Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Rules/Strategy (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Limitations too far? (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71414)

JaneYoung 07-01-2009 00:01

Re: Limitations too far?
 
Should innovation and new challenges be sacrificed so that the teams who compete successfully in the robot competition be able to continue competing successfully in robot competitions because the basics remain familiar or the same? Is it important that veterans stay within a certain comfort zone? Is that what engineers do? Is that what scientists do? Is that why there are continued breakthroughs in science and new technologies? Why do people keep buying the latest in cell phones? To call someone? Or, to be able to use new features like submitting bar codes for searches?

I get very confused when we pick and choose what is ok and what is not ok in this community that places value on inspiration, innovation, creativity, engineering, and challenge. Esp. the first few days after Kickoff for the new season.

Herodotus 07-01-2009 01:08

Re: Limitations too far?
 
The only problem I really have with the design rules are the no descoring rule and the nothing outside the bumper perimeter rule. I separate descoring an allies trailer from blocking your own, however. I agree that teams shouldn't be able to block their own goals, but It would have been awesome if you could empty out an allied goal. The game would constantly go back and forth, it would be crazy.

And as far as I can think, the bumper perimeter rule means the only physically effective way to score is to launch the cells. I see no other option, unless maybe you have absolutely perfect control of your robot, as though driving on carpet. You can't get close enough to use any kind of dumper.

I also fear we will see a huge number of boxes on wheels. I sincerely hope I'm proven wrong, of course. I suspect the top teams will still be awesome, but I don't think there will be as many as usual.

dtengineering 07-01-2009 02:49

Re: Limitations too far?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Herodotus (Post 794488)

I also fear we will see a huge number of boxes on wheels. I sincerely hope I'm proven wrong, of course. I suspect the top teams will still be awesome, but I don't think there will be as many as usual.

If all you see is a box on wheels, then you probably haven't looked closely enough.

I figure I've seen over 740 FRC robots in person over the past six years, and several hundred more on webcasts, the Blue Alliance, etc.

The only ones that have been the same were the very few that were intentionally built to be "twins" or "triplets"... and even then there were tiny little differences.

You are right that the top teams will still be awesome, but not because of some divinely inspired awesomeness that only they can posess. The top teams are top teams because of the people on those teams. If you want to beat 1114 all you have to do is work harder and smarter (all year round for several years). Either that or wait for the occasional match where they break down. They are only moderately dangerous when they are sitting still!

Jason

E. Wood 07-01-2009 02:50

Re: Limitations too far?
 
While I have heard a lot of complaints about this year’s game and it restraints, I would like to point out that this year’s game is going to allow every team, new and old to learn something new, and isn’t this one of the things FIRST wants us to do. It is true that veteran teams have been able to design very affective drive trains in the past few years because the playing surface has not changed. By changing the playing surface, as well as restricting the use of the different wheels, FIRST has forced every team to be innovative and learn in the process.

As for the restrictions, I have found that the engineering field always has restrictions or constraints of some kind. Actually, I have found that designing a robot for a FIRST competition is one of the more open ended chanlleges that you can undertake. With this said, in my opinion, the restrictions that FIRST have put in place are there to promote new and creative designs, insure that a team does not gain an unfair advantage except through creative design, for safety reasons, and so that all the robots can properly interact with certain field elements ( i.e. the trailer or the operator interface).

For those of you expecting to see robots with a common theme in their design and function, you are entirely correct. This has always happened in the past. Just because two robots are both shooters with a turret doesn’t mean they have the same design. When you look closer you may very well find that the two robots have very striking differences. I would suggest to everyone to not judge a robot by its shell. Get closer and take a look at its guts and see what it’s made of. Sometimes seeing the subtle differences in designs can be a very inspirational thing.

johnr 07-01-2009 08:53

Re: Limitations too far?
 
Box on wheels with ball coming out is exactly what a person is going to see that is not part of FRC. They are not going to see your great programming, your great mechanism or super drive system. That wider fan base wants to see that claw or that sledge hammer swinging around. Maybe this year the human player will get more cheers. "He's five for five so far. He let's one go---IT'S GOOD!!!!"

XXShadowXX 07-01-2009 09:02

Re: Limitations too far?
 
This game is forcing teams to modernize and the claws are coming out. We used IFI controllers for so long, programed in C using software that could be ran on any old computer with a serial port. On the same carpet year in and year out.

Now we have new challenges and instead of taking them in stride you cry about how hard this is, i had faith in FIRST'ers at one point

Herodotus 07-01-2009 12:37

Re: Limitations too far?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dtengineering (Post 794553)
If all you see is a box on wheels, then you probably haven't looked closely enough.

I figure I've seen over 740 FRC robots in person over the past six years, and several hundred more on webcasts, the Blue Alliance, etc.

The only ones that have been the same were the very few that were intentionally built to be "twins" or "triplets"... and even then there were tiny little differences.

I didn't mean to say every robot would be the same. I actually expect to see a large number of really cool drive trains underneath those boxes on wheels as well, and in the pits I'll be able to talk to the people who did the programming and hear from them how awesome their programming is, but when the matches start it isn't the programming that people see, unfortunately. Watching robots just driving around, not really doing anything else, has never been particularly interesting (barring a few of the ridiculously fast designs last year).

Quote:

You are right that the top teams will still be awesome, but not because of some divinely inspired awesomeness that only they can posess. The top teams are top teams because of the people on those teams. If you want to beat 1114 all you have to do is work harder and smarter (all year round for several years). Either that or wait for the occasional match where they break down. They are only moderately dangerous when they are sitting still!
I believe you misunderstood what I meant. I mean the top teams will still be on the top because of their members, as you say. Of course our team is going to do it's best to challenge them, like we have for years now, and we are going to push the boundaries of this game, and we are going to go out onto the field and attempt to redefine "high score, and work as hard as we ever had to beat the 1114s and 217s of FIRST.

I just don't think us doing that will look as exciting as past years, I guess. I mean god only knows, really. The matches could turn out to be intensely exciting.

Lesman 07-01-2009 14:05

Re: Limitations too far?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexa Stott (Post 794095)
Teams are good because they have experienced downfalls and failures; it's a part of the game

Teams should be good because they have good students and mentors, not because people they don't know built something good 5 years ago and they've been duplicating it since. Sure a teams experience matters, but if you view this as a punishment and feel that this makes you experience useless, well then I think you've been getting the wrong experience.

Daniel_LaFleur 07-01-2009 14:25

Re: Limitations too far?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JaneYoung (Post 794437)
Should innovation and new challenges be sacrificed so that the teams who compete successfully in the robot competition be able to continue competing successfully in robot competitions because the basics remain familiar or the same? Is it important that veterans stay within a certain comfort zone? Is that what engineers do? Is that what scientists do? Is that why there are continued breakthroughs in science and new technologies? Why do people keep buying the latest in cell phones? To call someone? Or, to be able to use new features like submitting bar codes for searches?

I get very confused when we pick and choose what is ok and what is not ok in this community that places value on inspiration, innovation, creativity, engineering, and challenge. Esp. the first few days after Kickoff for the new season.


Jane,

Those complaining are complaining because they have not learned what they need to know. Instead of learning how to design a drivetrain they have learned how to manipulate the one that was designed for them, and now it won't work and they are being asked to innovate.

To everyone else,

Go look at Janes signature. Today you are being forged in fire, and it will either break you or make you stronger. Learn, Adapt, and become an engineer ... don't just assume that because you can modify an existing design that you are an engineer.

JaneYoung 07-01-2009 14:31

Re: Limitations too far?
 
I've been thinking about limitations for the past few days with regard to the game. Naturally, that started me thinking in other directions regarding limitation, as well. In space exploration, there are limitations that push those involved to the limits in how to solve/resolve/work with the limitations and push them/explore them. The Mars rovers are an example. In order to work to solve/resolve/push/explore limitations, there has to be an acceptance of them and then an understanding of them. Another example, astronauts have to be very well-trained and they also have to think on their feet when they embark on missions, hoping all goes according to plan, but staying alert and ready to adjust as needed.

I imagine that from space, perspective can change significantly by looking out a window towards earth. Teams are being offered opportunities to check their perspectives of their own limitations and how they are created/why they are created. If they are impacted by resources and mentor support, that is one thing to work with/through. If the limitations are caused by attitude, that is another thing to work with/through.

Just as every year, there are freshmen starting out, and this 2009 game will be the game that they know as they move forward through their time in FRC and on the team. At the same time, there are seniors who have known several different games and look back at those for areas of familiarity, achievements, and setting the bar for the team. It can be hard to move the bar again without some resistance or hesitance. That is when it is a good time to look into why and how the team has acquired experience and achieved success by acknowledging the limitations, learning from them/about them and dealing with them.

Edit: Daniel, sorry - you posted while I was thinking about this post. It may somehow fit with what you wrote.
BTW, thank you.
Jane

Cynette 07-01-2009 15:32

Re: Limitations too far?
 
I think the limitations (aka Rules) of this game has been wonderful for our team. We had to start with blank sheets of paper and use the ideas, concepts and knowledge we have to make new marks.

We have traditionally said that the drive train concepts must be proven in the offseason and preseason to be used during the build season. Scratch that this year. New engineering, new calculations, new simulations all took place in the past few days. Many more team members have an understanding of what goes into the design of the drive train. Friction, centers of gravity, strength of materials have been considered as never before.

As for the box that will be the robot? We ended our preliminary design session with 5 distinct, feasible and buildable designs. Our team leader commented that that was unprecedented in her 14 years of FIRST experience. And those were the designs that met the requirements for our particular strategy emphases. And with teams having different strategies, I really expect to see countless configurations of robots at competition!

Limitations too far? Not by a long shot.

EricH 07-01-2009 15:46

Re: Limitations too far?
 
If you guys are complaining about limitations now, I'm going to make a proposal for next year. I'll give you the details now, though.

It's one simple rule: "All robots shall be built using only what is in the KOP, plus $x from [insert supplier], plus a certain amount of a, b, c, and d materials from the local Home Depot." Oh, and the KOP will include items that are not in component form.

All I'll say is that it's happened before, back in the "Dark Ages" before alliances. I don't think it limited creativity one bit.

JesseK 07-01-2009 16:20

Re: Limitations too far?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by EricH (Post 795011)
All I'll say is that it's happened before, back in the "Dark Ages" before alliances.

No alliances?! :ahh: Those were true dark ages --shudder--

The only rules I gripe about are the stipulations on bumpers, and not even the fact that we can't extend passed them...that I can easily live with. But even as I complain when a particular design concept fails, a new design comes to mind or I find a small, simple solution to a part of the problem. Really, in all honesty, I could have cared less that these solutions existed except for the fact that the rules forced me and the CAD student to find them. The students are in a similar boat with the way the conveyor design worked out, yet they're floating with it on their own until the drive train is done. To my surprise, they're not only finding solutions, but the solutions are way better than what any of the mentors could have come up with. Without these 'restrictions', none of this would have happened.

Just wait till you get into the real world when you're on the wrong side of an ambiguous problem who's solution had no real direction to begin with. Then you will have wished someone had put restrictions in place somewhere along the line.

Andrew Schreiber 07-01-2009 20:16

Re: Limitations too far?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by HUNT397 (Post 793946)
Looking at this year's game rules, when is FIRST going to give us detailed robot assembly instructions? It appears that FIRST is limiting on our creativity way too much, challenges are one thing but where is the line? Never before have we had so many restrictions on our robot such as wheels, playing size, trailer attachment, and now after wasted precious hours no descoring or blocking trailer. Can the FIRST GDC come up with an interesting challenge in the future without destroying competitiveness and creativity.

Chris Hunt

A stab at what Chris was talking about, we were discussing descoring our own goal. What we found, after hours of looking at it and reading the rules, was that we could fit it into our robot. The catch? We would have given up a large percentage of the space in our robot. Who is the GDC to tell us that we can't make that tradeoff? If they wanted us to not fit it in at all they should have designed it so we absolutely couldnt do it. We designed within the rules as they stood, why should they be able to come back and say, seemingly with no explanation of why, that what we were doing was illegal?

Perhaps if the GDC would release an explanation of why they decided a rule needed clarification we would all feel a little more at ease.

EricH 07-01-2009 20:25

Re: Limitations too far?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber (Post 795227)
Perhaps if the GDC would release an explanation of why they decided a rule needed clarification we would all feel a little more at ease.

I'm not on the GDC, but I've got one.

They thought the rule was bulletproof as it was. Then the 10 or so of them turned the game over to 10,000+ high schoolers and as many mentors, who immediately started looking for ways around the intent of the rule by using the letter of the rule.

So the GDC decided that clarification was necessary, and issued it.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:28.

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