FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

The FIRST Vex Challenge Game Design Committee will be getting to work on the 2006-07 in the coming week. The group is looking for your brainstorm ideas ASAP. No need to justify your thoughts, explain why you think a certain way, or connect it to the last 15 years of FIRST history one year at a time. Just post your thoughts in any or all of the following categories:

Autonomous Mode:

Tele-Operated Mode:

Game Object(s):

Goals/Scoring:

Tournament Structure:

Other/General Game Ideas:

The committee is on a pretty rapid timeline, so let’s refrain from the “Oh, I like/don’t like that and here are my 34 reasons why” posts. Just ideas. Remember, FVC is about affordability and accessibility. To the best of my knowledge, the regionals will again be one-day events. No matter how silly, off the wall, or downright ludicrous they are, any ideas posted here by June 25 will be taken to the GDC. This is your turn to have input,
GO!

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

I was thinking that maybe the autonomous matches could be combined with the operator controlled ones, where the first portion of the match is an autonomous round like in the FRC game.

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

Second that. One way to facilitate having both auto and teleo modes during the same match would be to start with auto, break for auto mode scorekeeping, then remove the auto jumpers and continue with teleo play.

Another suggestion: spectator seating, field placement, and/or videocamera location(s) should be planned better than in 2005-06. FVC matches were difficult to watch unless you were standing near the field.

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

As a member of a team I would like to make a few comments.

Autonomous Mode:
I would like to see this combined together with the operator section of the competition similar to FRC where operator and autonomous are played in the same time.

Tele-Operated Mode:
I think this worked out just fine. The transition from idle to start went off well in my teams experience.

Game Object(s):
The balls worked well, but I wouldn't mind seeing something different than balls next year.

Goals/Scoring:
The scoring was good, simple and easy to complete. The goals were good, the only thing that was not to my liking was the slant of the field. I wouldn't mind seeing a flat playing field next season.

Tournament Structure:
The tournament structure was well done, except I think that autonomous should be part of every round throughout the day.

Other/General Game Ideas:
I would like to see 2 minute 30 second rounds next season, where the first 30 seconds is autonomous, and the next 2 minutes are operator control.

I would like see the presentations to judges have some parts like in FRC like an animation challenge, CAD (just a simple program) challenge. A team video would be something I think that would be very fun for teams to do.

I would very much like to see no human players like the 2004-2005 season with the whiffle balls. I felt that made the competition didn't work for Vex like it worked for the FRC challenge.

A field like this year I felt was good for all teams as there were no moving parts and could be made very cheaply with wood.

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

Overall I felt this Vex season was a huge success and I can't wait for next time. No matter what the field design is, I know it will be taken into consideration from all point of views. Good luck guys, I have the utmost confidence that you will design a great challenge!

Good Luck!
~gdo

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

First off, I'd just like to say that the 2005-06 FVC GDC did an amazing job at putting together a great game. It was very well balanced and we saw a great variety of robots. Here are FVC 268's comments

Autonomous Mode:
-Liked the separate autonomous and driver control matches. This put much more emphasis on autonomy than in FRC matches.

Tele-Operated Mode:
-2 on 2 format was good for driver control. Last years game demanded teamwork between alliances as no one team could do everything effectively.


Game Object(s):
Good choice with Racquet balls. Whatever you pick for next year, make sure its easily available for all teams.
ie. racquet balls, tennis balls, base balls, squash balls, pingpong balls, soft balls, hockey pucks, Nerf balls or something fabricated from vex components themselves.

(FRC bad example... Try finding pool noodles in Canada in January)

Either that, or something thats easily fabricated. ie Wooden cubes or something.


Goals/Scoring:
The point values were really well balanced in both driver control and autonomous matches. Whatever next years game is, keep up the good work.


Tournament Structure:
Please NO SERPENTINE DRAFT.

Last year had a good balance of autonomous and driver control matches in rankings. Don't change a thing.


Other/General Game Ideas:

I think some more field features would spice things up a bit. Maybe something that would require a more intricate drive system to get around. Maybe some steps or bigger platforms.
Within reason of course.

A wider array of tasks of varying difficulty would be nice. Something that involved scoring up high... at least 24 inches high. Larger heavier scoring objects... something that would be very difficult to control more than one of at a time, while still maintaining some simple tasks that are easy for less experienced teams to accomplish.


The foam flooring was a great field material... but expensive and hard to come by. Possibly consider a change for next season to something cheaper and more readily available. Nothing comes to mind though :confused:

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

Two ideas for unusual game pieces: plastic easter eggs or the low friction tire from the small vex wheels (just the tire though).

And if you're ever looking for something really challenging, you can always develop a wall robots would have to climb.

Other than that our team didn't compete in Vex and I didn't get to see more than one or two matches of this year's competition. If they'll be a competition out in Arizona next year, we'll be happy to give you feedback on the game though!

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

Since I see FVC expanding more readily to a league type environment (similar to fLL) along with regional events...

Tournamement Structure...

• Consider rules for choosing elimination alliances with less then the optimum number of teams

Other Game ideas...

• Think about it from a school, or other league type environment...
• How can change the field but use the same pieces (with some modification possibly).
• How can we keep the field costs, cheap
• From a regional event perspective, can we include something, even if it's not electronic, that displays team numbers above the operators so it is obvious who is who? (cheaply - make a doulbe set of team used in the pits, put the 2nd set up during each match.
• More awards in an interesting idea, but remember this is a one day event and judges would like time to see some matches.

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

OK. Here are my thoughts after being a FVC mentor, tournament committee member, and a referee.

Autonomous Mode: Separate auto mode was well received. It placed more emphasis on auto than FRC for some teams, others didn't bother with auto at all. Perhaps a way to encourage more use of auto, would be for auto "winners" to carry some advantage onto the driver field such as bonus game pieces or additional scoring options in addition to the auto score rankings.

The only down side to separate auto matches was the need to change crystals twice, once for auto and once for tele matches. This was a chore for tournament staff to keep this running smoothly. Although, it might work fine once teams are used to the system. A crystal table adjacent to each field that teams must pass by might help.

Tele-Operated Mode: Not much to change here. All the excitement of FRC in a smaller space. Using two tele-operated fields, one running the other staging, like at Championships work VERY well. A field timer visible on the field like FRC would be nice, too.

Game Object(s): Commercially available, and READILY available, objects please. The lack of red balls this year made our team not pursue some sensor options because we couldn't readily test our ideas. Lots of scoring objects too. It was very exciting to watch some of the center goal contests this year as teams just piled on the balls. Something other than balls like FRC.

Goals/Scoring: Multiple goals - Yes. Different scoring options - Yes. Bonus Objects or Goals (See my auto section above). Low Cost - the poly carb was a big investment this year. The corner goals could have been made entirely of plywood to save money this year. They were low and on a slope so visibility was not a problem. Although, I really liked the poly carb end walls at Championships. A raised center platform for the game to make it more visible to the audience. A balance ramp like FRC 2001 would be fun. Maze-like barriers that can be moved by robots would be interesting. Finally, mobile goals are always fun and challenging.

Tournament Structure: I'll agree with the other posts. I think FVC should develop closer to FLL than FRC as a league.

I would like to see it develop similar to varsity sports where local teams host smaller (say 10-18 team) "home" tournaments without a lot of fluff, just competition, that could be run in an evening or on a Saturday morning or afternoon. League scoring could be posted during the "league season" with high scoring teams getting automatic berths to "official" FIRST regionals. Other teams could still register for open berths just like FRC Championships. It would be similar to FRC post season events, in reverse. I think it would be great to see rankings and box scores posted online just like the sports section of the newspaper. Teams could compete within their Division and have the option to compete in one or two "Non-Conference" meets during the season.

Each Conference or Division could supply its own "official" field(s) which could be moved around to each local event, just have FIRST supply the tournament software and field control equipment in small mobile kits. FIRST has already created regions with Regional Directors, FIRST Senior Mentors, and local staffers who could support these local conferences. It also would allow FIRST to add "official" regionals as local sponsors can be found, but would allow local conferences to be created as soon as area teams created it themselves. This local ownership should encourage teams seek out new schools in their area to join the conference, and by having a low cost, but repeatable local meets FIRST would be building excitement and energy on the road to the "official" Regionals. This building excitement and repeatability would also expose more non-FIRST schools to the program.

Kick-off could be in September, with local conference play during say November through early January, then the "official" Regionals could be during late winter/early spring like FRC.

This is probably more of a FVC big picture thread, not game design thread, but...

Who's ready to start the Connecticut Conference of the New England Region?

Other/General Game Ideas: None at the moment. I'll edit if I think of any.

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

Game Suggestion:

A timed obstacle course with bonus point challenges allong the way. Have a serpentine route through a set of challenges. Have various driving/maneuvering challenges and challenges for manipulating the environment.

The course and challenges would be set up to reward a wide variety or robot designs. Devising a best multi-purpose compromise would be the key to success.

For driving challenges have straights, twists, narrow passes, low tunnels, rough terrain, walls/stairs, hills, ditches, dark tunnels/caves, forests, etc. No one design will be optimal for all of them.

For manipulating the environment, have things to push, pull, twist, lift, carry, place precisely, find in darkness/caves, autonomously recognize color/light, etc. No one design will be able to carry enough sensors, actuators, etc. to accomplish them all.

Completing a challenge will either shave time off of your total course time, or will award you more points, or will open a short cut through the course.

High scores come from either time, or points (earned before time expires) or a wisely computed combination of both.

Stretches of autonomous and operator-controlled operation can be built into the course.

Problems to be overcome: It will be hard to pack enough complexity into a small field. It may be hard to achieve a sense of head-to-head competition and that might reduce the fan-appeal of the game (although downhill slalom skiing seem to do OK during the Olympics).

Blake
PS: I have a longer list of challenges in my notes if this idea gets any traction.

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

Last Nov. I built a vex bot with some neighbor kids. We set up a maze and proved that a square bot and Sharp Ir sensors could navigate the maze. Had to take the kit back to the First team before the kids really got going on the navigation algorithms. How about a autonomous maze game. Timed trials through the maze with a 3 minute time max.Would need to open up the allowed sensors to do a maze.
For the human controlled portion, I'd like to See a obstacle course. Have barriers in the middle with a small opening that 1 bot could get through. Have the teams score points by going to the other side, retrieve objects and bring them back to a goal to score points. The small passage in the middle would act as a choke - block point encouraging designs that could traverse over the obstacles.
As far as the vex system, the radios and crystals are a problem. Cheap solution is to use wireless PS2 controls. I've used them with another robot controller on the vex hardware and they work well. Vex has some parts that need to be redesigned.

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

I worked as a programmer on our FVC team this year, and there are a few things I'd like to see changed in the autonomous mode:

-I didn't much like the separation of competition types: it led to a few problems, most notably Team 2 missing an auto round because their bot was actively competing in one of the remote-controlled rounds. I like the idea a few others have favored, of integrating the two types like in the FRC. I think it would make for a much smoother event setup.

-Another problem that we faced constantly was differences in fields. When we got to Hartford we found that our program would not work at all, chiefly because of the differences between the field we built ourselves and the competition field. However, when we got to Atlanta, we found the same problem- between the official practice field and the competition one. What worked perfectly consecutively in the pit area only scored for opposing teams in competition. The differences could be reduced, I think, by integrating the two gametypes.

-Also, something using more of the sensors available would be good too. Our team used a variety of the sensors in our program (ODS, bumpers, line trackers) but we noticed that we were one of the few teams that used anything besides ODS and timers. Even if nothing is added, I would keep the idea of lines on the floor. The line-tracking program was a pain to build, but definitely worth it to see it run :D

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

I also worked this year as a programmer on Team 160 Impulse, but as always, I happen to disagree with my fellow programmers :yikes:

Autonomous Mode:
I loved the way it worked with the remote activating the program in the microcontoller, but I liked it better when deactivating the remote would also halt or stop the program (I'm pretty sure it did that in older versions of master code) This would save a lot of accidents resulting in the code gone or made wrong, or some remote off switch would be appreciated. (Especially one time when I got my thumb drive which was hanging around my neck caught into moving robot)

Tele-Operated Mode:
No Problems here except keeping track of those crysals must of got annoying for the staff after awhile, too bad there isn't enough frequencies to assign a team their own crystal for the tournament.

Game Object(s):
Something like this again I suppose, scoring something into a goal

Goals/Scoring:
I like it how the harder to reach goals are worth more points

Tournament Structure:
Keep it seperate! I loved the way the programmers got their own match so to speak, though it makes ranking a bit harder.

Other/General Game Ideas:
As for the field, easy to make was a good thing... but easy to deteroiate was a bad thing, especially for us programmers. Can't tell you how many times we would have to change ODS "limits" in our code due to the wheels spinning differently or experienceing different ammounts of friction between fields.

Also, maybe its just the field inconsistencies but maybe more accurate sensors could also be made. The sensors get the job done but especially with the ODS, they tend to change a bit in their readings a bit, especially as battery levels go down. This is rather annoying.

Now in this next statement,I apologize if I offend anybody, but maybe have FVC a bit more spaced out from the FRC. In both Hartford and Atlanta, the FRC teams made a lot of noise, which was a lot to compete with. I understand that the FRC teams have done a lot of work and deserve a lot of regconition, but I think FVC should be seen in the same light. I don't think its fair to have us being drowned out by FRC. We worked hard too. :/ .

Well that about it, Hope I didnt over talk like usual.... whoops.

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

i think footballs or cut up pool noodles would be cool

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

The one thing I would love to see return is the keep-the-refs-extremely-bored approach that made Half-Pipe Hustle so much fun. When the game itself is designed to play clean, it takes a lot for a team not to play clean.

With that....

Autonomous Mode: I like the concept of 1v0 here; it keeps things simple. Perhaps having a common goal for an alliance, like the traditional midfield goal in FLL. But instead of the somewhat complex ranking system they had this year, the match next year will result in a bonus in tele-operated mode. For example, suppose that the higher-scoring alliance in autonomous got a five-second head start. Not insurmountable, but undeniably an edge.

Tele-Operated Mode: Leave it be, it's running fine.

Game Object(s): I can definitely see the issue with multicolored balls like this year, and I fear that similar-sized balls next year will result in warmed-over robots. How about something big, like Poof balls?

Goals/Scoring: Suppose that instead of a trough for scoring, you had a pretty tight target to stack the object onto. If the target is set back a little bit, the concepts should be pretty original.

Tournament Structure: Keep this as it is.

Other/General Game Ideas: Perhaps it's the fact that I was just a witness to Mission Mayhem and Aim, well, Kinda High, but I'd love to see a king of the hill aspect to the next game.

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

One person above suggested putting a choke point on a part of the field all contestants share - Good idea, but it should probably be a one-way path (mandate a different path return path) with a gate system or some other implicit mechanism that queues up the bots without having them collide with one another. Vex bots aren't very sturdy.

If all teams can bring two robots or if you can figure out a way to have equal numbers of team produce each of two types of robot; I would love to see a game that is played by alliances of two bots, and that demands two distinctly different types of behavior from those bots.

Perhaps one behavior would be pushing big objects out of the way and gathering objects that were hidden behind the big ones. The other behavior could be accepting the gathered objects and racing through obstacles to deposit them in a goal high off the floor.

The rules would be designed to make it very, very hard to build one bot to do all these things (much less do them well) and stay within other game constraints like size and weight. The importance of teamwork and strategic thinking would rise.

Blake

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

How about allowing detachable auxiliary robots?

A large robot would be allowed to carry another robot that could be launched and (must be?) retrieved.

Each of the two humans on a team would control the one of the robots (either the Carrier or the one it deploys). This would be one option for doing things like pressing two push-buttons at the same time, or for gathering balls (by having the deployed bot herd them into the Carrier), or for holding one object in place while another is stacked/attached on/to it, or for whatever...

Maybe loosen weight, size, sensor, etc. restrictions a bit for a two-bot team; but keep the restrictions tight enough to force a division of capabilities between the two bots. Also keep the one-bot restrictions loose enough to make it possible to be successful using a single bot.

Blake

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

If the competition is still split into separate autonomous and operator controlled matches, modify the ranking system just a bit. The separate ranking of teams, then averaging of the rankings was a little tough to follow and in some cases I think it was unfair.

If a bunch of teams are tied in autonomous points (very possible since many teams scored low this year), the tiebreaker should not drop down to the random 'coin flip.' In some cases this can cause the 'wrong' team to be ranked higher. The random flip should only be used if the overall averaged rankings are tied.

For example... Teams A, B, C are all tied with 0 points in autonomous and are ranked 1, 2, 3 in operator controlled, respectively. It would make sense for the overall rankings to match the OC rankings, but it's not necessarily the case in the current system. If the random Auto rankings go B, C, A, for 1, 2, 3, the overall rankings will be B (1.5 avg), A (2 avg), C (2.5 avg).

It's a small change, but I think it's needed.

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

Just as a thought to the comment about foam tiles being somewhat expensive, what about a painted piece of plywood for the floor? Surely the Vex wheels can work with that stuff, and the price is right.

Going to the footballs idea, what about those hard plastic ones that folks throw into the stands as promos at football games? Cheap, durable, able to be decorated if FIRST wants to splurge, and they'll make all of the folks who have been clamoring for footballs in FRC happy. ;)

Also, this should probably go without saying, but stick with the WildStang-designed field controllers. The system was functional, beautiful on the field (who wants a big beige crate at midfield with all that lexan around?), and displayed all the information we've wanted to know.

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

Soft tiles are a little pricey, but judging by the wear and tear this season, they should last for several seasons and will only require spot replacement of worn tiles. The only thing I'd change, is to NOT punch holes (for the floor starting balls) like this year, then the tiles would be reusable. The small drywall screw holes didn't seem to leave big holes so they shouldn't be a problem in future years. While the tiles are pricey, have you priced good plywood lately? Then there is a problem with mating adjacent panels and warped plywood. The lack of friction would be an issue if anyone wanted to use tank treads for a drive train, and it's still a lot easier, not to mention lighter, to store a box of tiles than plywood or carpeting.

Other/General Game Ideas: I just thought of one. Can Dave or someone on the Vex GDC come up with our own Game Clue please. Always like a good puzzle! :D

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

Amanda should get the honor of writing the official FVC Game Clue.

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

Autonomous Mode: Have several levels of challenge, where more of the sensors could be used.

Tele-Operated Mode: Fine.

Game Object(s): Easy to purchase. Consistent in manufacture. Different sized objects. A game component that rewards precision, for example placing an object in an area with small tolerances.

Goals/Scoring: Multiple methods of scoring is great.

Tournament Structure: I like keeping the autonomous separate from Human Control. I liked the fact that other robots could not interfere with our routine.

Other/General Game Ideas: The foam pads are a nice surface. However they did create a lot of static electricity. I would also like to see teams allowed to use some kind of material for protection, other than VEX metal. For example a thin plastic material used to protect the RC and cables from other robots. A better method to identify team alliance color, maybe the flags like FRC.

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

I stewed on this idea for a bit, and I think it might work for something like FVC.

Imagine a big bin full of the game object du jour on each side of the field. (I'll assume ping-pong balls.) On all four corners of the field are tubes for robots to receve these balls, and a Vex bumper switch to cause balls to roll into the tubes.

Here's the rub, though--once in the tubes, the balls can either roll into the tube where your robot is, or another tube that empties out at the other end of the field. With good coordination and the right alliance partner, this is a non-issue--but if you're either unlucky or don't plan right, you're opening the barn door for the other alliance to steal some of those balls.

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

Autonomous Mode:
Don't have different rules for this game (but keeping it seperate is fine). It would have been amazing to see ALLIANCES trying to decide which goals to attempt to gain control of, if they want to play defense, etc etc etc. The strategies would have been amazing.

Tele-Operated Mode:
I'm a fan of real-time scoring, but creating an accurate scoring system can be difficult (as proven by FRC 2006).

Game Object(s):
I liked the raquet balls, as a vast majority of teams were able to find a way to gain at least minimal control of them

Goals/Scoring:
The highest scoring option (the 10 point center goal) was open, and hard to defend (as the opponent could approach from any side), making it critical to play high volume offense in order to secure it (which I liked), but it could be easily overcome by the corner goals (which were much easier to defend and take quickly). I think the highest rewarding secondary scoring method (ownership in 2006) should be higher to ensure more action in regards to that scoring method. I also like how the primary scoring method (balls placed in goals) led to the secondary (ownership of goals).

Tournament Structure:
I think autonomous should have some impact upon the elimination structure (say, match #3 is autonomous if it gets that far).

Other/General Game Ideas:
Either make the field smaller or add another robot to each alliance. The "action" was a bit sparse this year, at least compared to the FRC game.

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

To greatly reward cooperation between/among alliance members, how about devising a section of the field that can only be reached if two bots cooperate?

An example would be one drives up a ramp and reaches a "canyon" between the top of the ramp and the other side of the canyon. The cooperating bot drives into the canyon so that the top of that bot forms a bridge across the canyon. The bot at the top of the ramp drives across the bridge and scores some points.

Another example would to have one bot get into an elevator and have the cooperating bot be the motor (that bot has a "power-take-off = PTO" that makes the elevator operate and lift the first bot up to (or down to) a scoring opportunity.

Another example is requiring both/all bots on an alliance to press buttons (or do something a little more complicated), simultaneously, in order to open up scoring opportunities for one/all of them.

Blake

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

Autonomous Mode:
Autonomous should be combined with the normal modes to be more like FRC.
20+ seconds would be nice

Tele-Operated Mode:
Worked fine in my opinion, 2 minute matches asre nice

Game Object(s):
maybe a new object, but Balls have always been easiest imo

Maybe a time released device (2004), that could be set off early through completing a task


Goals/Scoring:
require balls to be shot?

some zort of zone system (similar to stack attack), where you recieved points for balls that were in your zone.

Some sort of multiplier/bonus in scoring. Like tripple play, or the double point ball from 04 (first frenzy?)



Tournament Structure:
Keep it like FRC


Other/General Game Ideas:
Something similar to stack attack would be easy, and exciting.

Flat field. The slant didn't seem to have a purpose. Ramps are fine, but not when they are half the field and aren't a goal in themselves (like stack attack)

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

What a fantastic game!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The only problem for me is my extreme extreme disappointment that we cannot fabricate parts for our robots. Official vex parts only makes no sense to me. My machine shop students now will not get to practise thier skills. :confused:

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

Charlie,
It's great to see your enthusiasm for the game. I understand the disappointment, but remember FVC's main mission. From http://www.usfirst.org/vex:

"The FIRST Vex™ Challenge (FVC) is a mid-level robotics competition targeted toward high-school aged students. It offers the traditional challenge of a FIRST competition but with a more accessible and affordable robotics kit. The ultimate goal of FVC is to reach more young people with a lower-cost, more accessible opportunity to discover the excitement and rewards of science, technology, and engineering."

-Custom fabrication would really put a hurting on teams without access...

...and the rules do not preclude your students from custom fabricating parts for a Vex robot. You just can't put them on the competition robot.

For example, I have a student on our school team who used our CADD software and 3D printer to manufacture a "vex traction wheel". I told him in the beginning that the wheel couldn't be used in the Engineering class game or in FVC. However, I wanted him to complete the project because it pushes him and maximizes the use of our lab. It's a great learning experience.

I'm sure a creative leader like yourself can find a way to do both things, motivate the students, and still stay within the rules for FVC competition.

Have fun and good luck.

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

The new game ROOLZ!!3!

I haven't finished reading the field description, but I'm wondering -- does that rotating center platform rotate electrically, or is it just pivoted in the center? I guess I need to RTM.

Nice work.

(A full-sized softball? Are you deranged? :) )

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

Well, if you want to split hairs, you -can- custom fabricate parts, so long as they meet the requirements of <R5> and <R9>. Of course, if the inspector can't tell whether it's a Vex product, you'll have to prove it through documentation as <R7> lays out. The key is to have it come from Vex components (and, to make your inspector happy, remain recognizable as such).

Look in CD-Media at some of last year's robots; I was a particular fan of South Carolina teams 4 (now 507, I believe) and 171 (now 1539):

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/tags/fvc4
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/tags/fvc171
(Those URLs may change with the renumbering, but just change the numbers in the links to the new numbers, and life will be good.)

They were two-thirds of the winning alliance at the Orangeburg pilot tournament, and 4 won the Create Award, which is the forerunner of this year's Inspire award. I'd call them two of the best robots in the state, and prime examples of what you can do with the Vex system (read: just about anything you can do with sheetmetal).

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

Game pieces:

Even though i liked working with the softballs this year..
they tended to get stuck in odd places inside the robot because of their protruding laces. they would fit in some places but not others because the laces caused their diameter to enlarge.

For example, our robot had a channel down the middle for the softballs, most of the time they went down no problem, but if the softball went down just right, it would get stuck because of the laces.

I would recommend a uniform ball such as a raquetball. But then again the softballs might have been easier to pick up because of their laces..

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

From reading all of the clarifications on the FIRST forum and just reading the rules I got the distinct impression the choice of a non-uniform ball was a well thought out intended part of the challenge. I think, as you noted, that it definetly could complicate parts of robot design - but it is in my opinion a good move on FIRST's part. The amount of complication was not severe and enough planning and testing on a team's part can eliminate any of the potential difficulties that may arise from the laces.

I believe last year they used raquetballs...but I'm not sure, our team wasn't around last year.

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

my opinions


Autonomous Mode: [review]the time period this year, i believe was perfect... but the false starts that occurred at nationals were very disappointing

Tele-Operated Mode: [suggestion]if possible, interference would be a big problem that would be great if it could be lessened [as much as possible]

Game Object(s): atlas ball was very important in this game and created multiple strategies in both autonomous and tele-operated modes and even in strategizing - i think that something to that effect should be kept next year

Goals/Scoring: the point differentials in this year's game seemed very even

Tournament Structure: although the regional setups had a good number of matches for teams, the championship event only had 4 matches per team which i believe is not enough to fairly determine who should be the number one seeded team

Other/General Game Ideas: no comment

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

Note: I'm not in the FVC, but I think some of these ideas might be workable. They are ideas I've had for the FRC, but aren't workable with the larger scale (durable field pieces in the FRC would weigh far too much to be added or removed each match).

Autonomous Mode:
A. Have the results of autonomous mode (even if not combined with teleoperated period) affect the field. Example: Perhaps the game field has a series of slots with lexan 'doors' in them. The doors might create chokepoints near a goal or simply be annoying obstacles. Accomplishing certain tasks would open or close these doors (the lexan would be removed or placed in the slot). Ahead of time, alliances could collaborate to determine which doors they are capable of opening/closing and which ones they want opened/closed that match.

Tele-Operated Mode:
A: Having a pit packed full of game pieces lower than the level of the floor so that robots have to reach below their wheels to retrieve the game pieces. If those game pieces roll easily, then it becomes more difficult as the game goes on: initially, they are packed tight and don't move, but as they are removed, they start moving around and well-designed robots must cope with that. In combination with my doors idea above, perhaps the doors could control access to an area of the pit with an even-lower bottom so that things would flow into it.
B: Same idea as the pit above, but instead of having it below the floor, have it with a semi-rounded bottom sitting freely on the field. If robots want to retrieve balls near the endgame, they'll have to tip it towards them to have the balls roll towards them. In order to have no team advantaged at the beginning, have a flat spot on the bottom so it is level at the beginning. In fact, it doesn't even have to have a rounded bottom. Think of a 12"x12" cardboard square (pizza box?) with a short pillar in the centre at the bottom. It is tippable, it stays level at the beginning, and you can fill it with balls.

It also opens up some prospects for cooperation/competition: opponent out-scoring you? keep the box tipped your way so they can't refill. Ally needs balls? help them hold it down so your opponents don't keep it away from you.
Since I like the tipping-box idea a lot, here are some renders of how it might look:

I rendered the first one before I realized the extreme angle it'd reach with such a long pillar. Obviously the pillar length could be adjusted a bit.
Game Object(s):
Egg-shaped things would be cool, though I'm not sure where you can buy a lot of them. I think any game pieces would need to be able to roll to be really interesting.
Goals/Scoring:
Multiple goals with multiple point valuations makes for a more interesting game and wider design variation.
Tournament Structure:

Other/General Game Ideas:
Anything to increase the amount of autonomous choice would be fantastic. I think it would be very cool if teams had to write 5+ somewhat simple autonomous modes each (and maybe a doozie for mega-points). If I was in high school again, I'd probably be spending 100% of my time programming a FVC robot.

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

Autonomous Mode: very good, most of our matches were won with a successful program, keep the bonus, keep the time.

Tele-Operated Mode: no comment

Game Object(s): like the softballs, alot of different designs but i think we need to move from balls. i was thinking those red dixie cups.

Goals/Scoring: differential was good, triangle prevented huge dumps. maybe there should have been 2 low goals and one tall goal to make high scoring harder.

Tournament Structure: more matches!!!! if nationals wants to keep it as one division and 100 teams then we need to go to alliances of 3, that would allow for 6 matches instead of 4

Other/General Game Ideas: surprise us next year, stray away from the "put balls into goals" game.

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

My biggest compliant about the game is the scoring. The score of the winning alliance should not be determined by the score of the loosing alliance. THe score you earn should be the score you get. Our team would have done so much better is this had been in place.

Also at the world championships all foreign teams should have at least one person on the team who speaks English or have a translator.

thes were my two biggest complaints.

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

SUGGESTION:

To increase the weight placed on programming the robots, I suggest a set of valuable autonomous compulsory exercises (related to each season's game) be devised each season and then carried out separately by each robot before the qualification/elimination matches occur (or not carried out as the case may be). These would resemble the compulsories figure skaters must perform.

The non-trivial score each robot achieves (attempts to achieve) by executing these compulsories would be carried into each qualifying or elimination match/alliance by the robot/team and would be added to the alliance score achieved during each match.

I do think that alliance vs alliance qual matches should continue to have a brief autonomous period at their start (or perhaps at the end to make this type of autonomous operation more challenging).

REASONING:

• I definitely think that the programming part of FVC (and to a large extent this year's FRC) gets short shrift in current competitions.

• When I think of inspiring a student to pursue a career in robotics, I think of industrial and commercial robots that perform autonomously.

• When I think of teleoperation I think of large machines like ships and earthmovers, small machines that are usd in surgical procedures, and fly-by-wire planes or ROVs; but I don't think of "robots".

• The scheme above, assuming the points to be earned in the autonomous compulsories are big enough to really get folks' attention, would seriously light a fire under teams that do little with software now, would inspaire teams that want to emphasize developing software skills, and would foster stronger collaboration between all teams' programmers and mechanical designers.

• Because of the points they would bring to each qual or elimination match a well programmed autonomous robot/team would become a desireable alliance mate, even if their teleoperated performance is average or weak. This would put software finesse and cleverness on a more equal footing with driver skill and mechanical design (or mechanical brute force in some instances).

• Simply raising the value of the current style of autonomous operation would over-emphasize the robots' ability to mimic one brief set of the exact same maneuvers used in the teleoperated period.

• This would force more tough compromises in the robots' designs and would probably give rise to a more diverse set of robot designs each season.

• A hoped for side effect of this would be that teams would use more software macros to carry out parts of the teleoperated matches such as placing objectss into a goal once the robot is brought near the goal.

Blake
PS: Do many FVC teams have trouble with getting their software ready for competitions today? Yes. Should we make the software part of the competition less valuable as a consequence? No; we should make it more valuable in order to make it worth their while to invest more time into learning the software side of robotics; we should do a better job of teaching these skills; and we should continue improving the documentation and ease-of-use of the tools they are required to use.
PPS: No - In case you are wondering, I'm not a computer scientist/engineer or a professional software developer.

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

To make the challenge harder, they could put a weight limit on the bot. This would have killed us this year. I think if we were a little bit heavier, our bot would have sunk into the foam mat :-)

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

I like this idea: It allows for some pretty complex and varied autonomous modes without extending the length of the individual autonomous matches. You could have a 2-minute long autonomous qualifying period once in a competition, and all the qualifying matches would remain the same length.

As an extension to your idea, I propose that teams could have a small number of retries throughout the competition, with their highest score so far achieved (not the average) being the value that is carried into the match. They still get an advantage if they come into the competition with a ready-done autonomous mode, but if they fail initially due to equipment failure or unforeseen bugs, they can try again with the penalty of playing some qualification matches without the advantage.

In a one-day competition, teams could try once before qualifying, once at a mid-competition break, and once just before eliminations. Since drivers do not have to actually actively do this, the trials could be done by a volunteer on a seperate field whenever the team is ready.

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

Autonomous Mode: Autonomous mode right now is great. The 10 point bonus and the 20 second time period fit this year's task perfectly.

Tele-Operated Mode: This mode is quite good. No improvements to be made here.

Game Object(s): Like many fellow VEXers I would like the game object to be easily accessable and able to be purchased from nearby stores anywhere. Or the game object should easily be created. Balls still work great, perhaps ping pong balls or poof balls, some ball that is shootable can be encorporated into next year's game. Stacking or placing objects works as well.

Goals/Scoring: I would like to see a game where we can shoot poof balls or ping pong balls(similar to FRC 2006). Otherwise stacking or placing objects works as well (similar to 2005/2007).

Tournament Structure: Perhaps VEX can consider making 2 day tournements for large tourneys (Penn had 45 teams). This allows many more matches and less of a rush.

Other/General Game Ideas: I think FVC should consider allowing teams to compete and win awards in 3 tournements like FRC. This allows for teams to travel more, and better convince their administration to pay for their trips. It also encourages teams to arrange exchange programs.

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

Autonomous Mode: Multiple tasks, and no task that gives a clear "autonomous bonus" to draw teams to do it. My favorite FRC game to date is FIRST Frenzy, among other reasons because in autonomous, teams did not stick to one task, like this year. Multiple tasks add more creativity to this aspect of the game

Tele-Operated Mode: Good as is.

Game Object(s): Something non-spherical please. All FVC challenges to date have been good, but the treaded ball elevators are getting a little tiresome. How about hockey pucks? Also, I liked the atlas ball in that it was simply too large for a 18x18x18 robot to handle properly without very good design.

Goals/Scoring: Scoring this year was good except the atlas ball was worth way too much. Once again, lexan triangles are getting a little tiresome as goals. How about something like a large scoring wall at one end of the field that teams can place gamepieces into via holes at various heights.

Tournament Structure: Seemed to go well, although it would be nice for both fields to be running together in Atlanta.

Other/General Game Ideas: Three team alliances would be nice to see.

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

Autonomous Mode: The integration of the autonomous and operator control worked well, besides a few glitches at tournaments with some starting matches. 20 seconds seemed like a good length for this section of the challenge, but I think codes could have been more complicated with 30 seconds total, but the 20 second autonomous mode worked well.

Tele-Operated Mode: Worked well. In a few tournaments I noticed that there were some problems with teams losing control of part or all of their robot.

Game Object(s): The softballs were interesting because of their size, and low coefficient of friction, making it sometimes harder to grasp onto the balls. Still having balls as the scoring objects could be good, as it is pretty easy to maneuver with them. The atlas ball, was often frustrating, as the setup was painful at times, and the fact that the atlas had to be MOSTLY on your side meant that it could be resting on the line, and made the refs job harder if it was a 50/50 chance.

Goals/Scoring: This worked well, two high goals and one low goal for a side resulted in much crossing over for the competition, and often with the atlas ball heavily contested, made strategies numerous in competition.

Tournament Structure: The tournaments ran well, sticking to the schedule for the most part, with few if any mistakes in the day. Something to change would be the amount of matches, the teams at the nationals only had 1 practice round, and 4 qualifying rounds.

Other/General Game Ideas: Keep the same field walls each year to make a one time cost to teams for an outlay for their field.
Common goals possibly. If, at the center of the field there were 2-4 goals, and balls all over the field. Teams could place balls (all the same color) into the goals. The goals could be moved around by teams, and if the goal is all the way onto their part of the field, they would get the points for all balls in the goal, this adds a bit of complexity due to the fact that you have to spread your scoring over many goals, and if you don't all your scoring could be given to the other team if they push the goal onto their side. This is an idea for part of the competition, not the whole, low goals would still be a good thing.

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

We would need a significant upgrade to the motors before we can shoot a ball.

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

First, I have heard several people complain that the 2 fields were not running together in Atlanta. The idea was that they could do field reset on one while running games on the other. If they ran them together, there would have been a longer time between matches due to field reset. We would not have gained any extra time for more matches and the video monitor/webcast would have been more difficult.

I have also heard the idea to have 3 teams before. Can you imagine fitting 3 robots on that size field. They have guaranteed the field would not change for a few years to make it an affordable investment for teams. They would have to shrink the robot envelope to make 3 team alliances.

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

Autonomous Mode:
I loved the combined autonomous with tele-operatred mode, much better than the half-pipe hustle split

Tele-Operated Mode:
Nothing wrong here, just fine.

Game Object(s):
Like others have said, balls get old 3 times in a row, maybe something new (i love tetras)

Goals/Scoring:
Atlas ball was way too overpowered in my opinion.

Tournament Structure:
Worked just fine, no serpentine = win, but my biggest complaint would be Atlanta-related. 2 fields for 100 teams is not enough. 4 games per team is way too few. Need more matches in that regard. Maybe make it a 2 division thing where the winners meet up for a mega-match?

Other/General Game Ideas:
Once again, in my opinion, the atlas ball was completely overpowered.

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

Folks,

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean; but if you are talking about truly using two fields simultaneously, do the math.

(10 channels) minus (four robots multiplied by up to two channels per robot) = two crystals left for the second field....

Unless you start sorting robots according to the number of crystals they use, you can't plan to simultaneously use two fields consistently under the current FVC rules.

Blake
PS: I am assuming that the two fields are close enough to one another (so one audience can see both) for a transmitter on one field to reach a receiver on another field and that their is no intentional shielding installed between/around the fields.

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

not necessarly, you just need to learn to do it right:
http://pic1.picturetrail.com/VOL1182.../208020713.jpg
http://pic1.picturetrail.com/VOL1182.../141017530.jpg
http://pic1.picturetrail.com/VOL1182.../141017524.jpg

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

Not true.

FVC competition crystals are different channels from the ten commercially available. This is done so that the commercial crystals can not interfere with FVC competitions. There are enough channels to run two fields simultaneously, with a small amount of expansion, too. If no one's noticed, the field controls are designed and built to be used by three teams per alliance.

Vex uses the standard hobby ground frequency of 75 MHz, channels 61-90. That's 30 total channels, minus 10 commercial channels, leaves 20 FVC competition channels. Fine for 2 vs. 2, but a little tight for 3 vs. 3.

If running two fields simultaneously, I would still recommend staggering the fields so only one field is active at a time to eliminate any possibility of interference between the two fields. It would still be faster than what was being run in Atlanta. If you have a 30 second window before and after the match to get radios turned on and off, you should be able to run on a 4-5 minute match cycle. We ran on a 5 minute match cycle at the Hartford regional with only one field, so two fields running staggered on a 5 minute cycle is within reason.

I understand a team's concerns. Paying a large amount of money to compete at Championships, then only getting 4 qualification matches, doesn't seem justified. It also left large blocks of teams with similar win-loss records. I would like to see the Championships split into 2 divisions of 50 teams which play to divisional winners. Then the two divisional winners could play for the overall title. Even with the extra matches needed for the elimination rounds, a faster field cycle should be able to get teams up to at least 6 qualification matches. :cool:

GDC This years game was great! Especially the atlas ball. I'll agree with previous posts, time for a new game piece. Give balls a rest for a year or two.

Also..... 3 vs. 3! :yikes:

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

I only attended one FVC event this year, although I think it counts for something that the one event was the Championship. Here's what I thought:

Autonomous mode: VASTLY improved upon Half-Pipe Hustle. I didn't see much line-following, but the field was configured to provide plenty of dead-reckoning or encoder-based possibilities. Lots of great plays to run.

Teleoperated mode: No complaints here. Good clean fun.

Game Objects: Perhaps balls are becoming a bit too common in FVC--I know a few teams essentially showed up with their center-goal Half-Pipe Hustle robot. (That's an exaggeration.) Let's see something a little different next season--maybe still balls, but make them particularly different in use or nature from past seasons' balls.

Oh, and the Atlas Ball did sometimes make following the action a bit tricky...but such is the case with any large opaque object.

Goals/Scoring: The Atlas Ball, in the end, seemed a bit too weighty--pin that with one robot, have the other score some in the high goal, you win. Throwing the ball out was a tricky but big move, one slightly hampered by the driver placement. (I would frequently find myself waving back drivers so the ball could go either in or out.) It was nice to have the high goal be significantly higher than the Half-Pipe Hustle goal, but something different might be nice for next season. The platform and bar were a nice setup. I wish the turntable was a little bit crazier, but it was still a neat change.

Tournament Structure: Championship match thinness aside, I've got nothing much. I do prefer this ranking structure over the Autonomous-mixed-in arrangement of Half-Pipe Hustle.

Other Ideas: One I've been jonesing to see in FVC: robot-actuated field elements. We saw a bit of this in the high-level play of Half-Pipe Hustle, where teams would use their robots to empty the auto-loaders of the loader-dependent opponents. I'm envisioning some sort of lift or conveyor driven by a small Vex wheel, just to ensure maximum replication ability.

I'd also like to see some electronic scoring--the bumper switches in the Vex kit seem to be perfect as a target for teams to hit either with robots or game pieces.

Lastly, the robot-as-scoring-object approach of Rack 'N Roll was just good clean fun. If that can be integrated into an FVC game without coming off as a total rip-off, I imagine it'd be fun.

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

Yes! - Similar ideas here. Jim Koca and I had fun discussing similar possibilities for an off-season exhibition event last summer. The plan didn't get implemented because our "customers" for the event were properly reluctant to use a field that might require expert assembly and trouble-shooting when reused by them for other exhibitions in the future.

An effective compromise between field complexity and the rewards of having an "active" field is bound to exist. The idea just needs some testing and refinement so that we can identify where that compromise lies.

It will be easy to prove that there is no "rip-off" by referring to this message that was posted well before Rack-N-Roll was announced.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...3&postcount=24

Dave Lavery's speeches to the regional audiences about FRC teams having to get "into the heads of" the other FRC teams this year was one that I could have written myself. I look forward to seeing more of these sorts of opportunities woven into the FIRST FVC and FRC games.

Blake
PS: Last year, for Aim High, I urged our FRC team to build a mobile pillbox/tank that lumbered out into position on the field with a slow; but nearly impossible to dislodge or block high-traction, high-torque drive train; and then opened a hole(s) that looked like a low goal.

For the rest of the game it would just sit at its money-spot and accurately fire 3-point balls into the high goal. Allies would only need to harvest the balls that littered the game fields and deliver them to the pillbox bot's low goal(s). I suspect that we would have consistently gotten very high scores from the strategy.

I would love to see future FVC and FRC games have clear/obvious opportunities for alliances to create this sort of division of labor. Perhaps even carried to the extent of having robots declare whether they will be a hunter or a gatherer (or an autonomous vs teleoperated, or a ___ vs a ___) at the beginning of each event. Then the match schedule would explicitly put one bot of each type into each alliance for each match.

See these also:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...2&postcount=15
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...3&postcount=16

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

Well, "Yes" and "No".

"Yes" because we are specifically discussing FIRST events at the moment.

"No" because VexLabs and FIRST appear to be collaboratively attempting to keep the genie in the bottle by only offering 10 crystals for sale to anyone who doesn't know the secret handshake (a bit annoying - especially for organizers of large practices and scrimmages that use VexLabs equipment and/or FIRST's games; and for users who want to do multi-robot experiments or games that aren't related to FIRST's competition games. Formal FIRST events are not the only activities that use Vex equipment....).

You mean commercially available to ordinary buyers through VexLAbs. The crystals for the other channels are commercially available from plenty of other sources (I now need to look for the right connectors from other vendors....). See your and my further comments below.

This genie will be out of the bottle very soon. In an odd case of serendipity, I had this same "conversation" with my hobby shop team sponsor last Monday and with Chuck Harris at a PVL-sponsored FVC scrimmage yesterday.

So, I doubt I will be the first person to take a crack at figureing out how to adapt commercially available crystals from sources other than VexLabs for use in VexLabs Tx/Rx equipment. Hopefully it won't be any harder than finding a source that uses the same two pronged plugs.

Thanks for the reinforcing info Skimoose!

Blake
PS: Is anyone able to recommend a suitable vendor already?

Re: FVC GDC wants your feedback
 

Thanks for all of your feedback over the past two years. Look for the 2007 FTC game to be released in mid-Sept.