Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

I think it was a 1114 alliance that scored 50 points in auton. With that kind of auton, there is no use even going to the controls, the match is decided:( .

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

I said TEAM not ALLIANCE. They are 2 very different things
Joey

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

I think you might have missed my last post, where I mentioned that a team did score over 32 points alone: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...&postcount=180

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Is there a better video. It never showed 1 ball get knocked off.
Joey

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

We're working on getting the better video. The first ball was actually knocked off second, after crossing our alliance's finish line for the second time.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

i just watched that match. How is it that the one member on the blue alliance with the really thin arm/claw is compliant with the 80" measurement? The ball when grasped at least 2x looked to be a minimum of 15" from the front of the robot. I can't see it exactly but pretty much any measurement that goes over 50% of the ball length is going to be very close to that 80".

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

if(robot_with_really_thin_arm/claw.team_number == 1024)
{

printf("Yes, it is within the 80" requirement, but only just.\n\r");
printf("Autonomous only gets faster from here for 1024.\n\r");

}

//-q :]

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

(one more quadrant of) FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


:p

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Actually... being the one who instigated the original William Wallace post, I know that it was meant to be historically significant. William Wallace did not settle for the false freedoms pressed upon him and his people. He fought for what was fair and just 'til his dying words... a coup d'etat, if you will.

RIP William Wallace (you will always be remembered)

Alec Hill

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Your tribute to a historical figure notwithstanding, comparing stationary robotic obstacles (and the refs who permitted the strategy in Week 1) to the oppression levied by Edward Longshanks against Scotland is just a wee bit excessive, I would think.

Anyway, as I said, these robots will still have to come to rest somewhere, and most likely, the bulk of them will stop one quadrant further than they had previously. Those who profess to have "uber" hybrid modes will still have to navigate a stationary traffic jam of uncertain configuration - don't toss your keyboards into the garbage can just yet!

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

I know, lol. just having a little fun with it.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Qbranch,

I would like to suggest that you freeze frame the video
when the robot has its arm outstretched horizontally holding
the ball. Measure the horizontal distance from the end of
the arm to the back edge of the robot. Then measure the ball
diameter, take the appropriate ratio, and then multiply by 44
inches.

Eugene

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Furthering 1 quadrant is a 12 point potential difference, and a big part of the difficulty in this years task. Also, there aren't many people who profess to have "uber" auton modes, most teams just display it like 25, 1114, 1024, 148, 217 etc.. The proclaimers are those who are slack jawed after their performance.

Regardless it would be nice if people started looking it at from a different perspective. FIRST struggled last year during autonomous, it was very difficult while I was announcing last year to get the audience motivated in a 15 second period where almost nothing happend. FIRST gave us a very simple task, and a very hard task this year in autonomous, why not try to complete those tasks, it is after all a robotics competition.

Of course there are gonna be teams that can best you but take the challenge, do your best and get it done. The odometry or dead reckoning isn't too difficult to complete the easy tasks, there are many teams that would be willing to help you. Many teams have taken the hybrid challenge and hope to see every robot moving out crossing one or more lines in auton, it will be great to see more teams doing the same. Lets make Hybrid exciting, teams flying around the field scoring dozens of points narrowly avoiding disasterous crashes. Last year FIRST seemed very dissapointed with the lack of participants in autonomous, I mean IRI excluded most events really did not have much autonomous capping. It seems like FIRST tried very hard to make it worth something again, and to also make an easy tasks and hard task that teams can complete, much like in '06.

I've already seen great autons out of some teams that aren't what you would call perenial powerhouses, and nonexistent ones from teams you would. I don't buy the powerhouse argument, I think hybrid can be more of a field leveler ( except maybe in the cases of like 1114, because, well their just rediculous.. but thats not the point ) an average team can show up with a great autonomous this year and take home the competition against traditional powerhouses. Also most people get ignored when they complain about "fairness" in capabilities of super teams who can have 600 hours of machine time and 5 engineers, why is that any different than a team that can score a few points in autonomous. FIRST's intent was to make this a high scoring challenging game, Woody said it at kick off that people who think this game is too simple just havn't thought about it enough.

Take their challenge, a negative attitude towards it won't get anyone anywhere, but a positive outlook on hybrid may produce some spectacular performances, and I applaud the teams who try.

Re: Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid
 

Furthering one quadrant for the short distance movers furthers the long distance movers by at least one, perhaps two. The majority of the time against strong hybrid players, net gain for short movers is, at best, zero.

Positive, negative, or neutral.....there are going to be a lot of teams who will end their autons, voluntarily or otherwise, one quadrant further down the pike than they had ended them previously. Except now, instead of meeting these obstacles at a relatively slow speed as they made the lane change, oncoming hybrid modes of those successful enough to program multi line crossings at rapid speeds (we will be one such team, although we only program 60% of full speed currently) will be contacting many of these obstacles after having half a field of acceleration time. You cannot possibly guarantee that 100% of hybrid routines will "narrowly avoid disasterous crashes". Bad luck will dictate that some will not be avoided. I'd have preferred retaining the low-speed collisions of Week 1 but now we must all be concerned with this new risk. So again, I caution, be careful. Dare I even suggest, slow down.

Driving (relatively) straight forward and stopping is basic enough to implement for teams who have never done it before, but there are still roadblocks to meeting this goal. I can realistically see this as a solution for most teams who do not currently have a hybrid mode. I've got code handy to help them with the task. But there are still roadblocks to this effort that must be overcome at events. I attempted to help one rookie team out at Midwest, but their programming mentor was absent at the time, and I wasn't going to commandeer their laptop and force feed it to them. I left the code in a text file with my phone number and encouraged them to call me later on when they had time to receive further assistance. Heck, some rookies don't even have access to a laptop. I don't feel putting the code in there is worth the time and effort if I can't realistically explain it to the kids and get them to understand it. In the short amount of time we have at an event, this is a true roadblock.

Driving forward, turning a timed 90 degrees left, and changing lanes is much more of a challenge than even driving straight. A lot of repetitive trial and error is involved when implementing timed turns and moves of varying distance. Many teams are more concerned with passing inspection and being able to drive at all during practice matches than they are getting a 2-3 line autonomous to run. At some venues, there is no room for a team to tether up somewhere and verify how far their timer settings make them go and turn. So what happens when those teams program too long of a turn, point their machines CLOCKWISE down the field, and let er rip? What happens when delays are not sufficiently programmed between alliance partners, and collisions between teammates result in robots driving the wrong way, increasing their risk of damage? Are we all comfortable with such risks? That is a true risk of any hasty hybrid programming push.

One thing that aided us in autonomous tuning was videotaping our practice matches. Based on the replay timings we viewed in our pit, we were able to extrapolate the correct timed values we needed for fairly consistent turns, and a 2-3 line auton resulted. I can offer such a service to anyone who comes asking for such assistance in Pittsburgh and Cleveland, but I will not look to shove hybrid code down the throats of those who either do not want it or are not ready for it.

The build season and offseason are the TRUE times at which hybrid programming education should be promoted. With access to teleconferencing and remote desktop software, there are ample opportunities for veteran teams to reach out to long distance teams who wish to receive autonomous assistance, and there is enough TIME available to all to ensure that the resulting code is functional and safe. Letting an inexperienced team unleash an untested hybrid mode on the field at a qualifying match is a haphazard and careless exercise, in my opinion.

Be. Careful. Let's all merge these idealistic wishes with the true realities of the event venues, then proceed accordingly.