![]() |
Re: Programmers: I Have A Challenge For You
Quote:
What is FIRST to you? |
Re: Programmers: I Have A Challenge For You
I wish we could attempt this next year, but some teams that have the techology and money to try such a project, my cheers will be right behind you. no matter the outcome. but a safety switch would be good in case the programing went down and you had to manuever it yourself. here are my $0.02 and i wish teams that will try, the best of luck to you all.
|
Re: Programmers: I Have A Challenge For You
Quote:
|
Re: Programmers: I Have A Challenge For You
Quote:
|
Re: Programmers: I Have A Challenge For You
That is a big challenge, and it's one that I'd be willing to accept! Lol, this will be fun.
|
Re: Programmers: I Have A Challenge For You
Quote:
I'm going to second the godfather of soul. Text based programming languages are starting to get to the point where assembly was 15-20 years ago (and punch cards before that). Everything is moving more in the direction of even higher level languages (i.e. graphics based). In the field of embedded controls, everything is being shifted from hand-coded C to auto-coded model-based programming. In my current job and my last job we use Simulink and Stateflow to do all of our control design. When I left my previous job 4 years ago, we were already auto-coding the entire sensing and control algorithms from the Simulink/Stateflow models. At my current job, a good number of the control algorithms are already auto-coded from the Simulink/Stateflow models and the goal is for all of them to be auto-coded in the future. Even for PC programming we're starting to see more graphical programming tools where you draw your windows and drag and drop menus and interface controls, then simply define the behavior of the interfaces and menus. I don't know if we'll ever completely move away from text-based code (and in some cases, I think text based code is the most efficient method), but it would surprise me if software development was primarily text based 10 years from now. For the on-topic part: there have been robots in the past that have played significant portions of the match autonomously. I once proposed a system to reward the teams with bonus points based upon how much of the match they played autonomously. I'll have to dig up that old thread and post it. |
Re: Programmers: I Have A Challenge For You
Quote:
Autonomous has been pretty boring for two years because there is no point value to it. Give it value, and it will become interesting. |
Re: Programmers: I Have A Challenge For You
I would like this to happen, but here are my 2 issues with this idea. Firstly, how do you track game objects and the areas to score? The program would need to have a serious if statement, or a periodic task to override the game piece searching code from the scoring area track code. We tried something like this recently with epic failure, aka we made a $5,000 doughnut preforming machine. Secondly, the robot would have to be as cunning as a human player to avoid silly penalties, like getting hit while kicking a ball making it go out of bounds.
Those are my little considerations in making our robot completely autonomous next year. I guess it also depends on what the game is next year as well because something like this puts drivers like me out of work. Good luck to those teams attempting this, I'm starting now so this way I'll only be 4 weeks late instead of the usual 5. |
Re: Programmers: I Have A Challenge For You
Quote:
I know the topic is fully autonomous robots but no FRC team is going to accomplish that in the near future -- unless the games become mind-numbingly simple. Does cruise control make a driver unnecessary? |
Re: Programmers: I Have A Challenge For You
To echo and summarize a lot of really smart people, there's a lot of problems with a fully autonomous robot. I'm listing them in order of importance (in my eyes) from greatest to least.
I'm sorry for raining on your parade, but it can't be done - at least not well. Ambition is a wonderful thing - never give up your dreams. But technological marvels aren't created with just a can-do attitude. It takes years of research, hard work, development, and custom hardware to finish the job. The people who think this is possible need to stop and be a bit more realistic. Try something on a much smaller scale. An automated scoring algorithm would be great, and is a totally reachable goal. Work your way up, and see what you can do. There's a huge difference between playing a match "mostly autonomously" and fully autonomously in that the "mostly autonomous" option allows human drivers to position the robot, aware of the field and match conditions, before letting it go to work. |
Re: Programmers: I Have A Challenge For You
I'll start this by saying its been a while since I have done any "real" programming. However, I did my masters degree in Robotic Intelligence and have loads of background knowledge here, in biorobotics, communications, etc.
I am excited that teams are considering this. FIRST should be about innovation. Quote:
Quote:
I've played around with everything from controlling an FRC robot with my bicep muscle to writing up simulation code for a modular robot. Its all about how complex you make the problem. If you start from the highest level and have a robot that can incorporate a lot of sensors, not only for knowing about it's mechanisms, but for "seeing" the world around it, you open up entirely new doors. We have seen plenty of teams be able to do this in tiny pieces - balancing the ramp, scoring tubes, keeping the arm inside the box, running cool auto modes with avoidance detection. A fully automated match is really just as step beyond all of those. Heck there are some FLL teams that can do this, why cant the FRC teams?!?! It does require big picture and strategic thinking to consider what you might "run into". Do you need to avoid other robots? what do you need to interact with? what are the possible decisions to be made? But teams already do a lot of this type of thing for the 15 second auto modes. No not every team does, but some of the teams do! Would I suggest using it in Finals? heck no. As already stated, in this competition we aren't going to be able to process like the human brain. But could it be a fun and awesome challenge for a programmer to try for an offseason or even to "show off" in a practice match?? Of course!! And hey if its "really good" you might even get your drivers to run it in one of those "easy" matches. Stop being afraid of trying things you might "fail" at. Just because something seems impossible, doesn't mean you shouldn't try it. As long as your entire strategy isn't based around it, I would say go for it. Have one set of programmers implement the "normal functions", and have the other go for the full automation. |
Re: Programmers: I Have A Challenge For You
What I would suggest, as you go for it:
Start by writing automation for certain functions. For example, when you have a ball, target and shoot. When you don't have a ball, look for one. It'll be a lot easier to get blocks of automation that can be used by the drivers and then combine them into one completely automated program than it will be to write the whole program from scratch. (It'll also allow the drivers to take control if they need to.) slavic262, it's almost a simpler challenge. DARPA had to travel a certain distance, with a full-size vehicle, via previously unknown waypoints. On an FRC field, we know EXACTLY where the boundaries and other things are, other than gamepieces and other robots. It can't be done, you say. People said the same thing about: manned flight, steamboats, space flight, connecting computers... If it couldn't be done simply because some people thought it couldn't be done, we'd still be in the Middle Ages or earlier. Also note that some folks do stuff where the designers would say, "That plane can't do that!"--but they're still doing it. The plane wears out faster, but it can be done. Also note that nothing in the rules prevents you from building a custom circuit to assist the cRIO with its processing. If you wanted to do that, you could get more done... |
Re: Programmers: I Have A Challenge For You
Quote:
Yes, the ubiquity of text based programming is loosing ground to 'software through icon connection', but we should not fool ourselves into thinking it's going away. Its replacement hasn't arrived yet. |
Re: Programmers: I Have A Challenge For You
Quote:
|
Re: Programmers: I Have A Challenge For You
Quote:
And how does the executable object code for it come to exist? |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 18:52. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi