the glass like there being frisked for the 15 seconds. Obviously they can't control there bot and they can't do any subverted control either. It would have the same impact on the audience as being behind the line

OKAY...ALL THIS DISCUSSION IS POINTLESS!!!! 3 FEET... is 3 feet. Most adult males could hop above 5 feet at any given second. the discussion of people falling...dumb as well. think about it people. Any one can make it 3 feet in 1 second and have the controls. don't believe...actually try it!!!!! put your controls on a table and stand three feet away from this table. OOOOHHHH..suddenly it's not so far. You couldn't possibly trip unless you are trying to. And if you did trip...your hands..would no doubt brace you because you'd be reaching for the controls right.

The issue of disabilities...talk to first about it. Just complainng about your situation doesn't do anything..talk to first..and you know what they'll probably understand..but you have to talk to first before you post.

If their is anyone that still believs that this is a safety hazard...actually try a leap of 3 feet in about a second...and if you were really smart...you'd program your robot to continue doing it's pre-programmed activity until you touch your joysticks. This issue isn't that big of a deal. Sure the most sure-footed do fall..but this is like taking a step people...someone over-exagerated about he situation.

All this talk about safety is just a smokescreen. I am not particularly tall but I can stand behind a three foot line and REACH to the controls. I don't necessarily have to move my feet at all. It wouldn't be comfortable but I can do it.

The real issue is as Dave Lavery posted earlier and many of you seem to be ignoring. There has been much discussion of how to communicate with the robot via the control station. In my not so humble opinion this is to circumvent a very important part of the game design.

There is a reason the human player portion of the game is AFTER the robots are in place. That is so you MUST decide what program your robot is going to run BEFORE you know what the human players are going to do.

The rule is to prevent teams from switching from "attack the highest stack" to "bring home the boxes" or vise versa during the human player portion of the match. It may be that there are technological "holes" in the system that will allow you to do this and that cannot be prevented any other way. I don't know because I for one haven't been looking.

At least those of you who are looking were silly enough to post it here, so everybody knows about it and something can be done. If you were REALLY intelligent and discovered some method to do this, you would understand the tremendous competitive advantage and keep your yap shut. Then you would just use it in competition in such a way that people would marvel at either your programming skill or your ability to read the other team's mind. But you wouldn't say anything about it, certainly not here.

All the fuming is really about having your advantage taken away, and it's your own fault. You made a little too much noise in the kitchen and got caught with your hands in the cookie jar.

Stop whining, you're sounding like children. Oh wait, most of you are children.

For some, perhaps. For others, it's definitely not. We don't want to see people get hurt. Ever. It's really that simple. Our intention is honorable, whether you choose to believe it or not.

My concern is simply that there are probably simpler, equally effective ways to see that the intent of the autonomous period is upheld that don't present an additional safety risk. Nobody should get hurt by tools, or by stepping over the barrier onto the field, or by doing thousands of other things that happen at the competition. But, it does happen. I can't see the point in adding another opportunity for someone to cause themselves physical harm. It's easy enough to walk three feet, or take a giant step, or long jump, or whatever. Now. During the excitement and insanity of a competition, the students will be thinking about so much more than just taking that step that, in my opinion, it presents an additional risk.

I'm a complete clutz when I'm excited. I'm not alone in this.

I was among the first people, if not the first person, to ask FIRST about the legality of using the E-Stop button to cycle through autonomous programs. I noted to my team, however, that its effectiveness would be limited because of the time it would take to cycle through, initialize, and begin running any one of several programs. 15 seconds isn't that long, after all.

FIRST is an opportunity for me to tackle problems that have long been solved. It presents me with an amazing "what if" opportunity. I'm notorious among teams for never, ever taking the easy way out. I design everything I can from scratch, learning from the past, but trying to improve upon it or do things a little bit differently. I would hazard a guess that there are many other people like me, and while they may not have the same opportunities to experiment that I do, their mind is always working.

I don't consider it ungracious or unprofessional to fully examine and consider all aspects of a problem. I've asked FIRST many questions about the legality of certain mechanisms, processes, and strategies - and though I intended to use very few, if any, of them, it gives me a chance to get inside the game and consider what other people may be considering as strategies.

There's nothing wrong with being thorough, in my mind. Sorry.

In fact, I think that asking about these matters is not a result of stupidity, or malice, or childishness. It's about respect for the intent of the rules.

We all could have easily, quickly, and effectively done things to circumvent the need for true, unassisted autonomy. Instead, because we are aware of the intent of the rule, we asked.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Sometimes, you just can't win, I suppose.

Does anyone even know how far the controls shelf is? Remember the 3 foot rule is from the backend of the playing field wall not from the edge of the shelf or from the edge of the 8 foot box. So I am out to fingd just how far this shelf extends from the wall. And then we will really know just how far this 3 feet really is as you cannot stand in the same space as the shelf. I bet the distance you have to step is about 1 foot maybe 1 1/2 feet.

Tough choices had to be made...
 

While I still don't like this rule I realize that there is a need for it now.

The autonomous has always meant in my mind autonomous. I have not bent my brain figuring out work arounds -- but others have not been so inclided.

Of course, it would have been better to have a workable, more hack proof system in place prior to kickoff but we have to play the cards we have been dealt.

I still think it is a shame that it makes wearable controls more difficult but ah well... ...we will deal with this as well.

I suppose folks should calm down and work within the framework now proposed, keeping in mind that the letter of the law is intended to reflect the spirit of the law which is autonomy is autonomy.

Joe J.

Yeah it does stink when it comes to wearble controlls, but like you said the rues are the rules and even though this is a new rule FIRST felt the obvious need to add it.

Teams have or have tried to figure ways to get around the autonomous mode so they can cycle the program they are running, but this is not in the spirit of this years game.
Atonomous means not controlled by others or by outside forces; independent. If you hit the E-Stop to cycle your program you are controlling your bot via an outside source (the E-Stop button). And dang it's not that much time.

I thought there was no power to the controlls during the autonomous period. FIRST could have it setup that when you hit the E-Stop to kill power to your bot you don't get power back until the autonomous period is over even with the E-Stop pulled out. Something like another E-Stop upstearm from the drivers station that an official would hit after you hit yours.

Precisely. We asked if it were legal to do so, FIRST said no. That was good enough. End of story. Move along. Nothing to see here.

Then, I guess FIRST got frustrated with everyone asking and decidedly to make it abundantly clear that the answer is 'no'. To me, it just seemed a little excessive.

But hey, who listens to me? :) I am not all hot and bothered or upset or angry with the rule. It's a rule. Whatever. I'm just pointing stuff out with the intent of examining why it happens as it does. That's all. No more, no less. Chill.

Re: Tough choices had to be made...
 

I agree but I don't think there is such a thing as a "hack proof" system. At the same time, some are definitely easier to crack than others. The best defence is not to make a system hack proof but rather to make hacking easily detectable and more trouble than it is worth. I think that is what this rule does. I doubt our current control system had hack resistance as an original design consideration, particularly in autonomous mode.

So for now we may be stuck with a less than optimal solution. Hopefully next year's system will be more resistant to manipulation during the human player and automode segments. But for now we have to deal with what we have.

I think the safety issue has been blown way out of proportion. The rule states that the line is 3' from the backwall. The shelf is a 1'x1" board. If you center the stick on your control unit on the board, you will have to cross a whole 2.5 feet to reach it. My arms are about 3ft long and I can reach the controls if my toes are right on the line. The required separation is enough to make any attempt to manipulate the controls clearly visible. It is also close enough that the E-stop is easily reachable if needed.

Just be careful when you start jumping around in excitement not to cross the line. If you're really that concerned, have your drivers stand at attention with their toes on the line through the entire autonomous period. Of course, finding somebody who can actually do that might be the hard part.:D

PLAYER STATION SIGNS
 

FIRST should put these signs EVERYWHERE around the player station. Gotta watch out for those trippy lines on the ground.

Is thee any way to install an e-"start" button that can be hit by a judge to engage the joystics and switches? Some sort of extra port with 3 serial connectors on the feilds that we loop our connectors into when we hook up our controllers before the match. Maybe this would be a little much, but am i thinking in the right direction????

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Rick. two steps and ur there, come on please, do u know how non risky that is. This is like saying that you are runnign this risk of death or bodily harm 10 times worse just crossing the street, lol. OCme on everyone, this wont be an issue. And funny sign rick, real funny.

not to be mean to anyone, but think about every waking moment in your life. i'm sure you've all managed to do something exceptionally stupid, like tripping when walking a distance of three feet. it's human nature. unless you're a perfect being (and i haven't seen any of those), you will make mistakes. hopefully, it won't be during a competition. but i've seen people, me included, trip over their own two feet when excited. hmm, robots, driving robots, and thousands of screaming people. i'd say i'd be excited.

once again, i must press the issue of physically handicapped people. they will not be able to launch themselves through the air in a matter or milliseconds like everyone else claims they will be able to do. how is this fair? simple, it isn't. as i said before also, another rule (i forget the number) states that all drivers must be standing on the floor. so my team member can't legally use a wheelchair either. of course, as i said before too, she is quite stubborn, and would probably much rather NOT use a wheelchair on the playing field.

bring in the fact that the E-Stop button has been more or less taken off-limits by severe penalties, i don't think there will be any problems. if there indeed is, well, that team can be DQ'd or something. don't punish everyone for the immaturity of a few.

http://hyperrules.chiefdelphi.com/ru...php?number=gm6

They have also said that a ramp would be available if necessary for drive team members to access the playing field. The intent of the "standing on the floor" rule is to head off those teams who try to find a loophole in the rules to allow them to put one drive team member on another's shoulders for increased visibility.

Hmm. Does the rule state you have to be 3' behind the players station? If so, how long is the players station? 4ft? 3' isn't that big of a deal...but 7' might be more of a hazard.

Guys, i just don't see the point in this 4 ft thing. First pretty much solved the problem with the E-Stop button. Gracious Professionalism (u know somebody was going to say it) should take it from there. There is no reason for this three foot rule, it's just overkill. And, it presents a problem with those who are physically impaired. It's just a shame that it has to come to this, i know... but don't ruin it for everybody because afew people were finding sleezy loopholes in the rules.
And i am going to say it again, we don't want to have a "special circumstance" for those who are handicaped. Especially for such an unnecessary rule such as this.

I'm sick right now, but I'm not waiting to get this off my chest...

Out of these several pages of posts, the only people with any valid arguments are the people from 810. The handicapped rule should be dealt with accordingly and that should be the end of it. Dave Lavery is right, this isn't a competition of engineers this year, its a competition of Lawyers. They are rules and moaning about them is not going to do anything. Deal with it.

Well said DJ
 

I totally agree with what DJ said. This competetion is about science and engineering, not about loopholes in the rules. The rules that FIRST has provide for exceptions such as for handicapped people. When FIRST designed the game this year, I have a feeling they had no idea how many people would try to circumvent the rules. People need to accept the fact that rules are rules. If everyone was able to go around the rules, what kind of even competetion would FIRST be? It would be a competetion of who is most able to go around the rules and the victorious teams would not always be the most skilled team, but instead the team most able to circumvent the rules. That is neither gracious nor professional.

Furthermore, all the people who say that FIRST is not being graciously professional by making this rule need to realize that the rule was made necessary by some ungracious actions on part of the team members. The fact is if the people participating in FIRST had been gracious and professional by respecting the rules and not trying to find any possible way around them, this rule would not exist and therefore we would not be having this debate. So before you get upset, realize that FIRST does not make rules just for the sake of making rules but makes the rules they do to make the events as fair as possible to all teams and not just the teams that can avoid the rules on a technicallity.

I think when the autonomous period is over, they should fire a gun into the air as all the drivers take off to make one step towards the controls.

But seriously, after reading all these posts, I think that while this rule has good intentions, it unfairly causes problems for drivers with form-fitting controls and for handicapped drivers. I personally think that custom controls are really, really cool, and I wish we had some. Now they are rendered completely useless. There must be a way around this.

FIRST should make their reasonings for this rule clear, and they should try to find any way at all to avoid keeping it in place.

First off, during the Human Player period, the robot is disabled, and therefore can recieve data from the OI (although all PWM and Relay outputs are disabled).

Second, as has been discussed here before, during Autonomous mode, 2 bits (user mode on/off and one of the channel select switches on/off) can be sent to the robot by dishonest teams.

I predict that a future rule update will specify that drivers cannot touch the controlls (as 3 feet is an easy reach if you lean forward).