|
Statistics on top 20 teams?
Hi Gang,
Does anyone have any statistics on say the top 20 teams in Atlanta? Things like: Programming: What language did they use? Threaded code or just poll in the teleop loop? Did they do something in autonomous? If so, what worked? What problems did you encounter, if any, with WPILib? Did you download the sources and rebuild WPILib/CanJaguarLib? CAN or PWM control? Did you use the Classmate for programming your robot or student/school supplied computers? Robot Design: What sensors were used? Did you use the vision system? If so, what modifications did you have to make to the code? What drive system? Wheels? How many motors? What material was used for the frame (Aluminum, steel, unobtanium)? How did they control the ball? Energy storage for kicker (elastic, pneumatic, motor driven, etc.)? How did you cut your parts (water jet, LASER, mill, hand tools,etc.)? Did you hang? If so, what wenching approach did you use? The Driver Station Did you reprogram your dashboard code? Did you use external controls beyond your joysticks? Any problems in getting the USB to behave? Did you use any unusual controls like WiiMotes, XBox controllers, etc.? Did you feel that the Classmate was fast enough? Anything else? Any techniques that you feel might be beneficial to others in the future? I'm just looking to try to collect a "lessons learned" from this year's competition. I'll collate the results and post them back to CD. TIA, Mike |
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
I do not, but sounds like an AWESOME project for someone. Can you tell I love statistics. If I was not in the middle of crunch time I would do it right now. lol
Cass |
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
If you want information on 33, I can give it to you:
Software: LabVIEW Threaded, Teleop only gets driver data and sets variables. multi-zone kick ball, made avg. 2 of 3 far zone, could attempt 5. Routines selected from operator control console, feedback on Driver Station verifies selection -feedback on speed and triggers on distance, runs at 1.2 ft/sec to avoid 2-second rule penalties over 3 feet WPI problems: Compressor no well documented, and can be highly inefficient if not used correctly. Cypress IO gives you last old data if you loose the Cypress board. LV rebuilds and redownloads WPI every time it downloads, so I guess yes. I did make modifications to the Compressor lib. PWM (Victors) My laptop (student-provided). Design: Potentiometers on arm axis, kicker, and chassis articulatioin, broken-beam on ball sensor, encoders and gyro in drivetrain. Arm software uses both chassis and axis sensor to control chassis ride height. No vision (any vision attempts caused problems in PID timing and control lag) We rewrote the part that the default code has in Teleop to get a new image after it achieved its gyro setpoint, as well as light up the red light when the target was aligned. 6wd articulated-center for drop but raised when going over the bump 4 AM Plaction, 2 AM Omni 4 CIM drive Almost entirely aluminum, mostly sheet metal, backbone frame welded. top-roller pincher Spring kicker Frame sheet metal was waterjetted, everything else was done by hand (bandsaw, drill press, lathe, mill) We hung from the vertical pole. In ATL we hung every match except one, where we were knocked off the pole and almost were able to get back on. 800:1 CIM, CIM->DeWalt->Toughbox->Chain DriverStation: Custom tabbed dashboard with camera image, tabs for Disabled, Auton, and Teleop with important match data, Debug tabs for sensor, setpoint, output, and other data for the pits. Logitech gamepad for driver, "kitty's kat box" for operator, using Cypress board. No problems with USB gamepad, lots of problems with Cypress comm (rebooting DS usually fixed this, so we booted the Classmate two matches ahead of time and didn't shut it down ever) Logitech gamepad, nothing more special The classmate itself was fast enough for DS and Dashboard, but having to reboot to regain Cypress comm or log out to clear FMS lock was far too slow. Future: Radio reliability Improved Cypress comm (NI has informed us they know of a fix but FIRST would not let them release it during this season) Loss of Kitty's Kat Box was very difficult, as it sends old data on loss of Cypress comm. If it boots up without the Cypress board, it will send all 0's so you can pull an input high and detect loss when the input is low. No Cypress drivers with Driver Station causes Virtual DS to not find Cypress board. |
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
What constitutes top 20? We were finalists for Newton, but qualified 15th in the division, so I wouldn't say we were top 20 in the nation.
I like the idea of gathering info, so if you care to know what we did, holler. |
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
I think a lot of the questions about the robot and control system are great, but some of the programming questions leave me confused as to what can be gained by their answers.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
Quote:
1114 2481 2056 25 971 254 67 330 2119 1676 1086 3221 359 217 224 1807 3305 2992 148 987 These teams won more than 70% of their matches. |
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
I think the hardest part would be determining the top 20 teams in Atlanta :yikes:
Might be interesting to throw together a SurveyMonkey survey and then correlate the data from that with team ranking Anecdotal evidence: while judging in Atlanta for machine attributes, I asked every team I interviewed what language they used, 95% said Labview, 5% said C++, and 0 said Java |
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
The question is are you willing to get this data from any team that is still reading Chief Delphi now that crunch time has slowed down, because I could answer all these questions on our team.
I see your just looking for the top teams, whoever they are, but I know I'd be interested to see what worked and didn't work for those that fought tooth and nail to just compete. It might even bring to light some issues that held the non-top teams back and help us make things better for all involved? Now that I said that, I am gonna answer these questions anyway. :-) But to keep this post from taking the whole board up, I am putting the answers in CODE tags. Programming: Code:
What language did they use? Robot Design: Code:
What sensors were used?Code:
Did you reprogram your dashboard code?Code:
Overall we had a positive experience and learned quite a bit from looking at the older, "powerhouse" teams while at Championships. Most of our lessons tended towards game strategy and best type of robot to build, best type of possessor to make, etc... Code:
After looking at some of the other kick systems, I thought ours was more robust, versatile and elegant than most with no sensor requirements and maximum use of existing components. If you are going to have a pneumatic system at all you should maximize the use of it from a rewards vs resources factor. |
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
Quote:
TIA, Mike |
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
Quote:
Yes, there is some weight associated context switching. But if a single thread polls for some event for even 3 milliseconds, that wasted time is nowhere near recovered by avoiding context switches. |
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
Quote:
|
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
I don't know if this is a Top 20 statistic or not, but there was not a single mecanum drive robot on Einstein this year. I won $10 when that happened. :)
I bet you'll find that almost all of them used roughtop or wedgetop tread in their robot, at least 4 CIMs (I don't think any of the 6 motor teams made the top 20), and they had good possession. I also think though, that you need to figure out what is causation and what's simple correlation. |
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
Quote:
Just didn't want any misconceptions about multi-tasking clouding the thinking of the young 'uns. |
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
Quote:
|
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
Quote:
|
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
Fun Fact: Just looking back through 2005 (before that "no one" had mecanum), there has never, ever, ever been a mecanum drive robot on Einstein. I hope teams that consider mecanum in future years ask themselves why they think this is.
|
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
Quote:
Just because the game where mechanum makes sense hasn't happened yet doesn't mean there will never be one. It's a simple design trade that you can do when determining your team's strategy. Just because you can make something does't mean you should if you look at the big picture. |
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
Quote:
|
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
Quote:
Also, there have been a quite a few flop bots on Einstein as well: 71 in 2002, 67 in 2004, 67 in 2005, and 16 in 2008. Looks like they've been spaced out an average of 2 years each... Does that mean we're overdue for a Flop bot to go to Einstein? Hopefully they're legal in 2011. |
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
Quote:
|
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
Quote:
Hopefully the rules won't be overly restrictive and flop bots will be legal next year. |
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
Quote:
|
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
We used LabVIEW. We did most of the work in telop this year, as we didn't have any control loops. Last year, we mostly used telop to set set-points and ran the control loops in periodic tasks (separate thread).
Our autonomous was structured into discrete VIs that had their own while loop in each one running from autonomous independent. We could then string these VIs together very much like lego programming. For example, we had a drive until ball detected, followed by a kick, followed by drive until ball detected in parallel with wait for 2 second kick retract. It was very easy to move those around as needed. We had no problems with WPILib. We used Jaguars for most things with PWM control. Programming computers were team supplied. The only sensor we used in competition was an analog current sensor on our ball herder to detect when a ball was captured. We played with the vision system and had it tracking at home, but didn't have a chance to integrate it into the rest of our code. We used the tracking part without modification, but changed the auto-aiming to fit the rest of the structure of our code. We had 4 wheel, 4 CIM motor drive, with two pneumatic tires and 2 omni-wheels. Frame was aluminum tube, welded. Almost all fabrication was manual. Kicker was completely pneumatic using a pre-charged cylinder. We did hang, from the top bar There are no wenches on our team or robot (no winches either). We used a lead screw powered by a CIM to hang. We had a single powered roller on top, and an un-powered roller on the bottom that the ball spun against. We did a custom LabVIEW dashboard, but we only used a little for debugging, and not really in a match. We only used the kit joysticks. After having problems with the provided hub during build season, we bought our own USB hub. We did not use the cypress. Most of the problems that I helped other teams with were with loose wires, so make sure everything is tight, and that you periodically check your wires, especially in a high impact game like breakaway. |
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
Quote:
Quote:
In the 2010 FRC LabVIEW framework, all user-created periodic tasks have the same priority, and they are preemptively time-slice multitasked by the O/S. Running these periodic tasks at a reasonable rate, as you suggested, frees up the CPU so that it should have enough throughput to service all the tasks you need, no? ~ |
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
Programming
What language did they use? C++ Threaded code or just poll in the teleop loop? We just did everything sequentially in the TeleopPeriodic calls from WPILib. Did they do something in autonomous? If so, what worked? Our auto mode was set up so you could select a "main" and secondary function. Main functions included : - Far Zone, Kick 3, With Bounce - Far Zone, Kick 3, No Bounce - Mid Zone, Kick 2, Straight on' - Mid Zone, Kick 2, From Angle - Near Zone, Wait and plow - Do Nothing Secondary Functions Included: - Cross Bump and kick (5 ball mode) - Cross Bump and wait - Cross 2 bumps - Block the tunnel - Back up and drive to center of field (to steal opponents missed shots) - Do Nothing The secondary functions were smart enough to know what to do based on the first function... so 'Block the tunnel' worked from the far zone and the middle zone without having to explicitly tell it to. Everything worked. We kicked 5 balls in auto many times and made 3 from the far zone a few times. What problems did you encounter, if any, with WPILib? None. It seemed solid. Did you download the sources and rebuild WPILib/CanJaguarLib? No. CAN or PWM control? PWM. We only used IFI Victor speed controllers. Did you use the Classmate for programming your robot or student/school supplied computers? We did not use the classmate for development. Robot Design What sensors were used? - Encoder on drive for distance measurement/control - Yaw gyro for angular control and "drive straight" correction - Pitch gyro for controlling the autonomous bump traversal - Encoder on kicker to control winch for multi-distance kicks - Encoder on ball grabber to sense when we had control of a ball - Multiple limit switches on hanging arm used for controlling deployment and automatically starting/stopping the hanging Did you use the vision system? No. What drive system? 8 wheel drive. 4" cantilevered wheels. 2 speed (w/ neutral) + power take off drive gearbox How many motors? 4 CIM to drive. These were also used to hang and self right (which was never used) 1 CIM for kicker winch 1 FP + clutch for ball grabber What material was used for the frame (Aluminum, steel, unobtanium)? 6061 Alum How did they control the ball? Pincher roller with high torque clutch on top roller. Energy storage for kicker (elastic, pneumatic, motor driven, etc.)? Trampoline springs. Winch driven by CIM with ratchet and pawl. Dog gear + piston release. How did you cut your parts (water jet, LASER, mill, hand tools,etc.)? Most plates initially cut on water jet, finished on CNC mill. CNC mill used for most everything else. Did you hang? If so, what wenching approach did you use? Vertical bar. Used power take off from drive for lift with ratchet+pawl to keep suspension. The Driver Station Did you reprogram your dashboard code? Yes. We just added a bunch of indicators to push out sensor values for quick debugging. We used the legacy driver station console lines to print out info about and select our auto mode. Did you use external controls beyond your joysticks? We used analog joysticks for the driver and 100% custom controls for the operator. Everything ran through the cypress board. Any problems in getting the USB to behave? Sometimes the cypress board would not be recognized by the DS software and we would have to restart the computer or restart the CyProgMini (or whatever) windows service to get it to work. Also, after a restart the cypress board would lose its configuration data. If we did not start the robot AFTER the driver station was up and running, the correct I/O configuration (which was set from the robot) would not get pushed to the board, and everything would default to a floating input. This one was particularly tricky to figure out. Did you use any unusual controls like WiiMotes, XBox controllers, etc.? No. Did you feel that the Classmate was fast enough? Not at all. Boot up times were terrible. We wasted so much time waiting for things to boot and sync. |
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
Quote:
We have a policy of integrating sensors into our design. We try to automate the more direct robot control functions to allow the driver and operator to focus on driving, which generally means the fewest button presses necessary to perform a task. We generally don't do much based on time, but some functions have (e.g. a double-action claw in 2007 would trigger the upper claw 10ms after the lower one, and the roller on this robot would kill the roller after 5 iterations after collection and reset after 20 iterations). |
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
I guess I could post for my team, though I really don't know all the details. I'll answer what I can. Most of my answers will be quick.
Programming: What language did they use? LabVIEW at Kettering and MSC, C++ at Wayne State and the Championship. That's right, we had two completely different, functional codes from different programming environments. We decided to try something different this year with such a huge programming team. Threaded code or just poll in the teleop loop? I have no idea what this means, though I wrote basically all of the LabVIEW code. Sorry... Did they do something in autonomous? If so, what worked? We had many autonomous modes. We have scored from all three zones, and have started out in all three zones in eliminations. It really helped out to have so many autonomous modes. There were major differences between the autonomous modes in C++ and in LabVIEW, but they were meant to do the same thing. What problems did you encounter, if any, with WPILib? No problems. Did you download the sources and rebuild WPILib/CanJaguarLib? No. CAN or PWM control? PWM control. Did you use the Classmate for programming your robot or student/school supplied computers? We used our own computers. Using the classmate would have been just terrible. Robot Design: NOTE: I was not involved with the robot build. I am a programmer, and definitely not an expert. I'll try to answer these questions based on what I know, which was gathered from working in the pits or with the practice robot. What sensors were used? Encoders on the left and right drive, and potentiometers on the kicker and the arm. One yaw rate gyro that was especially useful in auton. No limit switches. We had a camera that we never used. Did you use the vision system? No. If so, what modifications did you have to make to the code? N/A What drive system? Wheels? 8 wheel tank, front and back four wheels were smaller and raised. How many motors? 4 CIM Drive 2 FP motors for the kicker and arm 2 Window - one for the roller and the other for the shifter, to kick and to shift into arm mode. What material was used for the frame (Aluminum, steel, unobtanium)? Water-jetted sheet aluminum. Don't know the specs. How did they control the ball? Pincher, with a static bottom bar and a top roller attached to a belt that slips when a ball is being possessed, but still applies torque to the ball. Energy storage for kicker (elastic, pneumatic, motor driven, etc.)? Tempered garage door spring. How did you cut your parts (water jet, LASER, mill, hand tools,etc.)? Our frame is waterjetted. Did you hang? Yes. If so, what wenching approach did you use? We used four 200 pound gas struts, and a block and tackle. We wound up the mechanism before every match and used the stored energy to elevate the robot. The Driver Station Did you reprogram your dashboard code? Yes. However, we never ended up using the new dashboard. Did you use external controls beyond your joysticks? No. Any problems in getting the USB to behave? Yes. Eventually we decided to plug our controllers directly into the Classmate, as there were enough USB ports to do so. Did you use any unusual controls like WiiMotes, XBox controllers, etc.? Well we have used only Logitech gamepads for the last couple years. No fancy controllers. We don't even use joysticks anymore. Did you feel that the Classmate was fast enough? We hated the Classmate. The one FIRST gave us decided to crash during two matches at Wayne State, disabling us for the rest of those matches. And the bootup time was way too slow. Anything else? We had a lot of problems this year. There were a whole lot of issues we had to face in order to come out on top. But those problem solving steps were part of what makes FIRST Robotics so fun. Any techniques that you feel might be beneficial to others in the future? Well we scouted a lot. Our scouting team is huge and that definitely impacted how we did at our competitions. I'm sorry that my answers were so short, but hopefully this gives some insight into Team 67. |
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
I have most of these questions answered from team 25.
Programming: What language did they use? We used C/C++, with the provided WindRiver Licenses Did they do something in autonomous? If so, what worked? We attempted to have enough versatility to score from all zones. We had an onboard switch and up to 7 auto modes programmed to do so. What problems did you encounter, if any, with WPILib? We had a couple of problems while working with encoders. We got some code errors referring to the directory in WPILib. We ended up giving up on encoders, and working with other sensors. You'll see our big problems recorded here: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/se...archid=2951632 Did you download the sources and rebuild WPILib/CanJaguarLib? We only had the updated version of WPILib to work with. Any new version we could get, we immediately refreshed our libraries with it. CAN or PWM control? PWMs. We did not use Jaguars at all this year, and only worked with PWMs and Victors. Did you use the Classmate for programming your robot or student/school supplied computers? We used a combination of an old school laptop, and a generously donated laptop to work with our programming. We found that the older one just wouldn't let us connect a drivers station, a CRio, and a laptop simultaneously. Robot Design: What sensors were used? We used two different kinds of sensors. One photogate sensor was placed in the front of our robot to sense a ball. A limit switch was attached to a gear driven bolt for our kicker, to sense if it was winded up or not (our kicker was winded by two window motors to store energy from surgical tubing). And a last limit switch for our hanger which we added later on in the season, to sense if our pull up was at its limit. Did you use the vision system? No, we felt it would be too tedious a job after the trouble we went through last year, especially with the lack of the classic bright green light :D What drive system? Tank Drive. 6 wheels. The middle ones are not lowered, but we find turning is a breeze anyway. Wheels? We use skyway wheels that we tread ourselves at school. This year we had to replace a couple because we ended up shredding the rubber after two regionals :rolleyes: How many motors? 4 CIMs for the drives 2 Window motors to wind up the kicker 1 worm-gear driven CIM motor for our hanger 2 Fisher-Price motors for our fans 2 servo pin brakes How did they control the ball? We used two RC Propeller blades in an air duct to pull air through the robot. We found we could suck in a ball anywhere 10 - 12 inch radius of the opening in the front. It helped with catching them in the corners. Energy storage for kicker (elastic, pneumatic, motor driven, etc.)? Elastic. Surgical Tubing. How did you cut your parts (water jet, LASER, mill, hand tools,etc.)? Some parts we cut with hand tools, drills, bandsaws etc. Mostly with stuff you find in any high school wood shop. Nothing fancy. Did you hang? Yes, we hung from the side bar. If so, what wenching approach did you use? Side bar. We had to hook onto the side bar, and pull ourselves up. The Driver Station Did you reprogram your dashboard code? nope Did you use external controls beyond your joysticks? Nope, this year we used three of the Logitech joysticks. Any problems in getting the USB to behave? Except for the provided stop button annoying us in Atlanta, no problems Did you use any unusual controls like WiiMotes, XBox controllers, etc.? no, we deprive our drivers of that luxury ;) Did you feel that the Classmate was fast enough? We found the reset times excruciatingly long during build season, but learned to adapt. Anything techniques? When we cut out parts for our robot, we find it easiest to print out actual size CADs of the parts, and stick them on to our material. This way our measurements are exact, as they are from full sized CADs. Gives us nice lines to follow when cutting, and saves us measuring time. I'm not sure if other teams do it as well, but it's great for us. "Lessons learned" We thought this year's design, and build process went fairly well, though haunted with some programming bumps in the road. I hope this helps, please let me know if you have any questions or if I was unclear about anything. |
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
Well we were a division finalist, so I thought you may want our info :)
Programming: What language did they use? LabVIEW Threaded code or just poll in the teleop loop? I do believe it was a teleop loop. I'm not 100% sure though. Did they do something in autonomous? If so, what worked? In Autonomous we shot balls from all 3 zones; we had an autonomous for each zone, and a "sit" autonomous. The modes would tension the kicker, activate the magnet, and kick based on the amount of balls that were in the zone. We found it beneficial to pre-tension the kicker to save time. CAN or PWM control? PWM Did you use the Classmate for programming your robot or student/school supplied computers? We use a combination of team and personal laptops. The team laptop contains the master code, while the student laptops contain the code in which they are working on. Robot Design: What sensors were used? Encoders on the drive system (was not used), limit switches for the kicker and arm release, and a pot for the tensioner. Did you use the vision system? No. What drive system? Wheels? 4 Wheel tank drive. 2 Pneumatic wheels in front, 2 omnis in back. How many motors? 2 CIMs for drive system 1 CIM for winch 2 Window motors for kicker system 2 Fisher Price for magnet and arm release What material was used for the frame (Aluminum, steel, unobtanium)? C channel steel. How did they control the ball? Single roller on top. Energy storage for kicker (elastic, pneumatic, motor driven, etc.)? Variable tension surgical tubing kicker How did you cut your parts (water jet, LASER, mill, hand tools,etc.)? Hand tools, mill, lathe. Did you hang? Yes. If so, what wenching approach did you use? Used a compressed air strut to raise arm, winch and pulley to raise robot, arm falls once winch is engaged. The Driver Station Did you reprogram your dashboard code? No. Did you use external controls beyond your joysticks? No. Any problems in getting the USB to behave? No. Did you use any unusual controls like WiiMotes, XBox controllers, etc.? 3 Logitech Joysticks. Did you feel that the Classmate was fast enough? The drivers had mixed feelings about it. We did however purchase one with a larger screen (as compared to the KOP one), which may have had a faster processor and battery. The camera functionality was useful when we had one. Anything else? We found that designing and prototyping should always be your first steps. Also that it doesn't take professionally made parts to make a good robot. Strategy is also your greatest aide in competition. Any techniques that you feel might be beneficial to others in the future? Plan, learn, improve, scout, strategize, and have fun! |
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
Quote:
|
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
Quote:
|
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
We were 5th seed on Archimedes...
Programming: What language did they use? C++ Threaded code or just poll in the teleop loop? We divided the code into a number of different robot subsystems, each of which was called from {Autonomous,Teleop}Periodic. As much code as possible was shared between teleop and autonomous. Did they do something in autonomous? If so, what worked? We implemented an autonomous virtual machine which gave us the ability to quickly code many different autonomous modes for all 3 zones, and add more as the season progressed. We had around 20 programs ranging from "kick 5 balls" to "kick 3 and head for the center of the far zone" to "kick 2 balls then block the tunnel". Of the 20 we regularly ran about 5. I don't think we ever started in the near zone in any of our matches so far so there are several programs we never tried at a competition. We also had the ability to program a whole number of seconds delay before the autonomous program ran, which proved to be useful on a couple of occasions to make sure we were not in the way of our alliance partners. We used the 5 ball autonomous a lot at GSR and in NC. In Atlanta with a very capable field of robots we did not need it, but were still crossing the bump in autonomous when necessary for match strategy. What problems did you encounter, if any, with WPILib? None Did you download the sources and rebuild WPILib/CanJaguarLib? Downloaded the source for reference, did not rebuild WPILib. Did rebuild the CAN code so that it did not mind what firmware version number came back from the Jaguars as all of our Jags were returning the same (very) wrong number. Kept up to date with new releases. CAN or PWM control? CAN. No problems once we upgraded to the v89 firmware. We had 7 Jaguars on the CANbus. Did you use the Classmate for programming your robot or student/school supplied computers? We did not use the Classmate for programming. Robot Design: What sensors were used? Encoders, limit switches, current sensing via the Jaguars, gyro. Did you use the vision system? We wrote aiming code but decided that ball pickup was harder than aiming the robot so we used the camera solely for video feedback to the drivers. If so, what modifications did you have to make to the code? What drive system? 4 CIMs, AndyMark 2 speed transmissions, pneumatic shift. Wheels? 9" pneumatic at the front, dual omnis at the back. How many motors? 9 motors What material was used for the frame (Aluminum, steel, unobtanium)? Alumimum How did they control the ball? "Active shepherding" units to guide the ball into a suction cup. Energy storage for kicker (elastic, pneumatic, motor driven, etc.)? Compression springs. How did you cut your parts (water jet, LASER, mill, hand tools,etc.)? Some parts were made on a mill and lathe. Most of the robot was made using hand and power tools. Did you hang? No If so, what wenching approach did you use? The Driver Station Did you reprogram your dashboard code? Yes Did you use external controls beyond your joysticks? No Any problems in getting the USB to behave? Not once we replaced the KoP hub Did you use any unusual controls like WiiMotes, XBox controllers, etc.? Gamepad for kicker control Did you feel that the Classmate was fast enough? Yes, once we replaced the default dashboard code :) Anything else? Any techniques that you feel might be beneficial to others in the future? |
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
Quote:
|
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
Quote:
|
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
Oh rly? How'd I miss that o_o ?
|
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
Programming:
Robot Design:
The Driver Station
Any techniques that you feel might be beneficial to others in the future?: Secure the CAN bus cables. During one match a stray wire or hose depressed a tap allowing the cable to come out. Also, during the Newton finals we had watchdog errors most likely because a CAN bus cable (still secured by its tab) had come out slightly. Quote:
|
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
Well, I'm looking for trends. What do many of these teams have in common? Essentially, if there are common characteristics for these top teams, then this is something that others might like to know to improve for future competitions.
For instance, I was not aware of the whole mechanum wheel thing. Seeing that only 1-2 teams have ever made it to the finals with mechanum wheels should give a robot design team some cause for pause. It's not that a superior design won't prevail, but perhaps starting out with mechanum may not be a good idea when facing a challenge like Breakaway. We've been getting some great responses so far. I'm on the road at the moment. So, when I get back home, I'll start collating the data and get some preliminary information back to the group. Thanks and keep the data coming! Mike |
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
Here are the drivetrain trends. I see a trend for skid steers. I left blank information that I either didn't know or couldn't find.
2010 67 – 8 WD long 177 – 8 WD long (articulated is sets of two, front and back) 294 - 6WD long 2009 67 - 6WD wide 111 - 4 wheel crab (non-coaxial), wide 971 - 6WD wide 2008 1114 - 6WD long 217 - 6WD long 148 - three-wheeled crab (coaxial), nonagon-shaped robot 2007 177 - 6WD long 987 - 6WD long 190 - 6WD long 2006 217 - 6WD long 522 - Treads, long 296 - 2WD long, Omnis in front 2005 67 - three-wheeled crab (non-coaxial). Flop bot. 330 - 6WD long 503 – 4WD long, omniwheels in rear 2004 71 - 4WD long 494 - 4WD long 435 - 2WD long, with casters in front 2003 111 - Four-wheeled non-coaxial crab (with dropdown skid for turning) 469 – 4WD Long 65 - 4WD Wide 2002 71 - 4WD flop bot with casters in front 173 - 4WD long 66 – 4WD long 2001 71 - ? 294 - ? 125 - ? 365 - ? 279 - ? 2000 255 - ? 232 - ? 25 - ? 1999 176 - 4WD long w/ Omnis in front 1 - tank treads, long 48 – 4WD, long 1998 45 – 4WD long with Omnis in front. 1997 71 - ? 1996 73 - ? 1995 100 - ? 1994 144 - ? 1993 148 - ? 1992 126 - ? (I just compiled the information from this thread http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=77412) |
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
2001
71 - ? 294 - 4WD-long. And still functioning today! :-D 125 - ? 365 - ? 279 - ? |
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
Programming:
What language did they use? C++ Did they do something in autonomous? If so, what worked? 1: Start far, kick 3 (no bounce) 2: Start far, kick 3 (with bounce) 3: Start far, kick 3 (no bounce), go over bump 4: Start far, kick 3 (with bounce), go over bump 5: Start mid, kick 2 6: Start mid, kick 2, back up, turn toward center 7: Start near, kick 1 8: Start near, plow into net 9: Start near, kick 1, back up, pause 5 sec, move forward, kick anything in path In all modes we used current sensing to detect the ball and set the maximum distance. This was enormously helpful as we could easily adjust the starting position of the robot and distance from the ball without having to worry. We used mode 1 and 3 the most. CAN or PWM control? CAN. We had some trouble with the tan jaguars losing their identity, but fixed those with a patch. It definitely cleans up wiring, but you MUST ensure the wires are secure. If you lose 1, you lose them all! This is why we didn't move in the 2nd match of Newton finals. We're talking about using PWM for drive and CAN for auxiliary for next year. Did you use the Classmate for programming your robot or student/school supplied computers? The team recently purchased a dedicated programming laptop. Robot Design: What sensors were used? Jaguar current sensing for the intake roller, encoders on left and right drive train, encoder for kicker winch system, 2 limit switches for kicker zero and kicker max. Did you use the vision system? Yes! - but not the way you would think. We mounted our camera below our bumper so we could see behind those pesky bumps. It was especially helpful in the far end of the field. It also helped us see directly below the drivers station. What drive system? 6WD with a 0.100" lowered center wheel. The center wheel was driven directly and the front/back by a single loop of chain. Wheels? 7" traction wheels - Thank you Northrop Grumman! How many motors? Drive: 4 CIMs Intake: 1 CIM Kicker winch: 2 FP Pneumatics: 2 for 2 speed transmission, 1 for ratchet release What material was used for the frame (Aluminum, steel, unobtanium)? Welded aluminum. Mostly 1/16" wall, but 1/8" where we needed it. How did they control the ball? Pincher design with friction clutch and center back stop. We pulled balls away from many teams - including 1114 and 1902. Energy storage for kicker (elastic, pneumatic, motor driven, etc.)? flat elastic pulled back by winch and released by ratchet. How did you cut your parts (water jet, LASER, mill, hand tools,etc.)? Hand, band saw, mill, lathe, water jet, CNC mill Did you hang? No. The Driver Station Did you reprogram your dashboard code? Not to my knowledge. Did you use external controls beyond your joysticks? We had a heads up LED display, but no external controls Anything else? Any techniques that you feel might be beneficial to others in the future? Ensure you have a battery load tester. While we tested our batteries in the lab (plotting the full drain of the battery), having a battery load tester in the pits is crucial. We disposed of 3 batteries after the championship because they were beyond their life! We couldn't climb over the bump during the finals in LA because of bad batteries. |
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
1986: Curie #3 seed and finalist
Programming: What language did they use? Labview Threaded code or just poll in the teleop loop? huh? Did they do something in autonomous? If so, what worked? We could score all balls in any single zone from any position. Same basic program for each zone, just changed aim angle (robot orientation), kick strength, and number of kicks for each position. Our swerve drive allowed us to advance to each ball and maintain proper aim angle. Good success rate. We scored 3 several times. What problems did you encounter, if any, with WPILib? None CAN or PWM control? PWM Did you use the Classmate for programming your robot or student/school supplied computers? Other computers Robot Design: What sensors were used? Potentiometer on kicker pivot to measure drawback Magnetic encoder (KOP) on swerve steering to give absolute wheel orientation Horizontal gyro to measure robot orientation Verticle gyro to measure tilt on bumps and provide input to bump auto-pilot Magnetic switch on kicker cylinder to sense extend position Microswitches on ball magnet roller to signal ball possession Did you use the vision system? Tried to for autonomous. Gave up on it...too slow. We had momentary vision aiming that the driver could use on demand. If so, what modifications did you have to make to the code? I don't know that. What drive system? 4 wheel crab/swerve, CIM motors within the modules. Wide format. Wheels? 6" AM Plactions. How many motors? 4 CIMS - drive, 1 CIM - steering, 1 FP w/ modified gearbox - ball magnet roller What material was used for the frame (Aluminum, steel, unobtanium)? 3" aluminum C-channel, .875 dia x .055 wall aluminum tubing How did they control the ball? Foam pool noodle ball magnet roller, spin the ball against the carpet. Worked well. Energy storage for kicker (elastic, pneumatic, motor driven, etc.)? Pneumatic retract with elastic kick. We could release the kicker at any point of drawback which provided infinitely variable kick strength. This proved to be very advantagous. How did you cut your parts (water jet, LASER, mill, hand tools,etc.)? Water jet, mill, bandsaw Did you hang? No. We chose to keep scoring goals. The Driver Station Did you reprogram your dashboard code? Yes Did you use external controls beyond your joysticks? Yes, we duplicated several pushbottun functions that were also on the joystick so either driver could do them. Kicker strength throttle pot. was external from the joystick. Any problems in getting the USB to behave? Yes, often. I/O board and sometimes joystick would loose connection. Did you use any unusual controls like WiiMotes, XBox controllers, etc.? No. Joystick, pushbuttons, potentiometer. We did have an audible buzzer that signaled ball possession. Did you feel that the Classmate was fast enough? No. Anything else? Any techniques that you feel might be beneficial to others in the future? Facing our goals at all times with a crab drive was a big advantage for us. |
Summary: Top Team statistics!
Hi Gang!
Preface OK, thanks to all those folks who responded. I started this thread to see if there were any common characteristics of the teams that experienced a modicum of success in this year's competition. By asking a series of questions (next year I'll try SurveyMonkey instead), I tried to gather some info to determine what might give a team some guidance as to what technologies they should try to come up to speed on. Obviously, there was no control group or attempt to be a rigorous scientific survey. The sample size was way too small for that to be sure. This is because many teams just stop paying attention after the build season comes to a close. In this effort, I was just trying to get a feel for where folks found success that we all could learn from. Results I've collated the responses and here they are: The language in use was pretty evenly split between C/C++ and Labview with 58% using C/C++. None of the respondents used Java. Only a couple of teams knew what threads were. The Labview code uses threads internally. But, only 20% of the respondents were using threaded techniques consciously. Given the move to multi-core processors in the embedded industry, knowing what a thread is and how to use it is pretty important. As mentors, we should probably do something about this knowledge gap... All of the respondents operated in autonomous mode and the majority scored in this mode. Many had multiple "plays" that they could run from different field positions. The majority used closed loop encoders to determine position from a known starting point. Most of the respondents had little or no trouble with WPILib functionality. However, a couple of teams did rebuild the library and fix minor nits. Nonetheless, many commented on the poor documentation and lack of examples of the WPILib services. 66% of the teams used PWM for motor controls. Of those that used CAN, the biggest concern was losing a CAN cable lost the entire CAN bus from that point forward in the chain. However, the current sensor capability on the CAN-enabled Jaguars was used by several teams for ball detection. No one used the ClassMate for development. In general, the comments indicated that the ClassMate had issues with lengthy reboot times, USB connectivity problems and an inability to keep up with the data that was being thrown at it. Most development was done on personal laptops or school-provided PCs. As for sensors, the general trends were for the use of closed-loop control of robot position and speed. Wheel encoders were used by most teams (70%). Only 25% of the respondents used gyros. None reported use of accelerometers. There were limit switches used for the hang feature and broken-beam sensors for detecting the ball. No, IR or SONAR ranging was used. The respondents were split evenly on the use of the vision subsystem. Of the half that used it, it was not used for continuous video. In fact, it was only used sporadically to confirm target was aligned or to see balls when the robot was out of direct sight of the driver. The half that did not use the vision system sited it as being slow and having too many bugs for reliable use. 1 respondent did try to fix some of the issues. The favored drive systems seemed to be split between 6WD (33%) and 4WD (33%). There were a couple of 8WD and 1 crab/swerve drive robot. Remarkably, many teams mixed wheel types on their robot. Plaction and Omni were used in conjunction with each other and with pneumatic. Only one respondent used mechanum. One used slick and one use skyway wheels. 66% of the teams used 4 CIM motors to drive the robot. Window motors and FP motors were used for kickers, vacuums, and the roller/pincher assemblies. One team actually had *9* motors on their bot. The most common frame material was definitely aluminum with only 8% saying that they used a steel frame. Likely due to its scarcity, unobtanium was not used by any team ;) . Issues of welding aluminum meant that teams using aluminum had to have access to experienced aluminum fab facilities or aluminum welders. 66% of the respondents had access to sophisticated water jet or CNC milling equipment to cut their parts. The rest used a hand mill/lathe or hand tools. All of the teams used small hand tools such as band saws etc for smaller parts. 75% of respondents used some sort of ball roller or pincher to control the ball. 25% used a vacuum of some sort with one using a ducted-fan assembly from RC airplanes. I didn't think about that possibility.... 50% used elastic tubing or sheets for their kicker. 30% used springs of some sort and the rest used a pneumatic kicking assembly. 50% of the respondents said that their robot hung during competition. Of those, 33% used worm gear or screw drive and the rest used a winch of some sort. 60% reworked the dashboard code in some way. One completely replaced it commenting on the lack of speed of the default code as an issue. Another rewrote the code to be able to collect performance data for pit analysis. 60% did not use any external controls beyond the joystick. Of those that did use external controls, problems with Windows drivers, hot plug issues and Cypress board going off line problems were commonly reported. Joysticks and Logitech gamepads were the most common control in use. What? No VI gloves? A couple of teams added additional instrumentation to their robots in the form of bright LEDs to inform the drivers that the target was aligned, kicker was in position or a ball was in possession. As for the ClassMate, then general feeling comments were: 1) It took too long to boot. This made it difficult to prepare for the match, or recover in the case that the Cypress unit failed or the FMS failed. 2) The Windows O/S crashed during matches. 3) The USB drivers for the Cypress board were unreliable. Plugging and unplugging wouldn't fix connectivity issues with the Cypress. So much for plug and play. 4) The KOP USB hub was buggy and many teams replaced it. Thoughts Naturally, some of these results may be simple correlation and not have a direct cause/effect relationship. Still it was interesting to look at. If I had to try to draw any conclusions, I'd say that teams should spend some time coming to grips with closed-loop control systems (e.g., for motor control) and aluminum metal working techniques. Many, but not all, of the respondents had access to sophisticated metal cutting techniques. But, hand tools were the rule of the day in the final assembly. This means that we, as mentors, really need to take the time to show the students how best to use these tools safely and effectively. As to whether you should spend your time learning C++ or Labview, 60% were using C/C++ and the rest were Labview. None of the respondents were using Java. Considering all of the noise made by the WPI folks over the introduction of a Java version of the WPILib, I'm somewhat surprised. But, maybe it's too early to make that judgment at this point. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions on the language. The ClassMate was pretty much reviled. It was too slow, required *forever* to boot and suffered from significant USB driver issues. Maybe it was a Windows thing trying to get too much code on a slow processor. But, the netbook market is pretty vibrant and lots of folks are using them. So, I,m not sure if the speed of the ClassMate, the amount of memory, the O/S, or the FLASH storage was the problem. But, clearly, there's a problem. The other clear output of this exercise is that FIRST teams are very resourceful and imaginative. I saw some very sophisticated drive mechanisms at the competitions -- many of which actually worked ;). Whether you go for the complex or the simple, there's just nothing like seeing your team's robot go rolling across the field under your control. And, the teamwork that has to happen to deal with the unexpected is nothing short of inspiring. Thanks and good luck in the future, Mike |
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
Interesting results.
For what it's worth, though 2791 isn't a top 20 team, we programmed in Java this year and had no code bugs throughout competition. We even had a consistent (albeit extremely simple) autonomous. I think the Top 20 teams just have mentors and student teams already trained in the old languages. Do consider though how much of that is simple correlation rather than causation. Some stuff (like sensor-driven autonomous modes being more successful) would probably be correct though. |
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
Good point on causality vs correlation. I added a comment to the post to that effect.
As for Java, I suspect that few wanted to be the guinea pigs on Java in the first year out. I know a few teams who did try it successfully. I'll add your team to that list. In the embedded programming space, many of us look at Java as a great way to generate a GUI, but not as something targeting real-time controls due to memory issues, garbage collection delays, inability to access physical devices directly (e.g., no pointers) etc. That being said, the real-time Java folks have been able to get millisecond accuracy for a significant number of applications. That's likely more than fast enough for anything we're doing with FIRST. Thanks, Mike |
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
Quote:
|
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
Back when this thread was started, I wasn't sure if you guys would consider 3357 a "top 20" team. We were picked by the #1 alliance of Teams 254 and 233 on Archimedes. With the help of these awesome teams, we won our division.
At any rate, I thought I'd share our statistics. Programming:
Robot Design:
The Driver Station
I did not feel the classmate was fast enough, and may have caused several communication problems on field. |
Re: Statistics on top 20 teams?
I'm not qualified to answer any of the detailed questions on their behalf, but I can share that 1114 used Java this year, and their programmers told me they were happy with it and would use it again.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:16. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi