Did FIRST underestimate us?
 

I it just me, or does it seem as though the stacking tetra thing was not fully thaught out. It became apparent at the NJ regional that the robots could stack 8 tetras on a goal. The reason I bring this up is how the tetras begin to tip over and fall off the goals.

Re: Did FIRST underestimate us?
 

Aside from tetras falling off a goal, I think it is a good thing that large stacks are being made. In 2003 we had a stacking game called "Stack Attack" and pretty much no one stacked because all the stacks were well, attacked (and they were very unstable). There were no rules against descoring. You are correct in saying that many more tetras are being stacked that previously thought by most. Personally, I love it!

Re: Did FIRST underestimate us?
 

FIRST didn't underestimate anyone, the collaplsing tetras was just another challenge added, perhaps on purpose, perhaps not. It added an element of suspense to the game, when a huge stack of tetras would be about to fall, could the robot push it back up? If not, too bad, if so, good.
I still don't like this game's setup though, its still not suspenseful enough, like none of that element of "could it do the task by the end of the game?" stuff.
Although I am still only a freshman, I know what I'm talking about, I attended the Brunswick eruption and the spbli pre season thing and my team won both of them.

Re: Did FIRST underestimate us?
 

In stacking tetra's I don't think FIRST ever tries and underestimate us. They posed a challenge, and teams have stepped up to the proverbial plate and accepted that challenge.


As for the CMU Cam.. I don't know how to react to that.. It is kind of sad that only 2 teams have capped in autonomous mode this year so far.
edit: Hopefully the camera will be included in next year's kit as well, and more teams will try it. I think it really is a great element in the robot design phase, and I hope to see it again next year and used by more teams.

But, the same thing happened with the gyro in 2001. Only some teams made it work successfully to their advantage and most didn't even try it.

Re: Did FIRST underestimate us?
 

Since we have few to nobody using the cameras and stacking vision tetras I think the opposite is probably the case.....

WC :cool:

Re: Did FIRST underestimate us?
 

I have to say it was not an underestimation of our abilities. Maybe this even was overlooked by officials, but it was deffinately not an underestimation. As an individual, you stepped up to the proposed challenge, with that said you are to look at all aspects of the game and play accordingly. This was just an overlooked aspect by alot of people, I didn't even think of the tetras falling under their own weight, but that is just part of the game. We are never underestimated by the officials, but merely just put up to a challenge that seems hard, only to find out just how easy and fun it acctually was.

Re: Did FIRST underestimate us?
 

I think our team would have used the camera if we had six months to perfect it, not six weeks. Our build time is approx. 150 hours. I wonder how many hours this year's game designers spent on the camera functions? The camera is a great idea, but FIRST is not going to come out and say the camera will be in the 2006 kit. This would give the vets a huge advantage.

Re: Did FIRST underestimate us?
 

remember, if you put the last tetra on a stack, and it falls over, YOU descored your points, but the other teams points and ownership remain in effect.

challenge? how high do you wanna stack?

Re: Did FIRST underestimate us?
 

Not sure what your saying here... you build your robot in 150 hours? :confused:

Why not put it in the 2006 kit? If you know how to use it, all the better to you. If not, they'll probably put an alternative in (banner sensors, IR, etc.)

Re: Did FIRST underestimate us?
 

Hmm....idea just clicked in my head...play stack attack again...but replace the bins with tetras...the game would completely change. The robots would need to be different, the strategy would need to be different, and the game would be different. I think it would be awesome, any other thoughts?

Re: Did FIRST underestimate us?
 

No way. They did not underestimate us. The consistently dynamic way the tetras fail is awesome. When there is more than a few tetras on a goal and one begins to "peel away", they all peel away. It is so cool. At FLR we called it the "slinky". I announced at Great Lakes and must have used that term 10 times. I bet the Game design Committee tested how the stack falls over and once they discovered the failure mode, it sealed the deal for the tetra.

-Paul

Re: Did FIRST underestimate us?
 

I don't think FIRST underestimated us. I think its part of the game to be stable and steady enough to stack very high. If you can't stack 8+ tetras on a goal without it falling over on the ninth, consider yourself beat.

At Detroit this past weekend, we won 2 elimination matches that way. We were stacking back and forth so high on the center that the opponents would go up to stack it and would end up knocking it off. Very entertaining to watch, as each tetra falls off one at a time in a slinky fashion.

Re: Did FIRST underestimate us?
 

Six weeks of build time. We work 3 hours per day M-F. 8 hours on Sat. That is 23 hours per week. Times six weeks is 138 hours of build time.

Re: Did FIRST underestimate us?
 

138 * amount of students

Lets say you have 2 programmers, that gives you 272 hours to program. More than a sufficient amount if put to the right use.

Re: Did FIRST underestimate us?
 

I've been giving it some thought, and I think that FIRST may very well have known what they were getting us into by including the camera with the kit. The animation and the human simulation at kickoff both indicated that vision was going to be a simple task; both showed two teams on one alliance pursuing vision tetras, and the animation even showed a robot using vision during driver control to find the loading station. No one familiar with the technology could honestly believe it to be as simple of a task as it was portrayed, but that wasn't the point. Line tracking is a pretty simple task; many teams achieved it last year, and once it was done, the vast majority of us programmers got to sit around and watch the rest of our team slave away on mechanical issues. By giving a monumental, practically unattainable task, FIRST continued to strive for their stated goals; they don't care if our code works, but rather that we've been inspired. I personally spent dozens of hours trying to make the camera work, and all the time between ship date and competition was spent pondering how I could pull it off in only three more days of work. By the end of our regional, our team ended up hacking our camera box off the side of our robot, because I couldn't make it work. Did I succeed in capping a vision tetra? No. Did FIRST inspire me, and lead me to ponder programming tasks that I'd never even dreamed of? Absolutely, and I'm thrilled about it. It's fantastic that a very small group of teams have mastered the technology, but I wouldn't say that the teams that at least made an attempt (probably a sizable number... anybody remember the thread complaining about how easy programming was going to be this year?) have failed.

Re: Did FIRST underestimate us?
 

Re: Did FIRST underestimate us?
 

FIRST always talks about grandmothers and making them proud.

My grandmother was at BMR this weekend and said that this is her favorite game by far. She's sen three year's worth of games.

So FIRST---you made my grandmother proud.

If I could have made a suggestion (which i couldn't) I would have made the home zone worth more points. But, whatever.

Personally (on a side note) I liked last year's game best.

Re: Did FIRST underestimate us?
 

we had the camera and we had it to stop when it got x cm from vision tetra.. also to track it around the room and follow (me running around with it in hand). .. the thing taht stoped us ? we had 119.95 weight wihtout stickers . . . yea.. so we had to cut some stuff out and we managed to get it to 119.0 for competition <so we had a little extra.. but not enought for the CAMERA and MOUNT.. . so we had to scrap it . . :(

we have 2 robots. .. but u see the second robot (practice) has an olderversion robot controller.. and little we knew till too late.. hey its PBASIC! .. we managed to get it running for pratice driving and boom etc.. but no autom.. yea..

Re: Did FIRST underestimate us?
 

Anything is capable of happening in FIRST. They know by now not to underestimate us. Like Tiki said, it's an extra little unsaid challenge they are giving us. C'mon, you gotta' have some surprises...that's what FIRST challenges are all about! =D

Re: Did FIRST underestimate us?
 

FIRST didn't underestimate us. If they had, every match would be high scores over one hundred. It would be perfect split of rows between blue and red. Each robot would successfully make it back EVERY match for the ten point bonus. There's so many possibilities, it's impossible to catch every one.

Re: Did FIRST underestimate us?
 

i dont think FIRST underestimated us. There are still imperfections. plus not many teams can stack that high. but when they are that high and it tips over, it kinda looks like slinkey if they fall over the right way.

Re: Did FIRST underestimate us?
 

This is exactly the attitude I hope for in my students and what FIRST strives to promote. Bravo. (And CMU should be happy to be getting you next year.)

Re: Did FIRST underestimate us?
 

Twenty-three posts and not a single person has suggested that FIRST should have included a water element to make Triple Play more challenging.

I'm disappointed, people.

Re: Did FIRST underestimate us?
 

:ahh: :ahh: Danger, Will Robinson! Danger! :ahh: :ahh: