Re: New FTC Platform
 

Depends on how you designed your pickup. We can quite comfortably pick up 9 rings on a gear ratio of 1:21 with 2 motors, and our gears have never snapped. I think we may have reduced our gear ratio even more for Atlanta.

However I do think VEX gears are a bit weak. We snapped 35 of the 12 tooth gears last year lifting 6-8 balls.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

Actually, the new kit may give new teams an advantage. I'm expecting that it will be shipped like an FRC kit of parts, because they keep talking about it being a "complete" kit without add-ons. (Of course...FIRST isn't going to start running its own shop for parts, like IFI.)

So teams like mine (2nd year of FTC, and we're going to Atlanta on the equivalent of 2 starter kits) just pay $1k, and get a mostly complete kit. Meanwhile, all the motors, gears, and other misc. hardware bought by the veteran teams go to waste, while the utility of all their metal is seriously reduced. Well, it's a compromise - FIRST hasn't exactly been very gracious or professional about their new platform.

I just hope that they can put together a complete kit for that much.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

This gave both of you a chance to do the "engineering mentoring" that we are challenged to do. For example, when using a 12 tooth gear and a 60 tooth gear, there are 1.5 teeth engaged. This really puts the full force on a single tooth. Which most times means "snappage". But you can do different gear trains that do the reduction in multiple steps. Or double the gear faces so you have more support. Or change the design that stresses are reduced. Or some other solution that great teams are known for.

Engineering is about designing outside the box, while living with constraints that we can't change like gravity, friction and plastic gears. We so much want "well if I had them there Fosteranium indestructible parts" I could make this (arm, claw, lift, base, snorkel) work.

I've found that brute force engineering in FRC leads to the same place, snapped gears, bent arms, burned motors, broken chains, twisted frames, etc.

FTC / Vex makes you think by saying "only these parts". FRC says "use what you want, but weigh less than ..." Both are design constraints.

Let use FTC to teach some good engineering, thinking through the process and improving the design rather than brute force. And frankly, if it was going to be easy, you wouldn't be doing it, there would be no challenge in bolting parts made of Fosteranium together into an indestructible robot.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

I was very troubled to read today that FIRST and Lego have had an agreement requiring the FTC registration fees to stay higher than FLL. I find myself very upset to hear FIRST would be essentially selling students and teams as a commodity to Lego and Pitsco. Am I just a parent being too sensitive or is this something that also surprises and shocks others?
I wasn't sure why FIRST was pushing this new platform as a replacement to Vex, but now it seems to make sense. It wasn't to help students or schools, it was to help Lego and Pitsco. I expect that type of business dealing from Enron, Haliburton and others - but FIRST? They should be above that.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

Please share your source.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

I believe that some teams, in the past, have been equally frustrated with the reliability of the Vex system which, unfortunately, has given our team some grief with the last two competition robots that we have built. The problem with the Vex system is that it is difficult to repair something short of replacing it - it's nearly impossible to fix a motor or a broken transmitter, and is also quite difficult to diagnose a problem if it ever occurs.

Again, our team has had to deal with these issues in competition, and has had to pay some unfortunate costs. Last year in Atlanta, our robot suffered from intermittent control issues due to unknown circumstances. This year, we (FTC 546) also faced a similar issue, in that our robot only operated about half the time it was on the field. We still do not know the source of either of the problems, but we feel that it is simply the nature of the Vex system which led to these issues.

Personally, I like the idea of shifting to a new, hopefully more reliable system. I think that Vex is a great system for learning and classroom use, but it lacks the robustness to be used heavily in a stressful competition setting. The lack of reliability from the Vex system fulfills your criteria for making the switch. Even though the new system may not necessarily be cheaper, I would gladly pay a little bit more money to ensure that the system will work will in competition.

That said, I still hold true to the belief that Vex is a great system which allows students to flex their creativity without having to go great lengths to build a high quality machine. However, the rigors of competition have, time and time again, proved a bit much for the system, which is why I support the platform switch for FTC. I just hope that everyone is still able to enjoy participating in the program, despite the changes for next year.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

The problems which you attribute to the Vex system - such as having a motor or a transmitter that are hard to replace if broken, or diagnosing problems - aren't just a problem with Vex, they exist in any and all robotic kits or systems.



// The following is not directed towards anyone, and I apologize in advance if it is read as such.

Over the past few years, I've lost track of how many posts I've read where people complain that we need metal gears, metal chain, bigger motors, etc., and they are all quick to point to Vex as the problem. It would be a much more beneficial solution if they accepted their own fallibility, and re-investigated their own mechanism before pointing the blame on something else.

And if someone puts all their hopes that the new kit will magically solve all the issues and problems, and that flowers and rainbows will sprout from the earth and peace and prosperity will come to all, they are quite mistaken. Nothing is perfect, whether it's LEGO Mindstorms, Vex, the new FTC kit, the FRC KoP, etc., and issues will arise no matter what system exists.

There's a fine line between which problems are inherent to the kit/technology used, and which ones can be solved by a little more creative thinking.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

I'm going to say right off the bat that this post is probably going read harshly. The reason for that is my extremely strong dislike for false dichotomies.
Good luck repairing ANY motor or ANY transmitter in any robotics kit. When I think of an electric motor, I very, very rarely envision anything consumers can/should repair. The same goes for transmitters. The Vex motors do come with replacement (internal) gears, and they have their clutches that help to (but don't 100% guarantee to) protect them from excessive stresses created when a designer makes a mistake.

Hmmm, I wonder if the Vex systems need a better comm system - Ooops, I almost forgot, they are getting one.

The microcontroller could use an upgrade too. Maybe one is in the works.

OK, I too like the idea of hoping the new system will be more reliable and then trading a devil I know for one I don't. Oops, I'm sorry I got that backwards. What would have been wrong with unveiling a proposed system this year and evaluating it in the hands of users and in competition environments for a season before switching????

In the local tournaments I help put on, we almost NEVER have any problems with the RF communication between the transmitters and the robot's microcontrollers. Maybe we don't need to blame the Vex system??? Maybe we need to figure out where the noise sources are and blame the venues?

How about if we understand those noise sources, control them, and develop a system that is immune to them. I too hope the new system is less susceptible to interference.

Blake

Re: New FTC Platform
 

We don't know the inside information regarding the split between FIRST and IFI. If they decided to split 6 months ago, then they seem to be on the right track at this time.

You can't blame the venues for interference problems; it just doesn't work. There are way, way too many venues to check for consistency, and when you are trying to create a fair game, you can't depend on anything (especially the venue). This is a matter that the system needs to resolve.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

Although not on an extremely large scale, this appears to be what they are doing with the pilot teams that are going to be playing at championships.

FIRST is in a bad situation. Assuming the IFI breakup had to happen, then they seem to be doing their best to get a new program set up. Keep in mind that FTC-Vex was almost entirely based on IFI components. They are going to have to do the same thing with FRC in the next year, the difference being that in FRC, you usually can't use past components anyway, so people will be less bothered. A more negative way to say it is: FRC participants are USED to buying the same stuff every year, while this comes as a big shock to FTC participants (particularly since the FTC system is advertised as low-cost).

Re: New FTC Platform
 

First off, I have to agree with you in the respect that people are often quick to place blame on things other than themselves when it comes to problems like these. Many of us (including me, at some points) have felt this way before, to a certain extent. I hold the utmost respect for teams that have succeeded in competition, and in no way regret my experiences in FTC, failure or success.

I would just like to explain where I'm coming from, as I have a pretty good memory of our team's past events. In Atlanta last year, our team completely rebuilt our competition robot from the ground up. (Picture here.) When we tested it at home, it worked very well, both tethered and untethered. Even at Atlanta in the pits, the robot performed just fine when tethered in the pits. However, once it was placed on the competition field, we began to experience problems. The robot would start and stop, drive erratically, or just stop moving a few seconds after the match had started. This happened for the majority of our matches in Atlanta, with a few successes.

We desperately tried to find the problem, but to no avail. Every time we tested it tethered in the pits, everything worked just as it did at home. We must have switched between 5 or 6 batteries, and none of them seemed to have any effect on the robot's performance. But every time we went on the field, problems frequently occurred. We switched cables, transmitters, receivers, and even our microcontroller, but the problems continued to persist. Our tournament ended (at least, for me) with some feelings of self-inadequacy for being unable to find a solution to an agonizingly crippling problem.

This year, FTC 546 experienced a similar issue in its competition at Arizona. I'm not sure if you're familiar with our robot, but you can see it here. The problems that we experienced here were also intermittent control issues, where our robot would stop about 15 seconds into a match without responding to any signal from the transmitter. Again, the robot worked great at home and also very well when tethered in the pits. However, we vainly tried the same things that we did at Atlanta, but were once again unsuccessful.

Today, our team still has some ideas on what the cause of these problems were. We believe that it might be a faulty transmitter, but we are unable to test that hypothesis, seeing as how we don't have an official competition field.

Now, my problem with the Vex system isn't the reliability of its components, but the difficultly in diagnosing a problem. In Atlanta, we had a FIRST official look at our robot (not tethered to the field, but with competition crystals), and it worked just fine! He was, like us, unable to provide a concrete diagnosis or propose a solution which we hadn't already tried. Even today, almost one year to the day it happened, our team still does not know if our failure was due to a faulty design or a broken electronic component. Even with as much creative thinking as we could muster, there was little that we could do.

My only hope is that next year's platform will not only be a bit more reliable, but much less difficult to diagnose the types of problems that our team has experienced. If it has taken us over a year and two competitions to learn what our problem was, then I wholeheartedly believe that there has to be a better solution. You may take our experiences as you wish, but please understand that we aren't just a group of inexperienced students who are trying to shift blame. Our team holds no blame against anyone or anything. We understand that life isn't always fair. We understand that there will be difficulties, and we understand that we just need to roll with the punches and take what life gives us. I can only hope that our team is able to overcome these obstacles and be able to succeed in the future, and that FIRST is able to give us and thousands of other students the very opportunity to do that.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

Whether IFI and Vex split (or were ever joined) is completely irrelevant (but is a great red herring). Anyone can buy Vex kits and use them in a robotics program. That includes the current and future FIRST FTC program(s). Buy enough and I'll bet you will get a generous discount off of the list price.

I know you can't "blame" a venue, but you can investigate and identify sources of interference and can monitor them during tournaments.

The real point is that the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater if you say that RF communication problems are a reason to switch to a new kit

Both Vex kits and the new kit will have new RF communication systems by the start of the next season. If anyone has some RF measurements in the appropriate bands, etc. at the various venues where each will be used next season, they can make predictions about how each might suffer or shine in those venues. Until then, I presume that they both will work well. If both work well, then RF communication problems are not a reason to switch to a new kit (but they are another red herring).

Blake

Re: New FTC Platform
 

I wouldn't be so quick to blame problems with Vex robots on intrinsic qualities of the Vex system when problems with your application of the system are either more likely or equally likely causes.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

I didn't say IFI and VeX, I said IFI and FIRST (no red herring). VeX is part of IFI. I stated that if FIRST suddenly realized they needed a new kit for next year this year, there would be no way for us to test this new kit until now, which is happening.

I'd also like to bring up the point that the expensive part of the vEx kits (the hardware) will be reusable next year (source). Also, the batteries (another expensive component) can be used (though will last 2/3rds as long as the new batteries).

Re: New FTC Platform
 

Sorry - I meant to say that any split between IFI and FIRST is irrelevant. What does a split between them have to do with whether or not the FTC rules say that I must buy and use a Vex kit?

Suppose some other non profit wants to run a robotics program using Vex kits - Must they "join" with IFI? And then later on if they "split" must they stop using Vex products? I think not, they and their participants can simply buy and use the kits. - Definite Red Herring.

I don't think that FIRST suddenly realized that they needed a new kit. I think that fairly long ago FIRST took a decision to switch kits; perhaps as part of a bigger decision.

While it must be possible, I wouldn't count on getting a lot of mileage out of that option. In the blog pictures and videos, the new parts don't look like they are going to mate up very well with the Vex parts.

Blake

Re: New FTC Platform
 

I think you are correct in that. When i started in FVC it was defined as an "interim" program. I don't know if FIRST knew at that point they were going to be moving away from VEX. With the introduction of the new FRC controller I'd have to think that something big, and not in their plans, happened. I have no information to back this statement up, just a hunch.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

Not quite. It was then, and still is now, the "intermediate" program.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

From the FIRST Website:
That doesn't sound like a permanent program, therefore the term "Interim" i used.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

IFI's involvement goes far beyond happening to be the supplier of the kits that FTC uses, doesn't it?. I thought there are IFI staff at each regional, making sure that all the custom stuff they supply (field elements like radios mainly) work smoothly. I know this is the case for FRC and I thought it was the case for FTC as well. If FIRST wanted that kind of support, they'd have to enter into some sort of contract with IFI, and apparently that's not in the cards.

So my impression is that without an official FIRST-IFI contract you could certainly have a competition with IFI things, but it wouldn't be as well supported. If something like the field breaks, nobody knows how to fix it (because nobody there would be paid to know such things, it all either volunteers or FIRST management).

Speculation since I haven't seen close-ups of the new sensor connection apparatus: but old sensors may be usable if they can take the higher voltage the new kit runs at and the new kit has similar connectors. Two big ifs, but old sensor usage hasn't been ruled out yet.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

Ohhh....sorry ... you were talking about the term "pilot."

2005 Championship there was a "pilot event"
2005-2006 Was a "pilot season" with "pilot regional events"
2006-2007 FIRST still considered it a pilot, but opened up the number of events and brought "affiliate partners" on board for the first time
2007-2008 (this year) a board approved "full program."

Re: New FTC Platform
 

I hate dealing with semantics. The way read the FVC information 2 years ago was this way: We are going to try this out with the VEX kit and see how we like it. If we find value in this size of program we will continue it in some form in the future. If not, we tried.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

My direct personal experience is this: In FTC tournaments this season, the types of support you describe above are so unimportant to the tournaments that they may be very safely called "irrelevant" in this discussion.

I do not have direct experience to back up this next assertion:
I strongly believe that if FIRST wanted to hire IFI to assist at Vex-based FTC tournaments, IFI would gladly supply that support to FIRST (just like they would supply it to any customer) at a price saimilar to or less than the prices they charge other customers.

From these lines of reasoning I conclude that the so-called "split" between IFI and FIRST does not create a strong motivation for FIRST to stop using the Vex product line in FTC tournaments. Hence my conclusions of "Red Herring" and "irrelevant".

Blake

Re: New FTC Platform
 

New kit price is $900.

$450 grants for all returning teams.

250x $450 grants for new rookie teams.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

Are you posting from the announcement meeting, or is there a web feed/web site that can be watched?

Re: New FTC Platform
 

you just missed the web cast of Ken J saying this himself

the kit comes with 11 motors and 10 sensors!!!

Re: New FTC Platform
 

I guess they weren't kidding when they said a full kit! So returning teams can get all of that for just $450?!? FTC FTW!

Is there anywhere that those of us not in Atlanta can get more information on the new kit?

Re: New FTC Platform
 

hopefully they'll post this on their blog:
firsttechchallenge.blogspot

they said they'd put videos on the first site

Re: New FTC Platform
 

Well, I guess the question about pricing is over!

FIRST pulled through on this, if the pricing is right. I'm just awed at how much you get for $450 (returning team or possibly rookie)...

Re: New FTC Platform
 

What do you mean by "250x $450"?

Re: New FTC Platform
 

there wil be 250 available rookie grants of $450 dollars

Re: New FTC Platform
 

I'm in Atlanta right now -- the information above is correct. I stopped by the demo field and and never saw a robot moving under remote control -- but the demo teams said they only had two weeks to build their 'bots so that's not a big surprise (at least to me). Overall, it's a lot of value for $450, and includes three SDKs in the box (Labview, RobotC, and something else -- the LegoNXT environment?). Got to run to dinner now...

Re: New FTC Platform
 

anyone have a list of parts for the new kit?

Re: New FTC Platform
 

yes i would love a list of parts, like a checklist with quantities and everytihng

i only saw a slide of all the parts together for a splitsecond

Re: New FTC Platform
 

watching the demo. One thing popped into my head: cool robots, funky game. I really hope this is just a demo and not the direction the games are going to be heading. It's not very game like is it?

Re: New FTC Platform
 

Demo was cool, the new FTC platform looks rediculously capable (and cheap in price!). I can't wait to play with one.

From the video, it also looked like you can use legos on the FTC bots (the kit comes with lego motors, too). This rocks beyond belief! Vex parts are miserable for making precise little mechanisms; legos are the right size and have enough variety to build amazing mechanical components.

I really like where FTC is heading!

Re: New FTC Platform
 

If I remember correctly we ("the teams") had 4 weeks or a bit longer to build our bots. Whoever told you two weeks did not get to use all of the time that was available.

The bots can, do and did move under remote control. However, what you saw was evidence of the non-trivial software problems that we encountered in this version of the kit and field control system. I presume that more mature versions of all the different software tools will be shipped; but I wouldn't be surprised if the first season encounters a few bumps in the proverbial road when hundreds of FTCers truly start field-testing them.

Blake

Re: New FTC Platform
 

gblake how does the new platform compare to the Vex one?
I was only able to catch a few minutes of the webcast match :(
Anyways, how easy was it to develop a working robot with an arm and it seems as if you can use a bluetooth playstation controller? If so and you did use one, is it fun to use?

Re: New FTC Platform
 

yea i think the new kit contains an entire NXT kit

Re: New FTC Platform
 

I have a hunch that the "FIRST Response" game/challenge was chosen for several reasons; one of which was that in a disaster situation, robots and the people controlling them can be expected to cooperate, not compete.

Cooperating robots don't intentionally collide with one another (the game rules included a penalty for interfering with another bot). Robots that don't collide with each other don't convert each other into piles of LEGO rebble.

Also, with their obvious resemblance to LynxMotion parts, many of the structural metal parts in the kit FIRST gave thier "Showcase" participants seem better suited to building walking/crawling and manipulating machines, instead of the typical FTC, go-karts of recent seasons.

Based on the above, I do expect the nature of the FTC games to change in the direction of becoming more like FLL challenges rather than staying the same as in past seasons, or becoming more like FRC challenges.

Blake

Re: New FTC Platform
 

I got some flashes of this in the last few days, but nothing I can really put my finger on. In my very strong opinion, the more FIRST makes FTC look like FLL, the more teams will avoid it. There is no way a juiced-up FLL is going to serve as "high school competition robotics for less money." The more FTC looks like FRC, the better it will be, and this will have to include permanent team numbers, wider variety of parts than even Vex has right now (and despite some obvious strengths of the the FTC kit, it will be a while before they can come close to matching the richness of parts choices in Vex), and serious competitions that resemble FRC games. For my part, I would like to see a an FTC version of "Aim High" using 2-inch foam balls. That would rock. Doing pretend under-sea exploration or toxic waste removal would cause a mass abandonment of FTC.

I'm a FIRST loyalist, and made a conscious decision to step down from FRC to FTC. If FTC becomes SFLL, I'm out of the program. I'll either go back to FRC, or switch to some other competition.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

Yes, technically I'm underage for FTC this year but I was either starting an FTC team or an FLL team, I looked at past games and I simply just did not like FLL. For one completely autonomous is not my style. And yes I don't think teenagers are going to quite care for imagining an oil spill happened at you have to send your robots to clean it up. Also, permanent team numbers would rock!

P.S. aim high 2009 FTC would be awesome too

Re: New FTC Platform
 

I would tend to agree. I want a mini-FRC game, not a super FLL game.
I've been told that numbers will be permanent startin this year.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

Ugh I'm really starting to fear the future of this program. My school has already decided on FTC next year and since next school-year is my senior year, I want to have a super-fun robot experience.

Hopefully FIRST will give some promises for a FRC-ish like competition. Did the testers complain about the kit to the FTC people?

My school won't do FRC, so I really want something close to FRC to satiate my wants and I really felt that way with this year's FTC. Oh and my friends and I found Quad Quandry somewhat similar to Rack 'n Roll.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

I got so many complaints about the kit from several teams (who will stay hidden). From my general impression of the complaints, the kit wasn't thought through very well, quite inconvinient in building (holes don't align), programming was difficult, parts were awkward to use, and it generally wasn't suited towards a FRC style game. Its closer to FLL, where the challenge of teams is to perform tasks (just look at the showcase).

I have to admit I am very disappointed in what FIRST has come up with.

(Yes I'm in Atlanta right now)

Re: New FTC Platform
 

So I guess all my fears are coming true. And I thought the new stronger metal would make FTC bots closer to FRC bots...

I guess at this point, only mass amounts of emails can do the trick.

(no I'm not in Atlanta right now, when I saw the webcast I believed the game's purpose to showoff the capabilities of the new kit instead of giving the idea for an actual game)

(I blame Team 74's alliance and Murphy's Law for why I'm not in Atlanta, why did they have to be so good in the latter half of the NYC regional D: )

Re: New FTC Platform
 

They are different:
The new kit is not a "better" kit. It is a different kit.

I and some of the other participants will need to collect our thoghts (now that we can reflect on the experience, instead of spending our time scrambling to try to puzzle out how to best use the parts FIRST gathered together to make the kits. That will take a little time.

The Vex product line is fairly well integrated into a unified offering. Sometimes when trying to solve a "game" problem, this can lead you to wonder if a different vendor makes a better mouse trap.
In the new kit, in addition to the obvious impications of including snap-together LEGO plastic parts in the kits, the version of the new FTC kit we used seems more like a mixture of several similar, but not the same, different part styles. Diversity can create strength; but it also created frustration when we had to try to blend those philosphies in a single machine.

The Vex system has considerable openness (the VexLabs fora frequently discuss how to integrate non-Vex sensors, motor controllers, etc.) with the Vex Microcontroller.
I am still fairly unfamiliar with interfaces the LEGO microcontroller exposes, but I think that they implent IC2 communication interfaces. Given that, I presume that one can find sensors or other devices that use IC2 and can write or buy communication software/drivers that can run in the LEGO NXT computer.

Attention to mechanical details has resulted in being able to easily mate almost every Vex part with other Vex parts.
Some of the new kit's parts just do not yet connect easily with others (at least if you are asking me to figure out how to connect them). Attaching a rotating part (a gear on an axle) to a stationary part was a partucularly onerous chore.

"How easy was it to develop a working robot?" At this stage of the kit's lifespan, it was not easy. The mechanics were often odd and clunky. In general, the software support still needs quite a bit of work (the vendor reps were quite helpful and generous; but the product(s) simply are not yet mature enough for release to the general-public).

Putting "Arms" on Vex bots is a challenge because the Vex Servos just don't put out much torque compared to the weight of the larger Vex steel parts; and the Vex aluminum parts are only sold in bundles (and I don't want to pay for bundled parts I am unlikely to ever use.
Putting an arm on the new FTC kits was pretty easy. The aluminum is light, the servos are strong and the LynxMotion-style parts are expecitly designed for that sort of thing.

Yes - With the right software drivers you could use a bluetooth Playstation controller. Was using the Logitech handheld remote controller (plugged into a computer that handled the bluetooth protocol and had a bluetooth dongle installed) fun? Not so much. Video game objects respond well to Playstation/xBox, etc. handhelds because software developers spend hours and hours tuning the conversions of user actions into game actions. Doing that for any realworld object is is not going to work any better than using something like a Vex transmitter if the software involved doesn't get tuned to match that realworld object's behavior. An FTC robot is a collection of realworld objects.

Blake

Re: New FTC Platform
 

Blake thank you for that in depth response. I have basically been researching the new FTC platform for hours a day for the last two weeks (it didn't really become an issue to us until after the NYC regional). I've been communicating the information I have found to my friends and have had some discussions with them on this situation. (I must say chiefdelphi and vexforum.com are amazing resources)

I only wish I could somehow get this information to my teacher, but unfortunately we have school off next week due to Passover.

Again thanks,
-thatguy

Re: New FTC Platform
 

I see that my hunch, and Rick's, about the style of future FTC games generated some pretty strong reactions.

Let me remind you that my crystal ball is very cloudy.

Do not over-react to hunches about how the tone of the games might change a bit.

Also, when I think about challenges to work into FTC games I often think about problems like building towers, or turning knobs, or punching numbers into a keypad, or about doing other tasks that would not involve a whole lot of bumping or pushing/shoving. Introducing a little bit of non-contact sports into the challenges might be a good thing.

Blake

Re: New FTC Platform
 

Now that the new FTC system has been announced, I will share some of my opinions on the kit, based upon checking out the kit first hand over the past month while we built one of the FTC robots using the new kit. (Note: while I had some chances to play with it over the past month, most of my time went into working on our NI Prototype Robot with the new FRC control system.)


So here are my thoughts on the new FTC kits based on my experience so far:

The new FTC kit lacks any sort of continuity. Most of the metal parts are stamped with center to center hole spacing of 0.625 inches. The standoffs given to teams are in 0.5 increments. This makes it really difficult to make perpendicular things line up. If you want a relation in real world terms, the new FTC kit is like watching Back to the Future III without ever seeing the first two.

Most of the new parts are overkill [or underkill]. On a robot that weighs at most ten or fifteen pounds, do we really need structural members than can support fifty pounds of weight?

Kind of a sub point to this: the size (I call it overkill factor) of the new parts really makes working with Vex sized (dimensions between 12" and 18" cubed) robots difficult. The new Lynxmotion parts really seem best suited for larger robots, such as between 18" and 24"-ish cubed.

At the same time, the huge amount of NXT Mindstorms parts included in the kit really make anything larger than 12" cubed difficult to work with...

It's like Goldilocks and the Three Bears, the first one is too big and the second it too small. At least letting us use all the Vex mechanical parts in next years game will fill that "just right" size category.

It needs adapters to mate directly with Vex axles/wheels. While control system wise, the new FTC kit is ahead of the old Vex kits, mechanically, it is lacking way behind. And using the logic that it took Vex a few years to come out with the whole range of products they have today is missing the obvious point: Vex has all these neat products on the market right now. Not a year away, not two years away, but right now. And when we are limited to only three different size spur gears in the FTC kit, and a few different size regular wheels, and most FTC teams already have a bunch of Vex omni wheels, advanced gear kits, roller chain, etc. I feel like purposely trying to alienate one brand for another is quite a bad decision on behalf of the teams.


These are the main issues that I have with the new kits; as such right now I feel like this kit is a barely manageable attempt to cobble anything and everything together. The kit will work, it is neither an elegant solution nor an efficient robotics kit.

If FIRST is actively seeking feedback on this issue, and expresses an interest in trying to solve some of these annoying issues (or alter the format of FTC to match these new 'quirks'), then I will reconsider the above points. Until then, if I had to grade the new kit, I'd give it between a C- and a C+. It has potential if there are major changes to streamline and bring continuity to the kit, but until then it's just a lot of public jabs at Vex (which IMHO is quite unprofessional), while it suffers through a lot of swings and misses with its own kit. Our friends from Texas have the perfect phrase for this: all hat and no cattle.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

Thanks for the reminder Blake. i would REALLY be disappointed if they limited the interaction/defense in the FTC game. I hope the demo was just that: a demo. If they were smart, FIRST would take all the feedback from the teams and make some improvements to the kit and make a great game for the first year of the kit.
FIRST got the price of the transition right. now let's work on the kit and the game.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

Well I'm guessing the kits that were given out for testing were the same idea. Just test kits, they weren't gonna be accurate and probably were going to go through adjustments.

So anyone have an idea of a release date. I would say take two months and adjust the metal to meet the complaints.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

release date: i think you can buy it in June for delivery in August.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

When I read this it makes me want to share one more thought with CD readers:

This train has already left the station (long ago). Short of an absolutely miraculous event, or a truely monumental disaster striking; no amount of wishing, bemoaning, or recommending is going slow it down or back it up.

I think it would have been very wise to give the kit one full year beyond today to "bake in the public oven", or to have started the current process at least 6-9 months earlier. However, it didn't happen and it ain't going to happen. Take today's new kit; add a little more development time to it and tweak the parts mix a bit; and then start mass producing it for the next Fall season. Aside from being able to distribute new software versions and patches fairly easily; things in the kit are not going to change much.

If you stopped by the FTC Showcase exhibit in Atlanta over the last couple of days (and have been keeping up with FIRST's announcments), I think that you now have a very good idea about what the new kits will be. Because of the logistics and lead times involved, I think that the Showcase wasn't an experiment to see if FIRST should use the the new kit or should radically revise it. Instead, I think that the Showcase exhibition was an unveiling of what the kit will be (give or take a tweak here or there).

The train is not pulling into the metaphiorical station; it is instead accelerating away from the station.

Blake

Re: New FTC Platform
 

The speculation is starting to get me annoyed. I think I might patiently wait for the final specs now.

I have a feeling that chiefdelphi is going to become a major resource for next year's FTC so everyone can help each other with the new platform

[oh no i'm speculating again...]

Re: New FTC Platform
 

First I'd like to say thanks to everyone that helped release the information of the new kit to us homesick FIRSTers. I missed the webcast due to school today and so I had to rely on the internetz, which did, indeed, help.

CONS:
Now, it looks like this new kit is a mixture of a) new kit metal, b) vEx metal, c) legos. It also appears that it is quite difficult to mate these 3 fabrication materials, which (as far as I can tell) appears to be one of the biggest issues with the kit. The next largest issue appears to be the software, but, fortunately, those issues can be resolved quite calmly over the next 3-4 months. Unless I've forgotten something big (which is entirely possible at this hour in AZ), the rest of the "problems" are small and could be fixed easily.

As inferred above, I was not able to see the demo game so I cannot comment on the style of game for next year; we can only hope it stays the same or moves closer to FRC-style play.

PROS:
As far as I can tell, the new metal is light and strong, as are the motors, which allows users to easily create powerful, robust arm joints and mechanisms. Big pro, as it is quite... how do I say this... not difficult, but time consuming with the vEx system. Another feature would be the increased possibilities with the number of different systems now available. You could, in practice, create a vEx robot with the new controller system. Or you could change it up (quite a bit, actually) with legos or the new system. It was stated in a previous post that the legos were "too small," but this is one great feature of the addition of Legos to the kit; you can create smaller, more flexible mechanisms with Legos that you simply just can't with vEx or the new metal. And finally, the biggest pro of them all: you get the entire new kit, all 11 motors, 10 sensors, 3 programming environments, and all the hardware, for only $450 (returning or one of 250 rookies, meaning mostly everyone). vEx would cost a bit more for the same quality and quantity of parts.

So it looks to me that this kit is promising if we take the time to move forward with it and not backward. Like gblake said, the train has left the station; let's not be left behind. There are great resources abroad along with great minds, and I'm sure we can make this new kit a worthwhile investment of money and time.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

theroboticsuniverse.com has made a new forum dedicated to FTC, some people found that CD was mainly around FRC and now that we dont have Vex Forum we're heading over to -> ftc.theroboticsuniverse.com

Re: New FTC Platform
 

Thanks for the info, that's one more site for my bookmarks.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

I don't think that I have seen anyone post a breakdown of what is meant by "11 motors"

4 Hitechniic +/-90 Deg Servos ( I think they came from HiTechnic, but I'm not sure, the kit rode home in a different car than I did)
4 Beefy motors (presumably for wheels, but not necessarily)
3 Lego motors.

Describing these as 11 motors, is something of an oversimplification. Each of the types listed above is significantly different from the others.

Blake

Re: New FTC Platform
 

Thanks for that motor break down Blake, I had been wondering about that.

All I can say is that I'm not ecstatic about this new kit. I like the new communication protocol, bluetooth it's better than RF it least. I like having some stronger motors. However everything else about the kit makes me dislike it. Especially when IFI is fixing at least the RF problem by going Wifi. However as blake pointed out it's too late now. We are going to have to make the best of it.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

That's a pretty good variety. I'm liking the new kit because it offers teams a wider selection than the Vex kit. Instead of having to slow down a mechanism or add more motors, one can use just one or two powerful motors, but if it doesn't need to do much you can use a Lego motor. The hardware is sounding really nice too, Legos have limitless possibilities and with the strong metal in this kit as well there will be a lot of variety.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

Is there any knowledge if we can use our own lego sets because I have a couple of spybots and i know my school has an unused mindstorms set.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

I know this is the new FTC platform thread, but after seeing the new NI FRC platform in Atlanta, I must start by stating I'm very impressive. Nice job FIRST.

However, after seeing the new FTC "kit" in action in Atlanta, my first reaction was...
For a kit that was billed as "not a toy", there's more toy than the last platform (or at least more than I expected). :confused:

The metal portions and new drive motors and gears just make the plastic bits look silly. The metal is nice but overkill as stated elsewhere. A robot that's going to weigh in at 10-15 pounds doesn't need structural members that will handle 50 pounds.

We haven't seen the new robot rules yet, so it's hard to tell just exactly how good this new kit will be. I hope that fabrication is allowed so that many of the plastic bits can be non-functional decoration. COTS will be an interesting subject to see as well. It's seems clear with the 0.625" spacing on the new metal, that every effort is being made to ensure that Vex hardware will not be an easy COTS solution. This is neither good nor bad, merely an observation.

The subject of COTS hasn't been touched on much yet. If it is allowed great. If not, design just got harder again. No metal bevel gears or rack gears, no heavy duty linear bearings, and as much as teams loved to complain about the weak Vex chain, almost every team used it including last year's Champion Simbotics machine. Currently, it appears that design potential has gone down, not even stayed the same.

The issue of sensors is still up for grabs. It appears that there will be a good selection, but ease of integration will need to be seen. Also quantities that can be used will be important too. In three short years, I believe many FTC robots have matched their bigger FRC brethren in autonomous complexity.

While its nice to see a variety in the motor arsenal, I don't think it's as versatile as previously posted. The new bigger motors are nice, the LEGO motors are interesting, but the servos are not a good choice. Having been a FTC robot inspector at the Championships the last two years, I think I've seen less than ten machines that used any servos. My own team rarely if ever chooses a servo as a solution to their needs. Perhaps two constant rotation and two 180 degree servos would have been a better choice, but I think four constant rotation servo motors with the option to substitute standard servos on a one for one basis would have been a better choice.

Lastly, the controller. The NXT is a capable controller and it should make the transition from FLL to FTC easier. However, FIRST has always said that they expected FTC teams to move up to FRC, so I feel the choice of controllers hinders that. Again, after seeing the new FRC system, I'm saddened that a lower cost version of that platform couldn't be assembled for FTC. The power distribution panel could have incorporated the two battery inputs and main breaker, circuit breaker outputs for the "beefy" motors, and power output to the controller. The controller wouldn't need eight slots for various input and output modules, just two. One for PWM and relay outputs, and one digital/analog input. A smaller wifi modem could be adopted for FTC or perhaps one of the Zigbee wireless solutions. The driver station could just have two usb ports for game controllers and no dashboard LCD display.

The NI IDE should make for a smooth transition from any of the programs. Although, I'd still prefer to see multiple programming environments for different levels of skill.

These are just my own first observations of the new platform. It's hard to clearly rate the new platform since it's not being viewed in context with the new rules. If this is a "kit system" along the lines of the old platform, its not as versatile, integrated, or useful. However, if this is more along the lines of a KOP with options for COTS and more fabrication, then it's a first step but far from complete.

I only wish that FIRST would put as much effort into FTC as they do into FRC. For the future of FIRST, all the programs are important.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

Every now and then I have to post something postive, just so that folks can't say that I'm always crabby.;) This is one of those times.

I perfectly understand and agree with what Skimoose said about the Vex kits and their servos. Because they don't have enough strength to hold up much of the Vex steel, they gather dust in my boxes of parts.

However, for me, the strong servos and light aluminum tubing were one of the bright spots in the new FTC KOP. To get a sense of what I mean, take a look at the various walking robots on the LynxMotion site; especially the one that looks like a walking stick insect. With the new servos, servo mounts, and the tubes it is very easy to make a long, multi-jointed arm that can do useful things (not lift 10 pound weights, but reasonably useful things).

Otherwise, I think your assessments of the new kit are reasonable. Some would debate them; but they certainly aren't out to lunch.

Blake

Re: New FTC Platform
 

I think this is one of the biggest issues that has not been addressed. What are the rules going to be? In the state of Pennsylvania all seniors are required to do a senior project that culminates with a presentation that is judged by a panel high school teachers. If FIRST was doing the FTC transition as their senior project they would fail! They do not to seem have answer for obvious questions that would arise from the panel. As I would tell the seniors who fail, you have had all year and this is all that you have. FIRST chose to do this project, it should be better done or at least more thought out in the areas that they control, specifically the rules.

I have another question and I am not sure if it has been answered, but will I have to buy the $900($450 if I buy now) kit every year? One of my attractions to FTC/FVC was the reuse of materials. This year my budget consisted mostly of registration fees, with about only $200 for robot materials. Stating that I still spent over $1000 dollars this year. This would drive me away from FTC.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

I apologize if this was announced elsewhere, but from a quick reading of this thread I didn't see an answer. Is it possible to interface non-Lego sensors with the NXT controller? Will it be legal to do so (although I doubt anyone knows this answer yet)?
I have very mixed feelings towards Lego NXT sensors from my experience with them, particularly the ultrasonic and light sensors. The more expensive HiTechnic NXT sensors may or may not be more reliable, but I have no experience with them.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

There are several sites that sell sensors designed to be compatible with the Lego NXT. For example HiTechnic. Is that what you mean?

Re: New FTC Platform
 

Is anyone concerned with how complex/expensive the shwocase field would be to build? I spent a whole day building the filed elements for QQ, I wonder how long it would take to build the "FIRST Response" field. FIRST needs to remember one of the initial misssions of FTC, that is a low cost competition.

I hope FIRST responds to all of the concerns that FIRSTers are hvaing with the new direction of FTC

Re: New FTC Platform
 

I never thought of that but you're right. To make that "debris" field one would have to make probably over 100 cuts and then glue each piece in the right spot...

Re: New FTC Platform
 

In the rules we got for the showcase, we were allowed to make custom circuits like sensors. The HiTechnic NXT sensors are supplied in the kit and the programmer said they worked fairly reliably.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

My first thought was, where will we store all of that? Right now I have field elements and boxes of supplies all over the place and have to find a central location for all of it.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

Well at least now we can see what real life challenges are.

As for the field goes, I dun think that having the entire thing is necessary. I hope that the actual games won't involve such complex fields.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

I apologize if this has already been posted. However, I feel very strongly about this. This is my first year of involvement in FTC and I must admit that I am hooked. I must also admit, however, that what hooked me is what seemed to be lacking from the FTC showcase in Atlanta - excitement.

While the new platform seems OK. The new "real world" challenges were boring...almost painful to watch. I feel that the challenge lacked the head to head adrenaline inducing challenge of the FRC and the current FTC game. I also fear that FTC is heading towards becoming a beefed-up version of FLL rather than a scaled-down version of FRC and that this will discourage kids from wanting to participate.

Thanks for listening.

Gary Frankel

Re: New FTC Platform
 

If the "FIRST Response" is the direction that the game is going, I'm not sure how excited my students will be. I strongly urge the new game committee to keep the FRC "lite" concept going.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

I see what you mean. The real competitions are much more exciting.

As for the new games go, I hope that first continues to make FTC games much like the previous year's FRC games. The ones there were a real...bore...it doesn't leave much room for friendly competition.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

There will always be games like the previous FTC games. If next years FTC game doesn't suit your needs then look elsewhere. I'm sure IFI will release a new game next year similar to this years Bridge Battle.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

isn't that what's great about where we live? We do have freedom of choice. If the game doesn't suit my team we will look elsewhere. I will be disappointed but that's something we would have to do. I am VERY excited about the new kit. I am very excited to see what my kids can do with it. I am just a bit concerned about the game that we saw in Atlanta. It just doesn't seem fun. I wanted to like it. I wanted to enjoy it, but it was just plain boring.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

There are many robotics competitions, which is great! I like to think of FIRST as a program with a competition attached.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

From experience with a previous showcase field - building the ramps correctly is an even bigger pain (for me at least).

Re: New FTC Platform
 

For now the sound of this comment has made me personally relieved

(from http://usfirst.org/community/fvc/content.aspx?id=9044 )

What it says next scares me a bit:

Stupid confusion...

Re: New FTC Platform
 

I'm excited and worried at the same time.

Chances are you will see our team in the Ontario FTC Competition next year. Whether I will be there... time will tell.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

After thinking about potential ways to improve the new FTC kits for a while, I came to the conclusion that in addition to easily mating with all the Vex gears, wheels, and sprockets/chain, there should also be something "new" in the FTC kits. Pneumatics.

Give teams the choice of two or three different stroke lengths, and the choice of one or two air accumulators. And if you want to make it difficult, limit the number of potential motors used on the robot if they choose to use pneumatics.

Many of the issues that I had previously identified with the FTC kits (lack of a multitude of different gears and overall kit consistency) could be circumvented with use of pneumatics.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

Me too!!3!! How about making the IFI/Vex pneumatics legal in the new system? They don't cost too much and they are in the right scale.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

Pneumatics are nice but I'm not sure I would use the VEX ones. They less than 2inchs of stroke. Although I'm sure they would have some uses, I don't think less than 2in of stroke is going to be all that useful most of the time. VEX Pneumatics Page.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

Two inches isn't so bad on a FTC scale, but that's just detail. Having pneumatics, wherever they come from, would be one more interesting engineering element to play with -- and that's a good thing.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

or alternatively, have some DC-motor driven linear actuators...

Re: New FTC Platform
 

You could always make your own.

Re: New FTC Platform
 

A message from Team Unlimited.

We finally got all the pictures up of the new FTC kit online at our site (http://eaglevex.syraweb.org/FTCplatform.htm). There are two set of thumbnails:
1st set - Small images that have lower quality
2nd set - Large images that have full quality for viewing the parts in more detail.

We are still working on the images of Atlanta, but we thought the images from the new kit would be more useful to teams.