Addressing the scoring pegs
 

Have you guys come up with regular ways of addressing the scoring pegs? Off the bat we've been using A-F for columns and 1-3 for rows, but we were thinking it might make more sense to address the columns by right/left grid as well as triangle/circle/square column.

IMO, it's pretty important to get this standardized right away, just because I foresee feeders having to signal these addresses to drivers across the field in a pinch, and they may not necessarily be on the same team as each other.

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

What about them are you asking about addressing?

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

I would think that the coach/drivers should be signaling the feeder what they want, not the feeder telling them where to put things.

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

Their position, as in a grid.

Things that would need to be standardized are:

Their horizontal position
Their vertical position
Where do you start? Top left? Bottom left? Whose perspective?

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

as in, a way of providing each scoring pin with an address to reference them by.

well, yeah. the feeder might have a better view of the grid than the driver, though, but of course the opposite could easily be true as well.

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

We had the same thought. We thought about using this approach with having an Analyst. I drew up a quick diagram with the letters across the top, the numbers down the side, and the preferred symbol grayed out in the box. That way the Analyst, who can be keeping track of what game pieces have been played can say "We need a white circle in B1." We thought we would label them A-F from left to right as the teams are looking at the field. I will do a mock up of the form shortly.

Steve

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

So are you referring to the fact that the manual does not specify what the heights of the pegs are at all? I mean it says adjacent pegs will not vary by more than 8 inches, but that's a lot of potential variance and we cannot build an accurate field or array of pegs without knowing the height of the pegs. Also, would it be the same between different events?

I think that they want to get more teams using the camera to locate field elements, such as the reflective tape. Our programmers seemed confident they could do this, but integrating the hanging of a tube with the recognition of the reflective tape will still present a challenge.

If they don't change the heights at all at individual events or between events, we could find heights that work and stick to those...

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

Agreed. We are planning on putting lights on the robot to indicate which one we want.

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

yeah, exactly. the role of the analyst almost alludes to having to set up something like this.

other things to consider: is 3 the bottom, or the top, which would be more consistent with the scoring? is 6 letters too many to mentally sort while you're in the middle of driving (hence breaking it up into L/R grid as well)?



indeed -- we were going to try this as well (assuming they don't somehow make it illegal, but i don't see how they could or why they would)

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

Good question. While the scoring amounts could be used to reference the row, since we're not calling it "the 3 point row" I think that it would be ok to call the top row "1" - but am okay with it either way.

As to the letters, it is probably because I am a (very) frequent flier - A to F works for me, since that is the standard lettering designation on six seat rows!

Steve

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

Good thoughts. As far as human player-to-coach communication, some sort of sign(s) might be useful. Lunacy (with much simpler communication) had problem enough with less obscured vision.

If we're talking alliance station communication, my initial thought was "Left 1-3" and "Right 1-3". Less ambiguous, but longer to say. A-F seems good too, and likely not too much to process. Frequent fliers or not, most English speakers know without thinking that the first 3 letters are A, B and C. That splits it in half, leaving only 3 choices each again.

As for heights, I'd imagine low/mid/high or bottom/mid/top would catch on quickly. Not sure I understand the need to use numbers for those, especially if there's going to be hesitation on whether to count up or down.

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

You would be surprised how many people think their E seat is MY aisle seat! :)

As for "low/med/high" I agree doesn't have any ambiguity, but is saying "A high" or "b low" or "c medium" clear in the chaotic mess of a match? We tend to hear things like "b low" as "below" or "c medium" as "see medium", and may pause to say "below what?" or "see the what?" - where as "A1", etc ... registers as a matrix location, since it is an alphanumeric combination, rather than phonetic sounds. My thought was to supply a physical sheet with the matrix and symbols on it to every member of the alliance, so by the time the match starts everyone should be clear on the meanings. Having said that, I am still not married to this approach and would encourage other thoughts or ideas! I will post the document up in the morning and put a link on this thread so everyone that is interested can review and comment.

Thanks!

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

How about "High Circle Left" or "Low Square Right", assuming u exclusively wish to place pieces where they would help your alliance in completing a logo.

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

The NATO phonetic alphabet was developed to aid the transmission of lettered information over noisy radio comms. We have a simpler case to handle, but there are 18 pegs, so we wouldn't run out of letters. Just letter each one and say its name when you need to. Now who gets to set :yikes: the left-right-left-up-down-column-by-column sequence of names?

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

--

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

Get me a Whiskey Charlie for Kilo! :)

I've attached the draft Analyst-Coach Communication Guide. Let me know what you think!

Thanks!

Steve

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

That Whiskey will cost you more than a Euro, Charlie. Bravo of you to try, but Foxtrot outta here before I Golf you all the way to India! Whew! is it ever late!

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

Looks good, Steve.
What? No elevation for the "O"s? :) This is of course the "back" view of the scoring grid. I just think going all Cartesian coordinated on us is overkill. Label each spot and be done with it. If you want to start all the same column with a letter that relates to the shape that belongs there, just think up some more names that begin with the same letter as the shapes. "S" "C" "T" and as Tom Bergeron might have said "Circle gets the Square!"

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

Relative to the drivers:

[ Northwest ] [ North ] [ Northeast ]
[ West ] [ Central ] [ East ]
[ Southwest ] [ South ] [ Southeast ]

No need to think about what "high triangle" means, when "northeast" is much more intuitive.

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

If you were to state the elevation before the letters (Low, Mid, and High), then any letter after that would seem nonsensical enough in accompaniment with the elevation that it wouldn't be as easily confused. (LowC, LowB, and LowA sound less like words than CLow, Blow, and ALow, since they start with consonants).

It also would stay in the family of being easily recognizable to the drivers without needing to practice interpreting more complex grid coordinates.

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

I agree that NW, NE...etc is a good way to address the pegs.

Someone earlier asked if anyone knows the heights of the scoring pegs from the ground. If you compare to the field drawing, the first lines up with the bottom of the tube re-entry window, which would be 45" tall. The middle column is then up to 8 inches above that, so probably around 50-53ish ". You can't tell how far apart the actual pegs are from each other vertically, however, since a dimension is only given for 30" center to center of the support poles at the bottom. (horizontally). If the 30" center to center numbers applied to the scoring pegs as well, and the picture is drawn to scale, the top peg would be about 11 feet tall. :/

Does anyone know actual measurements for re-creating a field...?

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

By no means am I disagreeing with you, but I want you to consider the following scenario:

You are in a loud arena, there is music playing, and 10,000 screaming students. You are the Analyst tasked with helping coordinate the efforts of 3 teams. You are keeping track of every game piece played, and its location. You need to tell the coach of team 1234 that they need to retrieve a white circle from the human player. At this point the coach relays this information to the driver, who then sets their onboard lights to message the human player to pass the white circle through the feeder. At the same time, team 2345 is approaching the scoring area, and needs to be told to place the red triangle in the far right position of the left scoring grid. At the same time, team 3456 is scoring the blue square in the middle row of the right grid.

The analyst, in this scenario, has to do the following:
* anticipate what piece they will need the team to retrieve
* direct a team to the proper approach lane (while, hopefully, not causing a back up of two teams needing the same column)
* and identifying and recording what score just happened.

In some matches, this will be easy - but hopefully - (maybe on Einstein!) they will have to coordinate the accurate placement of 18 tubes in less than 1:45 minutes.

So, while I understand some ways will be less ambiguous than others, an easily learned, shorthand language, needs to be developed that becomes the standard across all teams - since I don't want to learn multiple languages!

"Blue on High A" to "Red to Low F" sounds ok to me too. It needs to be quickly understandable, unambiguous, and quick to say.

Assuming that 3 things are happening back to back, and 10 seconds later it starts all over again, what way do we communicate this info between Analysts, Coachs, Drivers and Human Players?

Steve

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

If think you've got this nailed. In line with that sentiment, I really don't think trying to invent an entirely new, no matter how streamlined and unambiguous is the way to go. When I'm in that box, I'd rather have something that everyone knows even if it's a bit less streamlined than something that would work really really well if everyone would just learn it. :P Thus, my goal here is more to guess what most teams will do naturally than to come up with something clever. I'm willing to bet that'll be numbered or lettered columns and some sort of high/mid/low rows with game pieces identified by color (simply because "circle" is a longer word than "white").

In 2007 (at least where I played), syntax really wasn't important. I doubt I'd notice the difference between "F Top! --uh, Red!" and "Red to Top F" with my drivers screaming at me, human player waving around like crazy for my attention, and alliance partner trying to disentangle their claw from our minibot deployer. ;)

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

Color,group,position.

As viewed from the drivers station:

-------Group 1-----------Group 2.
----1----2----3--------1----2----3
----4----5----6--------4----5----6
----7----8----9--------7----8----9

Examples:
A call from the strategist of "Red 26" would indicate that the right hand, middle row needed a triangle. and a "White 12" would be the left, top row needs a triangle.

All that needs to be communicated to the "Feeder" is the tube to hand out. 1,2,3===Red, White, Blue. This is simply done with fingers.

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

There are two feeders, so signal with right and left hands 1,2,3 to get the tubes you want? To be done by analyst, right? feeders must be able to track analyst through the placed tubes and any intervening robot activity. Analyst is not allowed in the opponents' feeder station area. Chose a Tall guy with BIG hands?!?

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

And L.......O......N........G arms!!

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

This makes the most sense.

[Triangle 3][Circle 3][Rectangle 3]
[Triangle 2][Circle 2][Rectangle 3]
[Triangle 1][Circle 1][Rectangle 3]

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

Which brings up another good point regarding standardization. Unless we can find a 7 - 8 foot tall basketball player, on every alliance, we just may need to approach this from another angle!

I would propose that each robot have a set of lights that can be used to signal the human player at the feeder station.
Blue light on, feed blue square tube
Red light on, feed red triangle tube
No lights on, feed white circle tube (I figured this would be better than having both lights on, in case one light was obstructed and the feeder fed the wrong tube.)

If teams don't read CD (heaven, forbid!), and adopts some standard communication practice, then the analyst would just have to deal with whatever the human player decides and go from there.

Thoughts?

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

You could look at the official drawings they have all the measurements.

From looking at them and building the posts in inventor the highest pegs are about 112" and 104" and the lowest pegs are about 40" and 32"

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

Cut out large shapes out of paper (around 10 inches), and glue them to cardboard/foam core/matte board. Cut out the shapes and attach a wrist band to the back of the board. Analysts can wear the shapes along their arm when not in use. When it's time to contact the Feeder, the Analyst takes off and holds up the right shape for the Feeder to see.

Making sure that the Feeder sees what shape is needed before the robot comes to pick it up will be key.

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

"Blue light on, but obstructed" appears the same as "no light on" to the FEEDER; you'll still get a wrong tube from time to time.

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

I know, I thought of that, too. I figured we could say to the feeder -

"If you don't see a light, take a second look from a different angle, if you can, and see if there is an obstruction first."

If they just saw a blue light, and the red was obstructed, I was concerned they wouldn't think twice about that and wouldn't take a second look.

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

The feeders will have to see any signals while robot approaches in the lane. At the window is too late as time will be lost trying to find the right/desired tube. Ideal situation is tube is projected from slot before robot gets there to take it. A good analyst will be able to have color for next time and the robot with this time grabs and leaves. Oh, and for both feeder sides.

then there's the matter of we ran out of that color, boss! what now? How does feeder feedback missing info? to whom? Standing order for absence or sequence? This feeder guy better not be what is called in the popular parlance a "bottom feeder!" :)

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

That's a good idea, especially for any teams that don't have some kind of on-board light indicator. I would think it would be preferable of the signal came on the robot, from the team driver, just so the Analyst doesn't have to look down, select the shape, then wave it until the Human player saw it - but that's not to say it couldn't be done that way. I think it would be good to have those shapes available for those other teams.

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

That's an interesting point, and a scenario that I'm sure may come up from time-to-time.

The feeder could possibly raise an arm or two arms, while giving the 'bot whatever color(s) they have left, just to indicate that they acknowledge the request, but had no tubes of the appropriate color left.

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

The analyst from our team will be carrying a clipboard with marker on a lanyard. S/he will cross out each of the nine shapes on each side of the field as they are passed or thrown out. that is, keep an inventory of which tubes are available. I'm hoping this will keep our alliance partners from random failures to get the "right" tube.

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

That should fall in line with the rule that goes along the lines of allowing you to bring a clipboard or other (non-powered) strategy device. I've only skimmed the rulebook once, but I'll have to go open it up to find this one. ::rtm::

EDIT: Here we go.

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

Have you found that lights are legal? Both my team and a sister team are thinking that using lights would be illegal as per R02 C and R15. We have started thinking about using something like a rotating card that had the three colors and only displayed one at a time, so that we wouldn't interfere with light sensors.

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

I would think the only thing we would have to worry about, would be <R02> C, and we would have to make sure the lights don't, in any way, mimic the vision targets. <R15> doesn't apply, since it wouldn't be a "non-functional" decoration. It would certainly have a designed function. I guess we should ask the GDC about R02, though.

Thanks!