Chief Delphi - Interesting Q/A's

Page 3 of 9

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- Rules/Strategy (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - Interesting Q/A's (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42625)

dubious elise

26-01-2006 20:11

Re: Interesting Q/A's

I read through this a few times and I'm still slightly mystified.
On one hand, we have this ...

Quote:

Question: It's my understanding that the scoring system counts balls as they go through the goal slots. If they are using a beam break sensor, which seems the most obvious, will it get confused and/or miscount if a large amount of balls is dumped in a corner goal at once (ie. dumptruck style)?

Answer: Balls are scored using a combination of real-time ball counters. Balls scored in the Corner Goals are counted by a vision system as they pass over a lighted strip as they enter the corrals. Balls scored in the Center Goal are counted using a photoswitch as they enter the return tube. Additional photoswitches detect balls scored in the Center Goal, but not yet counted at the end of a period, to tell the scoring system to wait 5 seconds to be sure all balls are counted.

yet in another thread, I found this

Quote:

Question: This line of questions deals with the timing of scored balls in the center goal (section 4.3.3). If team A gets 10 balls into the goal in auton, but only 7 make it to the detector by the end of auton, how many count for auton, 7 or 10? If the answer above is 7 and team A ends up going on defense first, what happens to the 3 balls that went in the goal, but not past the detector? If the answer is 10, is there a delay before the second period starts in order to count the balls?

Answer: The scoring system has been designed with this situation in mind. The counting system for the Corner Goals will be turned off as the buzzer sounds and the period ends. Balls that have not entered the Corner Goal when the period ends will not be counted. Balls thrown at the Center Goal will be counted if they have been released from the robot at the end of the period, and are in flight or in the goal as the buzzer sounds.

Any thoughts, or are these two rulings relating to totally separate parts of the game?

KenWittlief

26-01-2006 20:16

Re: Interesting Q/A's

it sounds like there must be a pause for the counters to register, between the end of auton mode and the next phase of the game?

AmyPrib

26-01-2006 20:48

Re: Interesting Q/A's

Quote:

Originally Posted by dubious elise

Any thoughts, or are these two rulings relating to totally separate parts of the game?

I'm not exactly sure what the questions is, but it sounds like there will be a 5sec grace period for balls to be counted at the end of automode. However, if they are to count balls that are in the air as the buzzer sounds, but aren't yet in the center goal, will it still tell the scoring system to make a 5sec delay? Bottom line, is there a 5sec pause no matter what at the end of automode?

I suggest submitting a followup to FIRST Q/A if there are concerns, or please continue this discussion in the other "how are balls scored" threads.

Jon K.

26-01-2006 22:07

Re: Interesting Q/A's

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmyPrib

According to some of the GDC guys up at the FIRST Kickoff in Manchester, the 5 second pause will occur only if the sensors pick up balls on the ramp that have not yet dropped into the goal tube to be counted, otherwise there will be no pause.

Paul Copioli

26-01-2006 22:30

Re: Interesting Q/A's

Amy,

Since I asked the question regarding the scoring I will comment. The answer I received from FIRST is exactly the response I was looking for. My question was in order to determine how they were counting balls that have left the robot but have not yet been sent down the tube for the center goal. I was concerned that if we shot 10 and only 7 made it to the counters when auton ended(or 5 .. whatever), what would happen to the balls that scored but didn't hit the counter in time. I was particularly worried about auton because you could potentially win auton and not get balls counted for you. In my example, I was worried that we would lose 9 points (10 - 7) * 3.

The answer was much more detailed. According to the answer, balls in flight toward the center goal (think basketball) when the timer expires will still count if they make it in. However, the corner goals are treated like hockey: when the buzzer goes off, the puck better already be in the net.

The 5 second delay will have to be used for each match. If a ball is in flight, then it will take less than the 5 seconds to get to the goal. I am taking FIRST for their word on their answer and will have the printout of their answer in hand at the first regional.

-Paul

AmyPrib

27-01-2006 10:44

Re: Interesting Q/A's

Quote:

Question:
Rule <G27> states: "ROBOTs Must Throw the Balls into the Center Goal - Only a ROBOT may throw a ball into the center goal. The kinetic energy of the ball must be supplied by the ROBOT. A HUMAN PLAYER may not bounce a ball off a ROBOT and score it in the center goal. A violation of this rule will result in a 5-point penalty."

If the ball is scored by the human player does the automatic scoring system first score 3 points and then 5 points are taken off for a net of -2 points, or is the ball not counted and a 5 point penalty is assessed for a net of -5 points?

Answer:
In this case, the ball would be scored by the scoring system for 3 points, and then a 5-point penalty will be assessed, for a net -2 points.

Quote:

Question:
Per G21, it says that "incidental" incursion into the goal is ok, so long as it doesn't go past 3inches. It says "intentional" incursion results in a DQ.

What is the penalty for incidental incursion beyond 3inches, as I don't see it specified? Is it considered a safety violation, or would it be a DQ also? (I am not sure if inspection is supposed to look for designs which can incur beyond 3in to help prevent this.)

Answer:
Robots should be designed and driven to stay completely out of the corner goals. The approximately 3" buffer was instituted so that refs didn't have to split hairs to determine whether or not incursion had occured, and give the benefit of the doubt to the teams. Any incursion that is beyond 3" is likely to interfere with the scoring system, is potentially unsafe, and will result in disqualification

Quote:

Question:
Please clarify if this reading is correct: Any contact between a robot with appendages extending outside of the starting footprint (Robot A) and a second robot (Robot B) exclusively outside the bumper zone will result in a 5-pt penalty on Robot A, regardless of who initiated the contact or the severity of the contact?

Is there any room for "incidental contact" in the above case? If two robots with appendages contact exclusively outside the bumper zone, will both robots be penalized?

Answer:
The second bullet of <G22> states "incidental contact will not be penalized". If two robots with extensions contact exclusively outside the bumper zone, there would be no penalty. Even though the striking robot is responsible for its extensions, it is not responsible for contact with the struck robots extensions, so the penalty gets nullified. A robot puts appendages outside of the 28 x 38 footprint at its own risk.

(bolded by me)

Gary Bonner

27-01-2006 12:20

Re: Interesting Q/A's

Best so far:

Quote:

Q: Can we attach a motorcycle horn to our robot? If we can, are there any special considerations about when it can make noise or other paticular rules that would be esay to overlook with it?

A: A motorcycle horn is obnoxious and annoying. Any robot with such a device will be subjected to multiple 10 kV static discharges until it is writhing in robotic pain. It is also a violation of 7.13.2.

KenWittlief

27-01-2006 13:10

Re: Interesting Q/A's

Quote:

A: A motorcycle horn is obnoxious and annoying. Any robot with such a device will be subjected to multiple 10 kV static discharges until it is writhing in robotic pain. It is also a violation of 7.13.2.

even as we speak the moral of an entire team somewhere has dropped through the floor! "There goes our entire strategy! Now we have to start over from scratch."

Billfred

27-01-2006 14:49

Re: Interesting Q/A's

And, a resolution to the shipping-the-robot-controller dealio (with a hint of explanation of FIRST's logic):

Quote:

Q: While the RC is decidedly part of the robot, it is also required to download the programming that the rule is intended to allow. Since much of the software being used this season is too large for past years' controllers, the only way that comes to mind to have an RC to work on during the fix-it windows is to order a second RC, currently listed as "Call for availability" on IFI's website, for $450.

Additionally, IFI regards the RC as part of the FRC Control System (source: http://www.ifirobotics.com/frc-robo...-overview.shtml )

That said, would a naked, nothing-attached, just-as-you-first-saw-it-on-January-7 RC be permissible? If not, is there an alternative I've missed?

Quote:

A: draft answer:

The IFI Robot Controller is considered part of the robot, and must be shipped with the robot prior to the shipping deadline.

The Fix-It-Windows are intended to permit teams to manufacture spare and replacement parts and develop software for their robot while at their home facility. Teams do not have direct access to the robot during these periods, and must rely on information they have generated during the design and build process to determine the fit and function of any parts developed during the Fix-It-Windows. In other words, documentation matters! This is true for both hardware and software.

There's still that imbalance of folks who can and can't purchase a second RC, but I guess we'll have to go back to the old saying that FIRST isn't fair.

sanddrag

27-01-2006 15:29

Re: Interesting Q/A's

I too have posted a question (in Section 5.3, but they may move it) on keeping the robot controller. It isn't up yet (I guess a mod needs to approve it) but the title will be "Purchasing an additional RC vs. keeping the KOP one" or something like that. I want a concrete response and a logical reason behind it. We'll see if we get it.

While on the forums, I found this one quite interesting: http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=286

Quote:

Q: Can we use the gear boxes from last year (2005) to encorprate in our ball thrower for the 2006 season?

Quote:

A: Yes, provided they are not modified in any way.

I think they mean, "provided they were not modified before the 2006 kickoff event." They really need to be careful with their answers. I think the original rulebook is pretty good, and the team updates have been few and short, but the Q/A board answers I could see beginning to lead to some mass confusion and countless disputes.

Tristan Lall

27-01-2006 15:57

Re: Interesting Q/A's

Quote:

Originally Posted by sanddrag

I think they mean, "provided they were not modified before the 2006 kickoff event."

To be absolutely pedantic, it should be "provided that they were neither modified, nor assembled, before the 2006 kickoff event". By <R15>, they can't re-use a mechanism, but they could probably get around it by putting it together in advance, taking it all apart, and re-assembling it during the season. (Functionally, it makes no difference, of course.)

Rick TYler

27-01-2006 16:19

Re: Interesting Q/A's

I'm going to go back to the FIRST Q&A forum on this, but I wanted to vent a little.

We are planning to use some slow-speed belts to move balls around inside the 'bot. In testing, we've been using some very fine (220 grit) previously used sanding belts for this. They work great and don't mar the balls. Now we're forced to go out and find something that will work as well (smooth on one side, grippy on the other), which will certainly cost a lot more and weigh more, to boot. I think they tossed out the baby with the bath water on this one.

1. I don't know why someone formally asked the question.

2. I really don't understand FIRST's blanket answer since FIRST already has a rule against mechanisms that damage balls. If a sanding belt conveyor isn't causing damage, why ban it?

Thank you. I don't really feel any better, but at least I've shared my pain.

Madison

27-01-2006 16:33

Re: Interesting Q/A's

Rick -- I presume you're talking about this response: http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread...ght=sand+paper

Did you also see this second, newer response? http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread...ght=sand+paper

It seems that the latter again allows sanding belt as a conveyance surface with the existing caveat that it must not damage balls.

Rick TYler

27-01-2006 16:40

Re: Interesting Q/A's

Madison, it's gotten ambiguous. This http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread...highlight=sand earlier thread specifically says, "It is reasonable to expect that sanding belts will damage the balls surfaces, even through incidental contact. As such, under the Parts Use Flowchart, sanding belts would not be permitted." I believe you could make this statement of any friction-based device for shooting or moving balls inside the robot. I know that our best shooting wheel (which meets velocity requirements and has a perfectly smooth surface) sometimes creates small marks on the surface of the balls. A strict interpretation of this rule would lead us to eliminate any friction-based mechanism. Good-bye wheel-based shooters.

sanddrag

30-01-2006 02:37

Re: Interesting Q/A's

I find this Q/A answer quite underwritten for such a thorough question. ;)

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=442

Quote:

Q:
My question pertains to sections 5.2, 5.3.3. and 6.3.5

In section 5 of the manual the definition of a FIX-IT-Window says
"During the FIX-IT WINDOWS, software for either the robot or operator interface may be developed without restriction."

The answer to a previous Q/A question (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=407) says "The Robot Controller is considered part of the robot, not part of the operator interface. As such, it must be shipped with the robot prior to the shipping deadline."

To me, this does not seem to be development "without restriction." Additionally, under <R17> and <R20> teams are allowed large amounts of time to develop software. So my questions are the following:

What use is the value in keeping the Operator Interface if we are required to ship the Robot Controller? Can a team purchase an additional robot controller to develop programming after the ship date? If yes, then why must teams incur this multi-hundred dollar cost to take advantage of the FIX-IT-WINDOWS as opposed to keeping (and not shipping) the one provided in the KOP? It seems like the previous Q/A is imposing an otherwise avoidable expense to teams who wish to program in the FIX-IT-WINDOWS Under-funded teams may be at a disadvantage.

Thanks.

Quote:

A:
The IFI Robot Controller is considered part of the robot, and must be shipped with the robot prior to the shipping deadline.

The Fix-It-Windows are intended to permit teams to manufacture spare and replacement parts and develop software for their robot while at their home facility. Teams do not have direct access to the robot during these periods, and must rely on information they have generated during the design and build process to determine the fit and function of any parts developed during the Fix-It-Windows. This is true for both hardware and software.

Very disappointing. I feel I brought up some good points/arguments/questions only to have them ignored. This Q/A answer/ruling does nothing but channel money into IFI.

The answer to my other question here http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=464 ins't so illogical but still disappointing.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:13.

Page 3 of 9

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page