Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Intentionally blocking traffic in Hybrid (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65301)

Qbranch 02-03-2008 02:16

Re: Impeding in Hybrid
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman (Post 710854)
NO alliance is OBLIGATED to give ANY team a huge advantage in hybrid just because their robot is "cool" and can cross 48,000 lines in auton. Period.

...

And if the uber-hybrid bots don't like being blocked, they are welcome to use their programming expertise to add some collision avoidance code and move around the obstacle. Stop whining and use it as an opportunity to "wow" people even more with your adept engineering skillz.

Wow, 48,000 lines, I have to get to work! We only do 6 with no traffic!

And for the second part... we'll see what happens at boilermaker. There is rudimentary recovery code in the robot as of now (you can tell in the multiple times our robot weaved through traffic), but I'm hoping that our drivetrain people will be ok with us adding the autoshifting code in to push whatever is in the way out of the way.

If you all didn't read the edit on my post about 299lbf pushing, I do not know exactly how much pushing force we can put to the floor. All that is is the maximum 5-second-sustainable force at the tire.

Also, I know that 1114 and us (1024) have fast autonomous modes, but who else does?

-q

jgannon 02-03-2008 02:38

Re: Impeding in Hybrid
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Qbranch (Post 710838)
However, to deal with blocking robots, 1024 is possibly going to hand shifter control over to RALFF (our autonomous driver). In this case, if an obstruction is detected by the forward ultrasonic sensor array, our robot would gently (2 ft/sec) approach a robot which 'accidentally' got in the way, shift in to low gear, and push whatever is in the way out of the way with our 299lb pushing force (sustainable about 5 seconds at this 299lb level).

While this sounds like a really cool idea, you should probably encourage RALFF to stop smoking first. ;)

Qbranch 02-03-2008 02:44

Re: Impeding in Hybrid
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jgannon (Post 710864)
While this sounds like a really cool idea, you should probably encourage RALFF to stop smoking first. ;)

*sigh* well the smoke had nothing to do with the drive system...

The short actually occurred within an ultrasonic sensor, thankfully, that's on the front of the robot.

-q

p.s. Wish you could have seen the smoke swirling under our cover panel before we turned it off... all the victor fans were blowing the smoke around making these awesome swirly vortexy thingies...

Zyik 02-03-2008 03:14

Re: Impeding in Hybrid
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Jones (Post 710822)
YES! FIRST has been raising the bar and aiming high for some time now. A failure to prepare should have consequences.

Until you give every team the same programming know how, the same resources and the same experience it is not a failure to prepare.

For example, and I love examples:
Team A might not have any mentors who know anything about code and are relying entirely on one self taught student who hasn't been able to touch the robot because it was still being built all season. They don't have many resources, especially no big sponsors who can machine things for them. Most of their code was tested on Thursday and they are still working out the kinks.

Team B has many mentors. They've been around for a little while and know all about what makes FIRST tick. They've got a couple of decent sponsors, and even have their own practice field and practice robot. They've been able to work on the code all build season and beyond. Their hybrid mode has been tested time and again, so they are able to lend a hand to Team A.

Should these two teams be judged the same? One of them has the resources, the other doesn't. This isn't a case of failure to prepare and consequences for something that you cannot change is unfair. You can hold up a bar yes, but every year FIRST has rookie teams who don't have the same advantage as the rest of us. Some veteran teams don't even have some of the resources that the rookies do. FIRST is so diverse that no one standard can encompass everyone.

Travis Hoffman 02-03-2008 03:24

Re: Impeding in Hybrid
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt H. (Post 710856)
Travis I would agree with most of what you are saying however the issue becomes more prominent when the team with the autonomous is penalized for "ramming" a blocking opponent as has happened already. I will stand by my earlier statement that if impeding is allowed then ramming must also be allowed. If a bot chooses to block then it is knowing putting itself into harms way.

I agree completely with this contention. But ONLY when it is clearly obvious the team is attempting to park and block.

To continue, I should also point out that teams who block typically do so by moving to the same spot every time. It would not take too much for the "elite" teams to add code which adjusted how far they drove straight before turning left, effectively avoiding the obstacle.

Of course then, that would be countered by oscillating defensive autons or perhaps even defensive modes which detect oncoming robots and adjust position accordingly.

Sounds pretty cool to me.

If we all just got out of the way (or were forced to do so per the rules) and let the best of the best do their thing without resistance, they wouldn't be challenged to push the envelope and create "the next great thing". I appreciate complex bots that can do amazing things on a field by themselves. But I truly am amazed by those bots who can do the same under defensive pressure.

This IS a robotic sport, is it not? I think the only people who enjoy watching the New England Patriots wax the dregs of the NFL with overwhelming offensive firepower are PATRIOTS fans. On the other hand, I believe EVERYONE, including casual observers, enjoys watching closely-contested battles such as those between the Giants and Pats this past season, where strong offense and defense were on display.

Now I gotta be honest, the level of intra-quadrant bumper zone D and "impeding" at Midwest this weekend seemed to go beyond my original interpretation of the game rules' intent (which, of course, counts for squat). We contributed to this. However, that's the way the referees called it, and it's their interpretation that ultimately sets the tone. Now, as a spectator, I enjoyed watching these matchups greatly. Watching the defensive alliance strategies set in motion and the resultant response to such pressure by the skilled drivers of the best offensive bots at Midwest made the scores that much closer and the spectacle so much more interesting.

And, oh by the way, with all the blocking/defense being played at the event, can anyone tell me who still came out on top at Midwest, when it was all said and done? If, in the journey to that victory, the matches were closer and the losing teams felt like they kept the victors honest, is that such a bad thing?

Congrats to 1114 and 1024 for persevering with their fine machines and even better drive teams and pit crews.

With very few alterations, I hope the way the game was played at Midwest is permitted to continue throughout the remainder of the season.

Dan 1038 02-03-2008 03:43

Re: Impeding in Hybrid
 
We had a discussion with the head ref in Midwest concerning this very topic, due to the alliance we were up against (the 1114/1024 dream team who eventually won) we asked if we could intentionally stop a robot in an area with the intention to block an opponent's hybrid operation. Per him, this would be fine if there was a passing lane around the blocking 'bot (ie, we couldn't line all three of our alliance up to completely block the corner). So, in the nxt match, we prompty sent a partner out 3' and stopped, which seemed great until 1024 ran him over and continued on its way! :(

My .02!

Jimmy Cao 02-03-2008 07:40

Re: Impeding in Hybrid
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Zyik (Post 710759)
What if a team is just beginning to develop their autonomous? If they had something that told the robot to go forwards x amount of feet to cross the first line, but somehow came out as x amount of inches, it might be seen as a "defensive autonomous" when it wasn't. If a robot hit them the first time they tested this and they didn't know it did this, should they be given a yellow card?

I believe the yellow card/penalty are still reasonable. To debug your code isn't too much to ask for. Also, if you get in someone's way, be it intentional or not, and you gain an advantage (or they lose an advantage), then it should be penatized. Should their programmer's hard work be negated because your programmer made a mistake?

Ken Streeter 02-03-2008 08:41

Re: Impeding in Hybrid
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Qbranch (Post 710861)
Also, I know that 1114 and us (1024) have fast autonomous modes, but who else does? -q

1519 has a pretty quick autonomous robot on their "speed racer" configuration, crossing 8 or 9 lines in autonomous; see this other CD thread for the video.

However, due to a ruling at GSR that our dual-configuration drive base robot was not legal, our "speed racer" configuration only participated in practice matches. (We used the "hurdling" configuration during the elimination rounds instead -- the hurdling configuration only crossed 3 lines.)

Jack Jones 02-03-2008 08:52

Re: Impeding in Hybrid
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Zyik (Post 710872)
Until you give every team the same programming know how, the same resources and the same experience it is not a failure to prepare.

For example, and I love examples:
Team A might not have any mentors who know anything about code and are relying entirely on one self taught student who hasn't been able to touch the robot because it was still being built all season. They don't have many resources, especially no big sponsors who can machine things for them. Most of their code was tested on Thursday and they are still working out the kinks.

Team B has many mentors. They've been around for a little while and know all about what makes FIRST tick. They've got a couple of decent sponsors, and even have their own practice field and practice robot. They've been able to work on the code all build season and beyond. Their hybrid mode has been tested time and again, so they are able to lend a hand to Team A.

Should these two teams be judged the same? One of them has the resources, the other doesn't. This isn't a case of failure to prepare and consequences for something that you cannot change is unfair. You can hold up a bar yes, but every year FIRST has rookie teams who don't have the same advantage as the rest of us. Some veteran teams don't even have some of the resources that the rookies do. FIRST is so diverse that no one standard can encompass everyone.

I feel their pain, but...

On January - 5 of this year every team was given the same opportunity. What they did with it was up to them. Should the rules be applied differently based on the ability to follow them? Should a team be allowed to go over the weight limit because they had no way to weigh their robot? I don’t think so. The failure to prepare in your scenario could have included the failure to test in the designated practice area. They could have chosen to try it out first. They may have chosen instead to just put it on the floor in a match and make their problem a problem for everyone else. Not one team goes out there looking to get penalties. Should FIRST conclude that, due to lack of intent, no rule will be enforced?

What we need here is a clear ruling on the matter; one without any mention of intent. IMO, if you block that far turn for any reason, you are not playing the game the way it was designed to be played. Imagine what would happen to NASCAR if they allowed roadblocks.

// OAO

Raul 02-03-2008 10:16

Re: Impeding in Hybrid
 
Please stop using the word "Impeding" when talking about a single robot. Just stop it!

When 1 robot stops anywhere on the track and does not extend to make themselves bigger, it is not impeding! Therefore, they cannot be breaking the impeding rule.

I would agree that they are impeding and a rule is being broken if 2 or more robots formed a line across the field.

So, a single robot can "block" part of the field. "Blocking" is the right word to use! And that is completely legal.

Qbranch (aka Alex) has it right. I am sure that they and 1114 will come up with a way to go around the blocking robot where there is room to do so. Or they can choose to push them slowly out of the way as he said.

Laaba 80 02-03-2008 10:47

Re: Impeding in Hybrid
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Raul (Post 710976)
Please stop using the word "Impeding" when talking about a single robot. Just stop it!

When 1 robot stops anywhere on the track and does not extend to make themselves bigger, it is not impeding! Therefore, they cannot be breaking the impeding rule.


The definition of impeding you are refering to, <G40> only applies during teleoperated mode.
The real definition of impeding is
Quote:

Originally Posted by 2008 game manual
IMPEDING: Preventing or obstructing an opposing ROBOT’S ability to proceed around the TRACK
in the direction of traffic.

This never says anything about the amount of robots. So in hybrid it is possible for a single robot to impede, however there is no rule against it.
Here is a quote from the Q&A
Quote:

Originally Posted by Q&A
The accidental creation of obstructions on the Track during Hybrid Period may be unavoidable and will not be penalized. However, intentional strategies designed to block traffic during the Hybrid Period will not be permitted. This may be considered a Yellow Card offense.

It clearly says that you are not allowed to intentionaly block the flow of traffic. I am not sure if refs knew about this however. This is just a complete guess, no facts backing it, but I think the ref training session was mostly centered around the rulebook and not the Q&A. Since I never saw a rule against hybrid impeding, I'm assuming the refs thought it is legal and never saw the Q&A. Remember no one braught this up before the competitions, this was a problem they had to deal with that was just thrown on them, and they remained consistent with it.

Oh yeah, Raul, sorry your son beat you in the finals. I guess he has the bragging rights for a while.:D
Joey

Tristan Lall 02-03-2008 12:21

Re: Impeding in Hybrid
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Streeter (Post 710948)
However, due to a ruling at GSR that our dual-configuration drive base robot was not legal, our "speed racer" configuration only participated in practice matches. (We used the "hurdling" configuration during the elimination rounds instead -- the hurdling configuration only crossed 3 lines.)

Not to pull things too far off topic, but what was the justification for ruling it illegal? Did the sum of the weights of all the parts used in both configurations exceed the limit?

HotWings 02-03-2008 12:26

Re: Impeding in Hybrid
 
i lol'ed soo hard watching the simulcasts online, and this rule. hahaha wow, it was great. I couldnt stand watching teams lose because of this...

Dan Richardson 02-03-2008 14:01

Re: Impeding in Hybrid
 
Quote:

The accidental creation of obstructions on the Track during Hybrid Period may be unavoidable and will not be penalized. However, intentional strategies designed to block traffic during the Hybrid Period will not be permitted. This may be considered a Yellow Card offense.
This conversation disgusts me, the question has been answered whether you agree with it or not is pointless, a rule is a rule until its changed.

What happened in those matches was illegal no ifs ands or buts about it, There is absolutely 0 question in my mind or any one of those involved minds that what they did was illegal. Should it be legal I guess that could be a question, but why they heck are you guys trying to defend yourselves. Those specific teams, and you know who you are, should have been disqualified on the 2nd offense.

I understand you may have asked the refs and they just didn't know I gave those teams a pass yesterday. But now that you do know its illegal just flipping apologize, and get on with it. I'm not upset with the teams for doing it especially because you got clarification, but I'm set with you guys coming on to these forums, reading the rules and still trying to defend yourselves, your flat out WRONG.

What ticks me off even more is I thought FIRST was taking great lengths to train their refs properly, this should have been addressed as it is such an obvious strategies. Teams would try to block other teams, and its stupid to think there wouldn't be someone who tried it. I've gone to great measures to defend refs in previous posts, but something so blatantly missed in a dozen or so matches really gets my blood boiling.

I hope this problem is rectified before next week, week 1 always finds many problems, and this is surely one of the bigger ones.

Ohh and for those of you saying " You have to figure out there intent " thats absolute bull crap. If a team crosses a line or trys to every single match they compete in, and then all of a sudden " Whoops I guess my autonomous doesn't work it only went out 3 feet and it happens to get in the way of 1114 and 1024.. Oh whatever am I going to do..." Give me a break, you broke a rule, you didn't get caught, you may have asked for clarifications and the refs were blatantly wrong, stop with the excuses, say your sorry.

Vogel648 02-03-2008 14:31

Re: Impeding in Hybrid
 
I feel no need to apologize for strategically using what we confirmed with the refs was how the rules were. The fact that these refs were wrong is IN NO WAY OUR FAULT. I completely agree, they were incorrect, but it would be wrong to blame us, heck apparently the other teams didn't even realize it was actually illegal.

Just calm down everybody, nobody did anything with any ill intent, we were simply competing in the way to give us the best chance inside our understanding of the rules.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 15:49.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi