Re: Lessons Learned: The Negative(2006)
 

I really think this was a hit or miss problem. I think we had the indicator-of-death happen once to us, but other than that had no problems with this year's RC at all, and would not have been able to use our program this year on last year's RC (we only used 2 sensors, a gyro and the camera, and we still used a little over 1/3 our code space. We completely obliterated the limit last year with the camera code).

I would like to see them fix the problems, but would be willing to risk having them to keep this processor around. Simply put, most teams will not get the camera working on a less-powerful unit.

Re: Lessons Learned: The Negative(2006)
 

Fire Hatch.

Re: Lessons Learned: The Negative(2006)
 

We have an old robot, that's been rebuilt several times, I think it's Wendy IV now, that we use as a newbie project. We'll be pulling the controller off it to put on Tommy for CalGames and giving it the 2006 controller as it's never likely to have sophisticated controls. Other than a paperweight, I can't think of another use for it.

Re: Lessons Learned: The Negative(2006)
 

Ah, I remember our first Q match during St. Louis regional. During the drivers' meeting they announced that an update needs to be made to people's code (if I remember right, one of the variables needed a keyword added to it). The drivers we had sent up there didn't have any coding experience so they just figured our programmer had fixed it already. Well, during that Q match, our robot's autonomous went crazy and we had no control of the robot after the autonomous period. That was the only loss we had at St. Louis. The announcement was made public after St. Louis was over.

Re: Lessons Learned: The Negative(2006)
 

IFI rep Tom Watson made an announcement re: the 8.2v bug at the Friday drivers meeting in St. Louis. He then monitored every robot in every match looking for indications of the bug. On several occasions he radioed me (the lead robot inspector) to ask that one of the inspectors or someone from pit administration visit the pit of a team whose robot had exhibited a symptom of the bug on the field. Tom also personally visited several pits to provide the most current fix as of that time. To my knowledge every team that responded to Tom's advice or sought help with the bug got some resolution.

My own team suffered a recurrence of the bug two weeks later at Waterloo; it was our fault -- we left the primary laptop on the bus and reloaded code from our backup laptop, which didn't have the bug fixed yet. Cost us a match due to crazy autonomous, just as you described above.

Re: Lessons Learned: The Negative(2006)
 

1.) Inviting the public?

There were some FIRST banners installed along International Blvd. However, I think most people assume when they see such banners that the event will cost money.

The small sign near the Georgia Dome was not enough, because sightseers visiting downtown Atlanta won't get any closer than the CNN Center, which is at least two city blocks away. Signs in Centennial Park could have been very effective; there were crowds of people there, even on Friday. The only signs in Centennial Park stated that there would be no Dome tours due to an event. It would have been better if those signs also stated that the event had free admission.

I have a question, though-- Do we really want to advertise to the public? It would be great if we got more spectators who are generally interested in seeing the robots compete. But I wouldn't want certain types of people to come--namely those who would be more interested in making off with unattended laptops, cameras, and other valuable equipment. The other problem is that, the more people you invite to the pits, the harder it is to enforce the safety glasses requirement. Plus, the pits can get crowded. This was such a problem in Phoenix on Saturday morning that an announcement was made that the pits were off-limits to anyone but team members.

2.) The length of the closing ceremonies-- Last year, many people noticed how long some of the speeches dragged on. As I recall, it didn't end until after 7:00. This year, I actually kept checking my watch--and noting the times. Only one speech was over 5 minutes long, and that was from a legislator who only spoke 9 minutes. However, the closing ceremonies still lasted until about 7:00--an hour past the scheduled ending time, and a half hour taken from the expensive team social.

What took up the extra time, since the speeches were shorter? How could this be improved for next year?
--I think the closing started late, but by less than a half hour. (Hard to avoid if the division championships end late.)
--That circus act with the lights was confusing and annoying to many. Maybe it is a bona fide warning about next year's game, but it could have been shorter. If it was only a joke, we could have done without it.
--Perhaps the award presentations could have been shortened slightly. (Segways loaned to the recipients so they can get to the stage faster? :D )

Re: Lessons Learned: The Negative(2006)
 

Oh man... the same thing happened to us on Saturday. Having never experienced the 8.3 bug before, we figured it wouldn't happen to us, and I had heard an IFI rep saying that teams who had never encountered the bug shouldn't need to use the fix. Mistake! Our robot was incapacitated during one of the Archimedes final rounds (or was it the semi-finals?) and we lost the match. Luckily, we were able to bounce back and win the rest of our matches.

Re: Lessons Learned: The Negative(2006)
 

There was some large confusion in the stands prior to the finals with regard to which sections were reserved. The result was that I saw at least one full section cleared and teams that thought they had nice seats ended up being send to the far end of pluto for a seat since by then lmost everyone was seated. Had they indicated they were reserved in some stronger way maybe that would not have happened...

Other then that, it was a great event...

Oh yeah, the VEX Challenge needed more judges! (Hey, I only got the judge advisor position Monday morning... I had no chance to get more...)

Re: Lessons Learned: The Negative(2006)
 

Well, the 8.2v bug wasn't the only problem with the 8722 controller. There was a general unreliability in the interrupt system. I've not had a chance to check if those really went away with the fixes but I do know that there were still timer problems even with all the fixes applied. We used timers as part of our speedometer system. No, speed control, no control in general.

Re: Lessons Learned: The Negative(2006)
 

National Instruments gave us Labview why not try to get them to do the field control. They have a vested interest in making sure it works right because many of us (sponsoring companies) are large customers of them. They could use the whole thing as a demo of how to use NI software and data acquisition hardware.

Also it's time to start adding scholarships for the students that have non-engineering functions on the team. We need to start getting scholarships for marketing, business, animation, etc. FIRST has grown beyond just engineering/science at this point.

Last but not least how about a non-engineering equivalent of the WFA on the national stage. There are many people in the program who deserve to be recognized for their work that don't get nominated for WFA because they have no engineering function. The closest thing there is is the regional volunteer of the year award which really at this point doesn't have the prestige and national recognition of a WFA.

Re: Lessons Learned: The Negative(2006)
 

first could have a little more security in atlanta... face it, that city is scary

Re: Lessons Learned: The Negative(2006)
 

There are scholarships given out to students who aren't specifically going into engineering, but I agree that I don't see many that are geared specifically towards the other competencies.

And, the WFA is not specifically for Engineers. As the award is described, it can really be any mentor on your team. You can nominate any mentor on your team. Teachers have received it before, and not all teachers have engineering background.

Re: Lessons Learned: The Negative(2006)
 

These are valid concerns.

Perhaps it would be best to start by inviting schools to attend as a field trip, and giving them a lot of information about the event, and suggestions on what to do, where to go when, etc.

Our team has been discussing this idea for the Arizona regional.

Re: Lessons Learned: The Negative(2006)
 

here is my whining for this year (which unfourtently is my last year on FIRST)

to say our team had bad luck on the competition would be an understatement, it went horribly wrong

I think the major problem was the fact our robot was damaged in shipping, and that when my team came to uncrate the bot, the crate was SOAKED in water, all the fuses were brunt (but luckily none of the engines\victors\spiked), on our sister israeli team I think the victors or spikes also got fried...

if you were in the newton divsion, first off team #1577 would like to thank any and all who didn't mind us occupying the practice field for so long, as we needed to make some heavey repairs (and thanks manny for authorizing it!!!),

robots damaged in shipping is a big problem, but to get a crate soaked in water? that's just unprofessional work

the other issue I think that needs to be adressed is the rematches
our robot didn't work for an entire game, a game that was an easy win (to say the least)

IFI agreed with us that the problem was with THEM and not US, and yet we didn't get neither a rematch nor qualifying points, or any compinsation for that matter...

we worked terribly hard during the build season and to come all the way to the US from Israel is no easy feat, I know we are only a second year team, but there are some major issues that need to be adressed, especialy shipping and rematches

other then that, team #1577 would like to thank all of those who helped us out with tool back-up batteries and even a CART!, also thanks to Jon and Greg for all your help

if you don't know who I am, im the guy who ran from newton field to the pit and back in 3 minutes =) (don't forget your autonemous guys!)

Re: Lessons Learned: The Negative(2006)
 

What was the issue that caused your robot not to work? Was it an on-field problem (e.g. the IFI radios weren't talking to your OI via the competition port) or was it an internal glitch (e.g. bad fuse on the RC)? FIRST is specific about only awarding rematches for field failures—while IFI might have admitted fault with respect to some on-robot issue, it isn't grounds for a rematch.

But with respect to qualifying points, you should have received whatever your alliance received, unless you were disqualified for some other reason. If that was overlooked, you definitely should have contacted the head referee, and arranged to check the scoring database for the error.