Re: Robocoach signals loophole?
 

Yes. I believe that very situation has been addressed by Q&A.

Re: Robocoach signals loophole?
 

The first sentence is true, but the second one is false. The CMUCam that came in the 2007 KoP is still available from IFI, so it is considered a COTS part, and is legal under <R35>. The 2006 CMUCam is not available COTS, and is specifically prohibited by <R36>, so it is not allowed.

Re: Robocoach signals loophole?
 

A couple of interesting Robocoach-related Q&A responses came out today:
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=8460
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=8455

Re: Robocoach signals loophole?
 

I thought of an interesting "loophole" in the rules...

A remote like the Logitech Harmony series allows you to program some of the buttons on the computer. Now, the GDC wants you to have 1 button push correspond to one action, with a max of 4, and they don't want you to encode longer messages by pushing multiple buttons, which rules out the idea someone had of using encoded messages to help stave off interference from other teams.

But what if you programmed a remote to send multiple number messages for each push? You only use 4 buttons, and those 4 buttons only activate 4 activities on the robot. each single button press leads to one action on the robot. But you're sending a string of signals with each press to avoid interference with other robocoaches.

From update 3, this may be allowed (i think we'll draft a question to the GDC about it, so i'm not really looking for approval here, just opinions):

So one button push transmits one message, and multiple button pushes don't encode other messages... I don't know, what do you guys think? Am i going out on a limb here?

Re: Robocoach signals loophole?
 

You're on a limb, but it's a relatively thick one. Get that question asked to confirm. (And the post here is a pretty good base for it.)

If I had to make a ruling, here and now, with the information available, I would say legal. I am, however, not on the GDC.

Re: Robocoach signals loophole?
 

If you are using a standard commercial IR remote control, you are already doing this.

When you mash the "3" button on an IR remote, the device does not just send "3" out over the IR LED. That information is actually buried inside a larger packet of information that is sent each time a button is pushed. The packet will typically contain (as a minimum) synch pulses, the target device address, an encoded version of the data, and termination pulses.

Depending on the device being used, the actual "data" content can be a small fraction of the total transmitted packet. For example, if the remote uses the Control-S protocol (used by Sony - the two most common protocols are from Sony and NEC), you get a header pulse, a seven-bit data block, a five- eight- or thirteen-bit target block, and a trailing pulse. Of the data block, only 10 of the 256 seven-bit permutations correspond to the numbers on the remote. All the rest of the packet space is used by the remote to encode other information that is used by the receiver to decode and direct the data.

So what is being proposed as an advantageous "loophole" is, in fact, already in place and the rules support and accommodate it.

-dave



.

Re: Robocoach signals loophole?
 

Yeah, i understand how a remote typically works - the only real difference between programming a remote to send multiple signals every button press and that is the possibility for interference. There are only so many manufacturers, and each of them only has a few different types of signals they use (if you look at the instructions for a programmable remote, they usually have a lookup table by brand with at most 50 or so values). By using a standard remote with a standard (single) signal for each button, you risk that someone else is using the same type of remote, or is programmed for the same brand and you risk their commands telling your robot what to do. With the sizes of the regionals, odds are this'll happen to someone at each regional... by encoding longer messages, you significantly reduce or even eliminate this risk, and that is really the part that isn't already contained within the general understanding of the rule.