Re: Programmers: I Have A Challenge For You
 

I didn't read the entire thread, so my apologies if I repeat what has been said already.

Imho, most FRC games of years past did not lend themselves well to full autonomous play. Just look at how much trouble teams had to go through to get the smallest aspects of autonomy down (autonomous mode, camera use, automatic transmission, ...).

Instead, maybe an offshoot of FRC should be created with full autonomy in mind. The scale of the robots would probably have to be smaller. Hell, a standard platform could even be issued (i'm thinking robocup and aldebaran Nao robots...).

After all, we already have FTC and LLC.

This would allow for games that are better suited to autonomy. The lighting of the field could be standardized, AR tags could be integrated to field components, robot to robot communication could even be enabled...

The game could have a 10 sec "teleoperated" mode at the beginning of each match as a cameo to FRC.

Just a wild idea ;).

Re: Programmers: I Have A Challenge For You
 

It could be that there are different definitions of "getting autonomous right". Looking at davidthefats last 3 games on the Blue Alliance, I personally wouldn't call their autonomous "right".

It appears that in Q77 they started in the close zone and knocked the ball toward the goal without scoring.

Q84 they start in the far zone and kick one ball into the middle.

Q89 they start in the close zone and don't move at all.

I think you may be over-simplifying it .....

Re: Programmers: I Have A Challenge For You
 

The Q89, we chose NOT to go or that was the one with the leak in the pneumatic system. (the robot does not do anything if the kicker is not retracted, since the ir sensor is triggered by default)Don't blame me, thats the best autonous can get without an adjustable kicker. Its right since our goal was just to kick the ball, the camera was out for the last half of the competition, so we didn't even track.

Re: Programmers: I Have A Challenge For You
 

I'm not "blaming" anyone for anything, just trying to point out that a decent full-autonomous may not be quite as simple as you are assuming, given the level of performance you have demonstrated. I would disagree that what you have is the best you could do, an adjustable kicker would have no effect on how many balls you could kick out of the far zone. Just a matter of driving to each ball and kicking (sounds simple doesn't it?). It doesn't get much easier than knowing EXACTLY where each ball is located when you start and not having to worry about any defending robots.

We could only kick one ball in autonomous because one of our encoders died and there is no way to change it without dismantling half the robot. The robot has a small drift to the left and there wasn't time to get the time-based autonomous to compensate for it. Hopefully having all encoders working at Atlanta will allow us to clear whichever zone we are in. I would consider clearing our zone of balls (or scoring from the front zone) a minimum level of autonomous competence to shoot for. Many of the top teams already do this. Our programmers have been working on it all season and haven't got there yet.

Rather than trying to develop a full-autonomous game, it may be to your advantage to try smaller steps. Demonstrating a working 15 second autonomous that would at least clear the zone you are in would be a more attainable goal, and could possibly help in persuading your team to attempt more complicated building (you need to integrate the sensors into your robot) and programming projects.

Re: Programmers: I Have A Challenge For You
 

The last paragraph: I have been trying to do that since day one, I wanted a kicker that shoots ACCURATELY from the 3 zone... But my ideas just got shot down because I was new to the club and the team did not have faith in themselves, since our history of robots are not the best, infact I heard ours this year was the best out of all our robots... but I say it needs TONS of improvements...

Re: Programmers: I Have A Challenge For You
 

I think you'll find it much easier to guide your team towards your goals if you attempt smaller steps. I'm having a hard time understanding why you couldn't at least KICK 3 balls from the 3 zone (not worrying about accuracy) if it's as easy as you seem to think.

Right now, you're like the Wright brothers trying to invent the airplane. They didn't start with a 747. You'll probably be much more successful if you work towards your goals in smaller, more realistic steps. Claiming you can invent warp drive by next weekend and fly to Mars in 5 minutes isn't going to get you many followers. Talk is cheap.

Re: Programmers: I Have A Challenge For You
 

FIRST should make a game where you're only able to send commands to your robot every 5 seconds, or there could be an area which was completely blacked out, so you pretty much had to use auto as you couldn't see.

Re: Programmers: I Have A Challenge For You
 

The "no sending a command for 5 seconds" could pose a safety problem. However the portion "blacked out" could be simulated by putting a wall up the middle of the field (with a small doorway in it for robots to go through).

Re: Programmers: I Have A Challenge For You
 

Actually, this kind of thing would be a good experiment for the off-season

Re: Programmers: I Have A Challenge For You
 

I still find it surprising that you're the only competent programmer, but I concede that may be because I don't have much experience with teams outside my immediate area. Our school is medium/smallish, with 90 people in each grade, but we've managed to find 3 competent programmers this year, 2 of them dedicated. Our team isn't particularly good, certainly not a powerhouse, but any of the 3 programmers can write the teleop code within an hour (provided the drivers know what they want, the electrical stuff is connected correctly, the mechanics work, etc).

As for recruiting programmers, I think the best way to get them is to inspire them. Don't say they get to write the driving code and winning the game is entirely the responsibility of the drivers. Tell them they get to work on the camera, let the robot make intelligent decisions, or score autonomously. That's what got me enticed; I certainly wouldn't have joined the team just to make the robot drive.

Re: Programmers: I Have A Challenge For You
 

Well part of this is that I misunderstood the original post and thought he was lobbying for FIRST to make an all autonomous game. I still can't see how anyone can expect that to work out as a mandatory requirement given the sad state of most regional's autonomous modes. Since I have reread it and he's just challenging teams to try it, well then more power to those that want to do it.

Well one thing your team has going for it is that you are from a low number team. I would bet that your team has been around long enough to become an institution at your school and a program that many students want to participate in, or at least have heard of. We're only a second year team, and though our Rookie All Start trip to Atlanta made some headway towards getting us known at the school, we still have a long way to go. We're still kind of unheard of in the area, so we have to overcome that. It's entirely possible the school has programmers begging to try something real-world but just don't know there's a robot team. We're not "school-sanctioned" like a football team so being able to announce things on the intercom and such isn't easy. We're still considered a "club" and there are different rules for them.

One of our goals is to try and get robots the same benefits as a sports team at our school, even having letter jackets for the students. That would open us up to more of the student base. We have given various demos around the school and all, but the interest just isn't there yet. Give us a few more years and we'll see.

I just think that everyone needs to remember that everyone has different stories and rules and requirements they have to overcome, and to not be surprised about anyone's limitations. :-) "FIRST is not fair" is one of those things you learn in your rookie year, and that applies at every aspect of the game. I imagine there are teams that have nothing but programmers and very few mechanical oriented students and mentors, we just happen to be the opposite of this.

Re: Programmers: I Have A Challenge For You
 

as you can see i am from 488, i will be a mentor next year but i still hope to be able to make a version of our code that could be fully autonomous and we could use when we aren't too stressed about winning the match depending on how well the auton works, it will probably be just me working on this with the help of maybe one more

its funny that this topic came up since a few weeks before the Seattle, WA regional, a few of the programmers and I were discussing this exact topic as a definite possibility with the sensors that FIRST is letting us use on our robots

Re: Programmers: I Have A Challenge For You
 

Rather than the 5-second rule, I think a far better, and more adjustable, step for FIRST teams would simply be to expand the autonomous period past 15 seconds. Because, seriously, 15 seconds isn't enough to do anything worthwhile. It would make the autonomous a bit more important, and give some motivation to teams that decide "our drivers can make up for anything we dont do in autonomous."

Re: Programmers: I Have A Challenge For You
 

Good thing we have teams like 1114 to prove you dead wrong :rolleyes:

Re: Programmers: I Have A Challenge For You
 

I'm sure teams that decided to do that in 2006, 2008, and 2010 were playing the final match on Einstein.