Re: Lessons Learned: The Negative(2006)
 

I think we've beaten to death concerns about the scoring system, as well as game design, and we've given FIRST a lot of great ideas to build upon. Don't forget about the upcoming team forums as well, as these are also great places to voice these concerns.

Is there anything else?

Re: 2006 Season - The Negative
 

The only thing that I can still think of was the fact that it seemed like the schedule changed on me everything I checked it, at least regarding workshops, I could have sworn I had one in the morning :)

I could also be senile.

Also, to the best of my knowledge, speed checks were not required at most events (I don't believe they did it for the Championship either, but I may be wrong, somebody know for certain?) during inspection. I definitely think this should have been a mandatory part of inspection.

Re: 2006 Season - The Negative
 

There was a lot of CD discussion on this topic early in the season, then more after teams and volunteers started getting some experience at regionals. My opinions on the subject were expressed in a couple of threads back then.

For now I'll just link to a post describing the procedure we used to check <S02> muzzle velocity limit compliance at St. Louis. Checking muzzle velocity for all shooters would not have been feasible (IMO) and would not have ensured 100% compliance even if feasible. The head referee's judgment was the right way to enforce <S02>.

Re: 2006 Season - The Negative
 

At Waterloo, GTR and the Championship, we only tested robots that drew the attention of the head referees. It would have been a logistical problem to test everyone, because there often wasn't enough space to conduct a proper test, and even then, it's a labour-intensive and time-consuming process.

The trouble with the whole speed test business is that it's ridiculously easy to cheat—the speed test only catches the ones who want to be caught.

Re: 2006 Season - The Negative
 

Alright it's been pointed out that it would not be very feasible to test everyone, so I rescind that statement, thanks for the clarity, I don't know what inspections are like from the other side.

That about clears up my beefs then, good job FIRST, I'm easily annoyed :)

Re: Lessons Learned: The Negative(2006)
 

Thats why your Drive team should be your programmers,

after this year i think that it would be much better to easier to access documents, i dont know about all of you but finding info thro build season was a case of i found it once now where is it(altho the game manual was easy to find.)

Re: Lessons Learned: The Negative(2006)
 

I refuse to agree with this statement.

You could say that your mechanical people should be on the drive team because they know how to fix the robot or how to avoid more harm once a robot is already injured.

Certain people make excellent programmers but when allowed to drive the robot they crash under pressure. My old team experienced this in Raising the Bar.

Drivers need to be selected based on the ability to control the robot - not their job on the team.

Re: Lessons Learned: The Negative(2006)
 

If I had to guess, I'd look at his user statistics, note that he's a programmer, and suggest that maybe he just wants to drive the robot....

Re: Lessons Learned: The Negative(2006)
 

I'm going to completely agree. (with the exception of the human player) For example, I can program (not really very well, but anyway, that's beside the point), I drive, I did a lot of drivetrain design work, headed drivetrain construction, and worked on electricals. Two of our other three drivers also multi-tasked, one was mechanical/electrical/driver/animation/semi-programming/strategy, the other was mechanical/electrical/driver. I know multi-tasking really helped me, and the others too I assume. Driver/programmer makes a lot of sense since its the driver who's going to be using the program, but even a basic grounding in all the robot related disciplines would help. Looking at a robot and being able to size up its capabilities is very valuable on the field. This is especially valuable during elims, so everyone can help fix your robot, since they worked on it, or know about it.

Re: 2006 Season - The Negative
 

After Umpteen posts in a $@#$@#$@#$@#$@#y thread finally one constructive suggestion that makes some sense.

You were not the only team that experienced this. We had similar issues but not at every event we attended. Could it have been the green "exit" lights?

Since practice rounds typically end around 5:30 on Thursday, but the pits don't close until 8pm. Would it be that hard to allow teams a few minutes to check their camera calibration on the actual field? The robots do not need the field control system, or even to actually be on the field for this sort of thing. They could be placed beside the field boundary to get acceptable results. All that's really needed is for the lights to be left on and robots to be allowed in a limited area for a few minutes each. It wouldn't even be all of the robots ....

Re: 2006 Season - The Negative
 

We did this at the Championship. We parked our robot next to the practice fields in the pits that no one was using and took the opportunity to figure out why our camera couldn't see the light. It wound up being that the camera was so out of focus that it got confused really easily. Without this "ambush testing", we never would have had the opportunity to diagnose this problem.

Re: 2006 Season - The Negative
 

As I remember from the Kickoff video, every member of the Game Design Committee was introduced. I certainly don't remember all of the members, but I do recall the following:

--Dave Lavery--NASA official whose job title does not include working for FIRST. I conclude that at least some of his work with FIRST takes place in his spare time. He also mentors a FIRST team. He also has a family, and families need a lot of time.

--Dean Kamen--Founder of FIRST, but he also owns at least two or three companies which need his constant attention, plus he seems to be getting more speaking engagements each year. I don't know when he has time to invent stuff any more.

--Jason Morella--Paid employee of FIRST. Even so, he must spend huge amounts of time working with Regional planning and all sorts of administrative stuff. And wasn't there something about him starting a family, too?

My point is that no one on the GDC can, in fact, work on the game design every day for 7 months, because they all have other work that necessarily has higher priority. It's probably better that way, because working on the game every day for 7 months would probably make the designers insane, and then we'd really hate the game! ;)

Re: 2006 Season - The Negative
 

Another GDC member is Benji Ambrogi, all-purpose genius at Deka R&D. I think Dean keeps him pretty busy with projects that produce (or may someday produce) income for his company. ;)

Re: 2006 Season - The Negative
 

Curses! Logic has long been my nemesis. KarenH makes a good point. I should perhaps rephrase to say that it would take them every bit of 7 months to design a game.
I am convinced that two GDCs is not a feasible solution, however.
There's not enough FIRST leadership to go around, for one thing. And you run the risk of wildly differing philosophies if there's not enough communication between the GDCs. Look at BEST if you want an idea of how multiple GDCs could end up. Also, a GDC in the middle of a design is going to have troubles folding in all the lessons learned by the previous GDC. Also, also, kits technology will end up delayed by a year, atleast. Can't design a game without knowing what's in the kit. The cons tend to go on and on. The main pro is more time to design and test a game. This all presumes that the current GDC doesn't have time to build and test a field and that's why teams complain about the field. I'm still not convinced this is the case.

Re: 2006 Season - The Negative
 

I thought about this post all day today because I wanted to have a good answer... so here I go.

When I think of FIRST I think of the FIRST Robotics Competition. Sure, there is Lego League and Vex but I don't participate in those. I'm not involved in those for several reasons but most importantly I believe that FIRST has to be a part of high school to be successfull. I think of Vex and Lego League as a warm up for kids. Hit them early so when they think of FIRST they think of FUN! In FRC our goal is to channel kids into engineering and science. It's obvious to me that has to happen just before the kids go to college. So they can maybe choose a school that specializes in engineering or they can begin an engineering curriculum as a college freshman.

My high above interpretation of the organization is FIRST in itself is about changing culture. FIRST's mission is to show that science and technology can be fun and can be a rewarding career option. FRC accomplishes this goal through an annual robotics competition.

Now to answer the question...

When you remove the game and the robots from FRC what are you left with? A cool group of people no doubt. But we can't inspire unless we demonstrate.

As a mentor I need the game to demonstrate the engineering process by creating a robot; from requirements, to design, to manufacturing, to test. The inspiration comes from seeing a design from idea to playing field. To a high schooler being able to demonstrate a real life application for math and physics is a very powerful thing. Dean likes to call the robot and competition the vehicle for getting kids into science and technology.

I always like to say that the students realize science and technology can be fun during the build season. They should be inspired by their mentors. But the regionals- they're the deal closers. The regionals explode with excitement and fun all because the students were inspired to create a robot by following the engineering process. It's the finale of a strenuous 6 weeks and allows them to shine.

To tie this philosophy into my issues with FIRST... FIRST is making my job harder because of all the problems with the vehicle. If the vehicle is our way of getting students into science and engineering than why shouldn't it be FRC's top priority?