|
double keeper-- yes
autumn robotics comp. match 2 of finals. last chance? oh ya!!! double keeper!!! way to go 910. video will be up soon.
|
Re: double keeper-- yes
Way to go 910! I know you we're trying for it at Kettering KICKOFF, great to hear you got it to work.
|
Re: double keeper-- yes
wow, very impressive. Way to go 910 on the amazing auto.
|
Re: double keeper-- yes
That sounds scksi, pls post pics.
Kthnx. |
Re: double keeper-- yes
it really was awesome, seemed like just as the robot let go the buzzer sounded... really great job 910!
|
Re: double keeper-- yes
Yeah, it was one of those magical days. 9-0 in the qualifying matches and then no losses in the playoffs for a 13-0 record. Takes luck to have that happen, but we'll take it!
Thanks to our partners 1625 who we won IRI with last year, and 313 who got their first, first-place win in their 5 years of FIRST (that's a lot of firsts!). You guys played great and did everything we could have asked of you. The double keeper was such a great finish to a "cinderalla" day. Like John said, last match of the day, last run and it scores the first, runs back and grabs that second tube and as the clock counts down, 4-3-2 the tube goes on and then drops it on the top peg and 1 the buzzer sounds and there are two of them hanging! The place just erupted! What a riot! Thanks to ARC for putting on such a great event. The reffing was PERFECT - never heard a single complaint. You guys outdid yourselves. 2007 Curie Division Champions 2007 ARC Champions 2007 MARC Champions 2007 Xerox Creativity Award - Western Michign 2007 Robot Design Engineering Excellence - Kettering U. 2006 I.R.I. Champions |
Re: double keeper-- yes
Talk about knocking the wind out of our sails......
When the two 15 point bonus keepers were scored and we ( Team 47) missed by less than an inch we were down 30 points but kept fighting - not giving up. Thanks to Team 70 - and Team 68 for being our partners. Great alliance. |
Re: double keeper-- yes
When this happened two things crossed my mind at the same time,
1. Dang that stinks, and 2. That was really cool. Great accomplishment guys, very cool. -Sam |
Re: double keeper-- yes
Can't wait to see the video for that...that's impressive.
|
Re: double keeper-- yes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecZ4ghaYwTk
Here is the video of the double cap. It is just a short clip of the cap itself. I'll probably be putting up some more video from the rest of ARC in the future. |
Re: double keeper-- yes
Amazing...very nice job, guys!
|
Re: double keeper-- yes
*insert jaw drop here*
:eek: that was INCREDIBLE!!!!!!!! Beyond so... that was... MAN just amazing guys! That is an incredible thing to accomplsih. Way to go 910!!! |
Re: double keeper-- yes
Beautiful.
Hats off to the programmers. |
Re: double keeper-- yes
Here's a link to the full match recorded on a digital camera in "movie mode". Quality's not that good but it does show a bit more of the "excitement factor".
Take care all. :D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYogy0ES9bs 2007 Curie Division Champions 2007 ARC Champions 2007 MARC Champions 2007 Xerox Creativity Award - Western Michign 2007 Robot Design Engineering Excellence - Kettering U. 2006 I.R.I. Champions |
Re: double keeper-- yes
very impressive...that is great programming mastery by 910, kudos to you
|
Re: double keeper-- yes
:eek: that is truly amazing
|
Re: double keeper-- yes
Congratulations 910!!!!!
I knew you would get it eventually...you were soooo close at IRI. Great job!! :D |
Re: double keeper-- yes
That's a brilliant bit of programming right there. That is by far the best autonomous mode I have ever seen.
|
Re: double keeper-- yes
Quote:
Good job guys, you are awesome |
Re: double keeper-- yes
Great job! Wished it could have happened at Kettering as well (to see it in person), but that's why we have video! A really sleek design--congrats!
|
Re: double keeper-- yes
Sweet! I just feel bad that FIRST never turned the rack as much as they made it sound they would... I wouldn't have run off making ultrasonic radar systems... *sigh*
-q |
Re: double keeper-- yes
Quote:
|
Re: double keeper-- yes
Quote:
|
Re: double keeper-- yes
Way to go 910! Congratulations to a great alliance (910,1625,313) you deserved the wins. Also a BIG Thank you to 70 and 47 for having us as their alliance partner.
|
Re: double keeper-- yes
AMAZING. No Words.
I think that those programmers should be highly rewarded. |
Re: double keeper-- yes
It's difficult not to hate you right now :D
Awesome achievement ! |
Re: double keeper-- yes
Here's a shot someone took of it "posing" with the two tubes it scored. You have to remember it took a lot of luck too you know. :rolleyes:
 It was funny, after it scored, one of our drivers said his hands were shaking so badly he could hardly hold the controls. |
Re: double keeper-- yes
Quote:
I think the odds of an ultrasonic collision are very low. I have never intentionally tried to cause one, but the sensors really aren't sampling most of the time. We never had any collision issues as far as I know all of 2006. |
Re: double keeper-- yes
Wow! That is amazing. I hadn't even considered a double keeper auto.
|
Re: double keeper-- yes
Congratulations on the successful execution of the "brother's keeper".
Our team talked about this maneuver. It is great to see someone actually succeed at it. Each robot was limited to a single keeper. Thus, after hanging your own keeper, your robot had to return and grab a keeper from a brother robot. Hanging the second one does not mean that you are now your brother's keeper. It just means that your robot can handle your brother's keeper. I hope to see a writeup of the method used to do this. Jerry w |
Re: double keeper-- yes
I hope to see a writeup of the method used to do this. Jerry w Hi Jerry, Hey, I like that "brother's keeper" moniker! Pretty accurate! To answer your question, here's how it evolved... Single Score: First, we got the regular autonomous working. Our original system used the camera and searched until it was locked on target. We took the pan angle and used that to determine how "far off" center our robot was pointing. We then called a "rotate" routine repeatedly until we were within an acceptable error range (pointing pretty much right at the target). We then drove forward monitoring that pan angle. If it got too far off, we'd stop, re-rotate and then continue. All this time, the tilt angle kept increasing as we got closer and closer to the target. When we got to the "right angle", we stopped (or backed up if necessary) and then ran the arm through a pre-cap, pre-spear, spear, down, open, unspear set of position calls. That used to take us about 12 or 13 seconds and then later we managed to speed it up a bit (by moving the arm while we were driving) and then had time to drive back "home" with the arm in the "load wall" position ready to receive a tube at the beginning of the match. One day this summer we got to thinking that we had so much time left after scoring, that maybe we could try for two. The question was how to do it "legally" and as you suggested we went for the "brother's keeper" technique to use our partner's tube for the second run. Here's how that developed... Double Score: First of all, we had to get rid of the rotate, drive, rotate, drive technique for two reasons: One it was too slow, and two, it was too hard to "reverse" to get back "home" for that second tube. We switched to using a "power curve" technique that basically added power to the "outside motors" (based on the pan angle), and had the system drive pretty much full-bore towards the light, monitoring the pan and tilt angles the whole time. Once it reached a "close zone", it literally slams on the brakes for about 1/2 second, and then goes into a "fast creep" mode to get to the right distance from the rack. We then use the rotatable shoulder and elbow to make the final correction for angle and distance and reach out (and over) to drop on the first tube on the middle peg. Then it's race back, again at full speed (in low gear anyway - 7 fps or so) back "home" while simultaneously opening the gripper, bringing the shoulder and elbow back to our "load rear" position. When we get home, we "overshoot" by about 6 inches on purpose to "squeeze" the tube into our gripper and then close the jaws and begin to race back. By the way, we use optical wheel encoders to know where we are and track our progress. Okay, so we race back again at full speed and simultaneously swing the arm and tube over the top running for a different set of arm coordinate points going for the top spider. We usually get there right as the arm does, and we brake again, swing over and down and open the jaws. The whole procedure takes almost exactly 12 seconds every time. That's 4 seconds for drive & score, 4 seconds for return and grab, and 4 seconds for drive and score again. The big variable is how long it takes the camera to "lock on" to the target at the beginning of auton mode. That usually ends up being 3 seconds and is one of the big variables that makes or breaks us, the other being if we "catch" the tube when we come back blind. In practice, such as the practice area at IRI, we often did it 4 or 5 times in a row in under 15 seconds. That was on our homemade rack however which just wasn't designed to be as exact as the real thing. Throw in the variables of the lights on the field (intensity, interference, color), different rack heights, tube inflation levels, rack rotation and distance, and suddenly you're crossing everything you've got hoping it all works out. Before this past weekend (the night before in fact), we threw in one little fix that really helped. We added some motor bias correction to steer the robot in reverse back much closer to it's starting point, especially when the rack was at odd angles. This helped us grab that second tube a much higher percentage of the time therefore increasing our chances. Guess that's about it. Kindof a crazy idea, but one of those things where we said, "What the heck! Why not try it!" and it was fun working it out. Plus the autonomous bonus really made it worth working on. Nothing like the temptation of starting out with a 34 to 0 lead to get your juices flowing! Hope this helps a bit. Cheers! :) John |
Re: double keeper-- yes
John didn't describe how they made a legal pre-match position. They loaded one keeper in their ringer. The other was placed on the floor next to but not touching the bumper. To make this keeper legal, they had one of their alliance members touch the keeper with the corner of the robot. Both keepers were "in possession" of one and only one robot.
As he mentions, the variables were whether the camera could lock onto the light and whether they could go back to find the second keeper. It seemed that the camera locked on quicker if the light happened to be positioned close to a 0-degree angle. If the rack was rotated so that the light was 30+ degrees off, they had a harder time. The first keeper might score, but the delay in finding the light meant they didn't have time to score the 2nd. Just before that final match, Stevie noticed that we hadn't moved the rack. We went out and pushed, and the light happened to be pretty close to straight-on. Congrats on finally getting it to go. |
Re: double keeper-- yes
On the ultra sonics... yes the vex ones are ok... but they use two pins as opposed to one, and because of the dual-pin design they aren't as accurate as single pin units. (I used the Parallax ones)
The good thing was i went off and worked on the ultrasonic on my own... and turned it into a research project. I got it working just before the Championship event... but the team didnt want to try installing it at such a late date. It came out really amazing... and was highly complex. It used an ultrasonic sensor mounted on an airplane servo, and took 180 degree 'scans' of the area. The robot approached the rack at a set distance (known to be safe, at the limit of legal rack motion) then take a scan. Through a very complex set of digital filters, trend tracking, and logic, the scan data was broken down then all signatures that were identified as pipes (the uprights on the rack) had their angles recorded in an array. Through a fancy little looping structure the pipes (using thier distances and angles) were used to find the closest facet of the rack to the robot. From there, through a horrendous geometric construction (30 lines of pure geometric calculation alone) a correction angle and from that correction angle, the distance to the target were calculated. Then, the robot held one wheel (PID) and turned the other to the desired angle. Then both wheels accelereated smoothly, then decellerated at the desired correction distance (the PID for the wheel servos were not implemented in season but were completed afterwards, they feature full acceleration control, run speed control, and distance control) and, repeatably, placed a ringer on the rack +/- a few inches. Every time was a close shave... usually took about 14 seconds to place a ringer! :ahh: Expect more ultrasonic and servo magic in future 1024 machines... :rolleyes: -q |
Re: double keeper-- yes
That was amazing. I hate you.... in a graciously professional sort of way.
you guys deserve a snickers bar for that. absolutely amazing. I wish our robot were legally capable of doing something like this. but... we have a frontload system which makes it impossible to do it quickly |
Re: double keeper-- yes
Quote:
Besides, we have a slightly less cool, but still pretty neat trick. We have that one auto mode setting where we drive around to the other side of the rack and score a keeper over there. |
Re: double keeper-- yes
Hiya Smurfgirl,
We have a bank of switches that let us pick up to 27 auton patterns. The drive to the other side and score there (high,med,low) was one of them, but we didn't run it in competition for a few reasons. One, by the time we got there, the opponent could easily have already put one on there. Two, we could run into an opponent scoring on a "side" spider and never get there. Three, we could run head-on into an opponent running a defensive pattern (at full speed) and do some serious damage. Overall, we figured it wasn't worth it, but it sure is a cool thing to do! Did you ever get it to go? How often did it get there and score in time? Did you ever run into the opponents? |
Re: double keeper-- yes
I know 1124 ran their backside keeper successfully in a BattleCry 8 practice match. That was amazing to watch!
|
Re: double keeper-- yes
Quote:
We did it by charging backwards at full speed for 5 seconds, using a drive straight routine that was corrected by the Gyro. (we usually used that for climbing ramps). The routine then ran normally to cap with the desired 8 second cap. We wanted to use it at battle cry to take advantage of the keeper rule; 3 keepers on the opponent's side would not only break their row but cause a more serious vision impediment to the other team. We ended up not using it, however, because the risk of damage was high, we would start on a side with potentially a lot of defense, the front side autonomous was much more consistent, and the backside autonomous had a failure rate of 7 in 10 trials during practice for unknown reasons. I would have to say, though, that our coolest trick was the ability to throw a ringer onto the rack. we usually could get a good 2 to 3 yards on that ringer. |
Re: double keeper-- yes
Quote:
|
Re: double keeper-- yes
from one of the videos i saw, it looked like it was going for the trifecta, am i correct on this?
Great job 910 and congratulations |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:49. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi