[FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

I know this should probably wait until after world championships, but on the FTC blog Ken said that they are already brainstorming for next years game, so if we want our ideas considered we should post them now!


Personally I would like to see a random distribution of scoring pieces, I think that would make especially the autonomous very interesting. This could be accomplished but putting them in a box above the field and dropping them all at once, or something like that.

I liked the idea of the bonus balls from bridge battle! Something like that should make a comeback.

It seems like all the games are some variant of "Lift object and put it on/in/over goal" so I think a change from that would be neat. I was thinking of having a large goal (4 foot radius) and a piece earns more points for how close to the center it is. Obviously that would take up a lot of space, so it could be 1/4 of a circle in the corner.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

1. I would like to see a uniform scoring piece, like FRC. Basically we don't have to hunt down playing pieces, but they're the same for everyone.

2. Honestly, I don't feel like there's any other way to handle pieces. They need to be lifted, or brought down, There's really no other way.

3. One interest game variation I would like is that the field is actually 2 small fields, but there is a bridge between the two fields. The bridge and the bridge mouth can be like a "no clog" zone and can be a penalty to ensure that robots get across, but the pieces are scattered around, but you can to put them in other side of the field.

Idk. We never really guess it.

This year, the platform was not a HUGE part, and the terrain didn't TOTALLY change the game, but I would like to see something different going on.

But I would LOVE to see more parts for the FTC kit as well.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

I was shocked at this, it was so easy to go over or around it. My bot was geared 3:1 for speed, made it across no problemo

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

How about Twisting/Rotating, Assembling/Stacking, Aligning/Placing accurately, Shooting, Storing, Measuring (Mass/Density, Color, Shape/Size, Brightness), Bending, etc; or doing any two of these things at once.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

We actually did have a problem getting across, using 4 small wheels (I think that was a mistake) and 1:1 ratio. But it was still laughably easy to just go around. If the terrain is done again, it should have some reward for using it (IE you need to go across it to get to the highest scoring goal/piece or to get to a bonus area)

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

Well, I meant that there's nothing you can do in a competition way. Honestly, I wouldn't be too excited if my robot had to bend pieces of metal on the field all while calculating the radius of a ring.

Shooting I believe falls in a similar aspect of lifting things...but idk. :D. It would be nice to see a ball game. I know that the 2007 game included balls, but FTC has expanded a lot since then, not to mention the new kit.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

All of the motions I mentioned below can be done on a competition field.

Twisting/Rotating - Twist one part inside another to align holes and then stick a scoring object into the hole. Correlate the point value with the difficulty of the twist (torque required, number of things that must twisted to open up the scoring opportunity, knob/keyhole shape, scoring object shape/weight, distance from the bot(s) to the knob/keyhole and the scoring hole, etc.), or

Placing carefully - Dumping stuff into a small goal, or putting odd shapes into matching oddly shaped holes, or shooting/placing Velcro objects onto Velcro targets (Jim Koca's idea), or building a structure out of loosely-fitting pipes/rods and couplers, or putting balls into small/shallow depressions, or placing mirrors/lenses to get a spot of light onto a photocell, or

Bending - Bend a flexible hose/pipe to point it at a target, then drop a ball into the hose (mini-golf), or bend coat-hanger wire to make hooks and create a chain-of-hooks, or bend stiff wire into a hook and use the hook to lift up or pull down something, or straighten a bent item(s) to connect two points and thereby release scoring objects or enable some other scoring opportunity, or bend stiff wire into a shapes that must fall/fit into specifically shaped grooves, or

Measuring (Mass/Density, Color, Shape/Size, Brightness) - Find a special object (one that had a an extra 10% weight added to it) and put it in a special goal for bonus points. Pile up a variety of differently weighted objects on a scale to earn a bonus for coming closest to a certain weight (in addition to getting points for putting each thing on the scale) or for having the most weight, or use slightly differently-sized objects to reach a specific height, or

or ...

Don't give up. Instead, help me out here :) by coming up with some free-association thoughts of your own. If you are stuck/blocked then do something completely different for a while (play Monopoly, watch Animal Planet or the Food Network, cut the grass, etc.); and then force yourself to find a connection between that activity and this discussion.

Blake

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

It would be cool if you could sacrifice some of your own scoring pieces to challenge your opponents. e.g. if you had rods for scoring objects and a platform that slid up and down in front of each teams goal (or something), you could raise the platform and stick a rod underneath, to make moving over it harder for the opposition.

Or make a game where building small counted. e.g. have a pole you can go under to get to a bonus area, or shoot objects over a pole to score, and then have to go under it to retry them, if you couldn't it there might be a penalty.

Make a game where autonomous forced the robots to get in each others way, (this would make it much more exciting.)

As an aside, I think we should get CMU cams in the FTC kit.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

I'd like to start seeing unique games besides just picking up and dropping off an object from point A to point B. How about rock climbing or some sort of obstacle course?

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

Ya, an obstacle course would be really cool. Or maybe moving targets, like in lunacy.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

I think they should cover the field with corn. :P

I have always wanted to see a FTC game with more ramps in a game styled like the 2003 FRC game. I would be a prefect fit for the new platform in my mind.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

If we do have an object grabbing game again, how about a game object larger than the robot (like the 2005 bonus game piece big ball) that rather than the top teams just gathering up a ton of small objects and unloading them for massive points, teams would have to think of unique ways to pick up the large object to score one at a time.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

You could put enough large scoring objects, that it would be worthwhile for teams to try and grab 2 simultaneously, that would be cool!

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

I thought the bonus cube from VEX elevation was a good change from Pick up A, put it on B. Something similar (not exactly the same) would be pretty sweet.

Mabey have largeish flat discs, one side red and the other blue, and half start red up and half blue up, and then at the end of the match the team with the most of their color up would win. The discs could possibly be tapered at the edges to make for slightly easier gripping.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

Going of the large scoring object, I'd like to see the game change to 3 robots an alliance, and in this game, robots would have to work together to carry an object. :D.

One one side, it promotes team work, on the other side, I guess a robot which can carry the object is paired with two other objects which cannot carry the object...I guess.

It'll be interesting none the less.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

I would like to have a game where a hard to accomplish action "Turns the tides" on a game.

Ok. Lets imagine:

Red Scoring Elements
White Scoring Elements
Blue Scoring Elements.

Now, there is a center goal.

red scoring for red
blue scoring for blue

What about white?

Maybe it could be a large/heavy/difficult goal. A single large goal, that say, if brought to... the blue side... the white balls would count for blue. if the large goal was moved to the red side, white would count for red. Something cool like this.

I was also thinking, maybe in the middle, a large rotating platform. Free rotating, or motor rotating, it would be cool. Motor rotating could add a physical barrier to the game, whilst a robot-pushed spinning platform could be used strategicly.

Think of how much harder Face Off would be if the robots could actually rotate the diamond shaped platform in the middle.

A dynamic arena in general would be great. Mild combat (Flipping) would be nice too, but to an extent. We don't want multihundred dollar robots being mashed up. Faceoff would be very different if you could lift robots out and away.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

You've largely described "Hangin' Around," the FVC game of two years ago. It's hard to design a game that the GDC hasn't already tried. :) (There was also a similar FRC game, but I don't know the name of it without looking it up...)

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

My main complaint about this year is that the peak is too low, many teams have achieved perfection, or almost. I would like to see a challenge where you have fewer team getting full/almost full score, and time left over Here are a few ways I see that happening

If you had objects that could be scored over and over (e.g. last years FRC scoring objects), because i find that this year, in the really competitive matches there is nothing to do in the last 40 seconds or more.

It might be cool if it incorporated autonomous into tele-op (Like if you had a shed in the middle to collect bonus items from, but the shed itself obstructed driver view).

It would also be cool to do something that almost recquired shooting (as long as they put treads in the new kit) and serious innovation. for example, imagine if the triangle goal were four or five feet tall, and was worht 20 points.

Lots of people have put forward the "bridging the gap" idea, I think that that would be a great challenge, how about putting two long 2x4s on 3-4inch long sliders 15 inches apart, then the opponents could push the 2x4s around around, while you crossed the gap. Or if you preferred, you could build a robot that went through the gap, using ramps like in the current FTC.

A challenge with more manipulation would be cool too, like placing bars into slightly larger holes.

Over all, I would like an FTC challenge which would create larger challenges to try and solve, whether or not the teams were ale to would come out later, but I would like to see a challenge where you have fewer team getting full/almost full score, and time left over, and more teams being pushed to their limit.


PS
Or robot is such a beast, that it actually pushes the goal, when it rams into it to align.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

I forsee FIRST using alot of the 2009 FRC flooring for something in the future. I'd hate to see it go to waste sitting in a warehouse somewhere.

I'd also like to see more emphasis put on moving heavy items, which would force teams to focus on the engineering behind designs rather than simply throwing something together in a week. It would also take away from available battery power for the drive train, which would put less merit in building a bot for pushing and shoving.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

Greater defense should also be an option. For example, maybe a dumpable scoring platform.

I just had an idea:

Ok. think of 2 shoeboxes. Now, make on blue, and the other red. Now, stick them together, to make a shape that is a 2 sided box.

THis can be to where a robot can score in it, and a robot can flip it over. It starts sideways, and a robot can tip it over, so say, should it land blue-side-up, all white scoring elements (See my previous post)in it count for blue. However, a red robot can flip it over, so it dumps all scoring elements, and the red side is up. It should be a great enough challenge for a robot to lift up.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

I definitely agree with that one. Thats part of my thinking behind the very large radius goals in my first post: Even if a team makes a robot that can reach 3-4 feet, its unlikely that they be able to do it even moderately quickly.

This one is awesome! and mabey there could be multiple size holes, with the smallest being worth the most points.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

:D

We shall see, but I'm pretty sure the GDC is snickering at us. I'm interested to see the game playing piece. Each year it's interesting and this year has been no different.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

I thought about this a bit yesterday as I mentored some middle school teams through their local VRC competition. I think many FTC teams achieved success more because they were forced into simplicity for FTC due to the lack of variety in the available FTC components. Think about it -- how many drive trains did we see at competition that were not cookie-cutter skid steer or swerve? I went to two FTC competitions and saw zero. Such simplicity may start an interest in engineering, but eventually it will downright bore students that do it from year to year. Perhaps FIRST can poke PITSCO until they either turn blue or provide teams with more variety. Things like bevel gears, differentials, conveyor belts, chain systems, and omni wheels would be useful. Technically we could make our own omni wheels from what's purchased on the website, but we'd rather not pay $100 per wheel... Finally, the LEGO motor mounts are a joke, but I actually don't mind only having four useful motors for heavy lifting; such limitation makes the students think hard about conserving energy in movement.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

It would be nice if we had something with either fewer scoring objects, like Overdrive in 2008 (and I think an Overdrive like game for FTC would be pretty cool), and/or something with more manipulation (something like Rack and Roll in 2007). I also hear people talking about how much they love aim high, so that would probably be pretty cool also. I'd love to see human players in FTC, although I'm not quite sure how that would work (maybe having them in a box located a decent distance away from the field). However, as I said last year and as I'll say this year, we need an FTC version of Maize Craze!

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

BUMP!!!

But with content:

What about goals that have to be "unlocked" in some way before they can be scored in? A cover of some sort, or mabey the goal itself is on a platform and has to be brought down.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

This may sound really, really weird, but maybe a game where the field is upside down, and the robots are hanging... on rope or chicken-wire type material... think of it as a sort of a crane-game.

Or maybe a game where the robot or scoring pieces is an actual part of the field. Think of, say, a pit in the field, making it hard or treatureous to get across. Then there would be a giant cube that could be dropped into pit to drive over, or a robot could even jump in and jump out.

Another cool thing would be spongy material. Imagine how hard it would be for a robot the weight of the ones with this kit to use scrawny wheels to go across foam. I am not talking about the mat stuff, but think the super spongey stuff.

Now, this is a long shot, but a game where wheels, normally the default choice for mobility, are a bad idea, opening teams to use stuff like shufflers, tanks, or even walking...

A game should also have a speed vs strength tradeoff. In face off, it didn't matter if your robot was strongly geared, if it was slow, it wouldn't fare as well. If a game could be made that would give speedy robots an advantage (Speed to reach game pieces), but also strong robots an advantage (Pushing things...), that would be great to see.

Really cool would be if there was a ceiling over an area that would be only 12 inches or so. The size limit would be 18x18x18, but making a robot that can shrink to 12 inches or shorter would be awesome to see.

I honestly didn't see much hinderance with the rollers and the wavy green stuff. Infact, the rollers, comically, impeded one of our human team members more so than the robot... a team member grabbed some rollers, forgot to put it away, and stepped in it and flipped backwards...

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

It would be really, really nice to have some challenging terrain for next year. Unfortunately, the size of the field means that it's hard to design something really difficult to deal with while still leaving a slower way to go around it. Making the field bigger to compensate would be nice, but highly unlikely. Maybe something in the center of the field that requires either going over (necessitating a low center of gravity) or under (requiring that the robot be really short) to get to the other side of the field quickly? And have the scoring area be really high, just to make things even more challenging.

Also, a scoring object that isn't round would be a welcome change.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

I thought that it would be kinda cool to rearrange the tiles and walls so that the fields were 8' x 16' - it could be done with the current system, just re-arrange the pieces.

That way the alliances could start at opposite ends, and there could be a real terrain difference in the center (raised blocks for instance).

Alan

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

An 8' x 16' is a very clever idea and one that I like very much.

Some teams, however, also compete in VRC and share the same field walls and surface with thier FTC teammates. This would obviously be difficult to do unless both organizations agreed to make the same changes to the field dimensions.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

There would be probably be no changes that couldn't be undone for VRC. The changes would be rearrangements of the shared pieces when they are put together, not permanent alterations of those pieces.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

Right now, we can convert from FTC to VRC and back in just a few minutes. Having to buy a second field kit and then bolt and unbolt panels to reconfigure it would be a real burden. We simply don't have the space to have two fields set up at the same time. I would prefer a slightly larger, rectangular field for both competitions, but having to support two different field sizes would be a non-starter for us. This season we had FTC and VRC tournaments scheduled a week apart twice so there is no really good way to share fields if they have to be frequently rebuilt for practice.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

Just..fundamentally...I would like to see 3 vs. 3 matches brought out into FTC. I find it kind of depressing that one team has to sit out in FTC during the finals and I think that the interest in the game would spike to great proportions.

What does that mean?

1. More robots = more room and currently with 4 robots the field is crowded, so there would probably be a larger field implemented.

2. Maybe with a 3 team alliance, the alliance selection pairing will be more similar to that of FRC.

Just a thought. 3 vs. 3 always makes the game 10 times more confusing but also 30 times more interesting.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

Along the same lines, a rectangular field would allow action to happen in certain areas of the field other than just the center. This would increase congestion on the field in certain areas, but the third robot would be able to roam free. This is often seen in FRC ... well, other than 2009 :rolleyes: :p

3v3 would also allow more matches played per team during qualifications without too much additional overhead. In either VRC or FTC, I don't know of many people who would complain about that. All IFI would have to do is implement the third set of ports on their control tower.

===

Unbolting/rebolting the VRC/FTC field wouldn't take but a small amount of time and effort. I've put up a mock FTC field in our classroom and put together official VRC fields; they're nothing special. Autonomous routines wouldn't suffer that much between the two setups, since even at the FTC championships there weren't that many teams who traversed the entire field with a purpose and successfully performed a rack dump. The perimeter for 12x12 and 8x16 fields are the same, so it's always a good option for either program with minimal fiscal impact. I don't doubt....errr hope we'll see a game in the future with a non-square field...it opens up alot of game possibilities.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

Unless the FMS improves dramatically between now and next season, I don't think 3 vs. 3 is a good idea. There was enough trouble with 4 robots, I can only imagine 6.

If it can be made workable, however, I would love to see that.

==========================================

In a robotics competition that a nearby school entered this year called Skills Canada, the robot size could be different dimensions, I for get exactly what the numbers were, but lets say it had to fit in a 18" by 18" by 18" box OR a 18" by 12" by 24" box OR a 24" by 24" by 9" box. I thought that was an interesting system and could possibly be good in FTC.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

If you wish to have the luxury of practicing both VRC and FTC on a single field then I can see that the 30 minute reconfiguration time I predict (to go from square to rectangular) getting annoying. However, try as I might, I'm not sure I'm exceptionally sympathetic. I believe very few teams enjoy that luxury (I guess BillW and RickTyler are two - How many more are there?).

Maybe I'm wrong and I'll get pelted with virtual bricks?

Blake

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

For those of you who can reach the point of being happy with the possibility of a rectangular version of the current field; and are ready for a graduate-level course, there is a next level of change for you to consider.

Add four panels to the current field perimeter (and put a few more floor tiles under it), and you can get into some really interesting field shapes. Take a look at Post #24 in this thread Vex Thread

The extra materials aren't cheap, but they aren't going to require a second mortgage on your house either.

I already bought the extra stuff just for fooling around at exhibitions or scrimmages.

Blake

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

i would like to be able to use duct tape on the robot, and i would also like to be able to use more motors on it. i would also be cool if the robot size would be a little larger, and the field size to be larger, not as big as FRC, but half the size. :)

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

If we were to do 3 vs 3, then the field would definitely have to be larger. ;).

Also, i'm not as bent over having more DC motors to use. FRC only gets to use 4 drive motors so we can't really complain. :D. But, I would like to see secondary motors that are more compatible with the Tetrix kit. The lego motors are...*nice* but not exactly the easiest to use.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

I would like to see 4 square feet of aluminum or plexiglass in any ratio next year, instead of having to use 2 feet of each. I think I might have mentioned this already, if so, oops :o

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

I think that lack of prohibition of duct tape in any robot competition is a travesty among engineers. In my experience it's the first thing that many people think to use and it's the last thing replaced in a bad design. Sure, allow it for quick fixes on the field ... but don't allow it during the build season. It caused us more headache this year than any single component on our FRC bot :rolleyes:.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

i agree completly, but it would be awsome if we could use more motors. :yikes:

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

More motors? Not necessarily
fuses for motors? Yes
Better wiring options for the motors? Yes
360 degree servos? awesome...
servos with metal innards? very good (we had several servos that had the internal gear teeth stripped - resulting in jerking motion)
More gears, drive options, etc? Yes

None of those things are necessarily game design, but they are good to have.

Game design? Something that doesn't stop the scoring... yes, descoring was allowed this year, but how many bots did you see that actually could do that?

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

Please Read the Whole Thing or just look at the Map Designs, I took some
serious Time to do all This, Thanks :p

I do some Game Programming and Design myself and I would
like the FTC competitions to have more excitement and variety.

The 2008-2009 Competition had basically Two Robot Classes
1. The Ring Tray ~ A robot with an Arm that had a Holding Tray for Rings at the End.

2. The Dumptruck (I believe us to be the First) ~ A robot with a with a bucket to hold the Rings to be dumped out later.

The 2009-2010 competition should be designed with many aspects in mind to encourage a Myriad of robot types. Maybe even encourage to get off the wheels and start crawling or even Walking!

I mean, why not have this years requirements to have to build Biped robots?

Maybe some obstacles you should have to climb, certain obstacles that cause
robot height restrictions (low clearance areas), or obstacles that rotate and move to cause sort of hectic, but invigorating, challenges.

Personally, I'm sick of all the collecting and scoring Rings.

I think the competitions should be a little more based on the design and physical ability of the robots. Have it use a little more than a chassis and a couple of wheels.


Here a couple of Ideas of my own for the Competition (Names are Variable):


Tower Terror~
Robots will Team up in a battle to the Top! Robots will have to use Blocks
(Of many different sizes) to Construct a Tower to reach a Single Goal or
Individual Goals for each team and maybe bring it Back to the Rendezvous (Or Home Goal) or just keep it in Possession.

Scoring Rules:
Getting the Goal: 20 Points:
Each block that is not touching the ground is worth 5 Points
(Blue blocks give Green team points and Red blocks give Purple team Points)
10 Points for Each Robot off the ground at the End of the Match

Autonomous Scoring:
Knocking Over an Opposing Teams Block Pile (2 Points for Block that touches
the Ground)
Stacking a Block (Of team color of Course, 5 Points for each block
that was on the ground in the beginning of Autonomous that is no longer
on the Ground)
Having a Robot off the Ground at the End of the Autonomous period (10 Points)

Here are some Drawings I did of the Map Layouts:


Green Squares are Green team Spawn Points (Areas in which the Robots Start)
Purple Squares are Purple team Spawn Points
Blue Blocks Belong to Green Team
Red Blocks Belong to Purple Team
Checkered Block is the Goal (Ring, Square, Flag, Whatever you want it to be)
Goal is Elevated Above the Field

Layout 1~ Goal in Center, Spawn surrounding in a Diamond formation
Blocks in the Corners.
Click to View Layout 1


Layout 2~ Goal on Left side of the Field, Spawns close (Could cause Autonomous ramming) Bricks placed along top and bottom of Field
Click to View Layout 2

Layout 3~ Goal in Center, Team Spawns in Corners
Blocks placed on sides, top, and bottom
Click to View Layout 3



Stairs and Slopes! (Simple Yet Challenging)
Teams will collect, yes collect, items of various shapes and sizes (I'm thinking spheres, that way they can Roll down) across slopes comprised of alternating stairways and flat surfaces. Picture below (3D Render):

Purple Squares are Purple Spawn Points (Where the robots are Placed)
and Green Squares are Green Spawn Points.
Spheres with Color indicate whose Team they belong to.

Click to View Layout


Scoring is Simple, Get your colored spheres to Your teams side, Each is worth
one point. You can also push your Opposing teams spheres to your side to
take away their Points!

Getting to the Other side in Autonomous is worth 5 Points.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

Huh..It's nice to see that someone's cleaned up the FTC section of this forum. :D.

Um...I have NO idea what the game is going to be. But I believe that there are somethings that will be incorporated into the game.

1. Don't expect another "ring" shaped game piece. In QQ we had actual PVC rings and this year we had pucks. And in the previous year, we had balls.

I'm not so sure about the possibility of dealing with balls, but I'm expecting a unique game piece.

I think that FIRST has put a big gamble on the sensors that come with LEGO. They expected us to use the sensors in a great way, and I must say, that most teams did NOT use them to their full potential. So I am expecting that in the next game, the ones will good, functional sensors will reap the rewards.

FIRST has played around with flooring a lot. They kinda messed with the FTC flooring, and they totally changed the FRC flooring, but I'm not expecting the flooring type to change. I'm pretty sure FIRST has had enough of funky flooring.


Well..that's my $.02 :D

Kick off - 9/12/09

Roughly 2 more months to go!!!

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

Since there's a required "game sensor" for this year... you can bet that a) sensor use will be required, and b) the scoring piece(s) will be unusual!

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

Required sensor?

Could You please post a link to where you read that. :D

I don't quite see how a sensor could be REQUIRED. I mean like...idk. It must be a unique sensor for it to be required.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

There was a reference to a "new sensor" but no details, and no discussion in official FIRST communications that it would be mandatory. If it were mandatory and you didn't want to use it, you could always strap it on top of the robot with a zip tie.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

That's what I was thinking. A mandatory sensor wouldn't be feasible because you can't guarantee it would be used (what good would a bump sensor on top of a robot do?

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

from https://www.ftcrobots.com/support/item.aspx?art=2609

(underscores are added by me)

and when you log in (assuming the team is registered) you can see the description of the full kit that you can get...

That's where I heard it from... No other than that - no one official, but... reading between the lines...

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

Thanks, NalaTI, I hadn't remembered the exact wording.

I'm guessing the new sensor is a pressure sensor -- water game!

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

Cool! The scoring object could be water balloons!

Additional materials allowed this year would have to be 6 square feet of Gore-tex...


Of course, it could be a temperature sensor, and the scoring object could be ice cubes... then it still would be a water game too...

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

Woah...OMNI-Wheels??? Is that what it's suggesting? That Omni-wheels will be sold this up coming year?

And....it says "needed" for this year's upcoming game...hm...oh well. I'm sure we'll all find out on September 12th. :D.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

Omni wheels were in the Vex kit, so personally I thought it was a step backward that they were not used this year...

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

Eh, FTC was implementing its own kit, and I knew that there was no way that everything would be dandy and great in its first year.

But I am excited that they are announcing Omni-wheels into the kti.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

But we haven't seen a way to order them separately yet! I guess we'll just have to wait and see!