Team Update #13
 

http://usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Rob...pdate%2013.pdf

Tower triggering clarification and Week 0 Observations

Re: Team Update #13
 

I'm really not a fan of the <R74> clarification. It limits innovation for no reason. 1075 has used the exact configuration described in several past FRC games, and experienced no problems, even going so far as to win a Rockwell Automation Innovation in Control award for it at the 2007 GTR.

I can understand limiting innovation for safety reasons, but theres no reason to outlaw a number of different ways to accomplish multi-position pneumatic control.

Re: Team Update #13
 

so we have solenoids controling air to other solenoids, is that a loophole? In reality the solenoid is controling the other solenoid not cylinders... Honestly First is really making this years game a game with exact robots and little variety. We based our whole arm lifting off of this! HELP OUR TEAM!

Re: Team Update #13
 

In regards to <G23>, does a tower include the pole AND the base, or only the metal pole?

Re: Team Update #13
 

From Section 1 -- Introduction:

Re: Team Update #13
 

It would be difficult to answer that question without knowing the details of why you are doing that.

Re: Team Update #13
 

"Remember that all parts of the ROBOT must fit in STARTING CONFIGURATION volume before the start of the MATCH, even if POSSESSING an UBERTUBE."

Can a tube be outside the starting volume?

Re: Team Update #13
 

A tube can be outside the starting volume as long as no parts of the robot are.

I.e., if your claw opens to hold a tube, and the claw open fits in Starting Configuration, it's okay even if your tube is out of it.

Re: Team Update #13
 

We were using that little trick, then we found out it was illegal. Center blocking valves are also illegal. The way we got around hte lack of air control was to use two small stroke cylinders instead of one long stroke. It took some mixing and matching to get it right, but it payed off.

I'll try and take picture of what we have through the bag if you want, but you can get the idea from this:

http://www.youtube.com/user/wilsonmw04?feature=mhum

Take this as a challange instead of a setback. It changed the way we approached this new problem. It turned out that this new system made control so much easier than what we had planned to do.

Re: Team Update #13
 

Maybe it's just a little late to be assigning new penalties?

Re: Team Update #13
 

From what i read above, I think they clarify this as illegal. I think people should ask less questions, technically we have one solenoid for that cylinder and another to feed the solenoid. It goes from the reservoir to a single solenoid (one output is sealed and the other goes to the...) then to a double solenoid. The singles control the air flow and the doubles control the direction of the motion.

How can they expect teams to fix the problem if they give out the change the day all robots need to be sealed? Ours was crated saturday and put in the shipping room. I wonder how many inspectors will read into that rule like that; a good speaker could easily explain how this particular two solenoid setup is legal.

Well it looks like we have to go talk to another team to order three more cylinders... good luck to the rest of you.

Edit: but still looking at the rule, it gave the example of cutting off the exhaust when we are cutting off all the air in general... "Rule <R74>... For example, one solenoid may not be used to provide pressurized air through one port of a cylinder while a second solenoid is used to close the exhaust port of that cylinder..."

Re: Team Update #13
 

Was your team planning on getting red and yellow cards in your strategy, and was counting on your alliance to not lose points when you did so?

And anyway, it's never too late to make the rules harsher, doesn't gracious professionalism say that you shouldn't try to break rules? Especially with red and yellow cards.

I think they added it to discourage teams from encouraging alliance partners from getting a yellow/red card if it's a "good cause"

Re: Team Update #13
 

Would it be fair to say that my team wasn't planning on having to actively discourage alliance partners from violating the recently-amended rules?

I can concede that in this sort of risk calculus, one should factor in the possibility that FIRST will change the rules—but knowing that something like this could be changed isn't at all the same as being enthusiastic when that change is made.

One could speculate that's roughly why they added it—to prevent teams from collaborating to employ a strategy where they break a pile of rules in their last qualifying match (and get carded for it), causing another team to drop in the standings, in exchange for getting picked by some other team in the elimination rounds. (Doing another team's dirty work.) I'd say that while this is probably a shady tactic that will earn the participating teams a whole lot of scorn, there's really no need to disincentivize it with half-measures like penalties—that only hurts the violator's alliance partners (who may well be completely uninvolved).

Or maybe they wanted to make sure that teams don't provoke their opponents into being carded (<G61> doesn't apply if there's no penalty). I see that sort of provocation as being a fairly legitimate strategy—because it's a team's own responsibility to avoid violations, irrespective of the trickery of their opponents.

But maybe the most likely case would be that FIRST simply overlooked that aspect of the penalty structure, and wanted to remedy the omission. In that case, maybe the lesson to be learned is to proofread early and often?


Basically, someone presumably made a determination that the benefits of amending the rules outweigh the detriments of subjecting teams to those same amendments at this point in the season. I don't really see a combination of circumstances that would justify a change with relatively little practical effect upon the behaviour of offenders, but which imposes additional burdens (relatively minor, though they may be) on the rest of the teams at this late date.

Edit: As updates go, this isn't really worth any outrage, and it's by no means one of the most significant rule changes in the history of FIRST. It's really only the inauspicious timing that makes it worth commenting upon—this is more than six weeks into the season, after all.

Re: Team Update #13
 

While I'm glad they added the penalties to the cards, I do not see a single situation where intentionally getting a yellow or red card is a good idea even before this update!

Re: Team Update #13
 

The number of rule changes, not just clarifications, so late in the process bothers me. It's not any rule in particular, just the magnitude of the changes.

A successful game needs to be easy. It need to be easy to understand, easy to play, easy to ref and easy on the rookies. I'm not seeing that this year.

When you get to your competition, give your refs and inspectors a hug. They will need it.

Find the rookie teams and see how they are doing. It will be especially hard on them this year.

I hope we will not look back on this game and rename it "Red Card"

Re: Team Update #13
 

There are a lot of "may" and conditional words...

The judges never looked fondly on our defensive robot last year and called us to the carpet on a lot of these wholly-subjective violations. Robots like Dragonfly can run into this problem.

Be nice to your judges.

Re: Team Update #13
 

woah wait.

<G23> Contact (via ROBOT or GAME PIECE) with the opposing ALLIANCE’S TOWERS is prohibited. Violation: PENALTY plus RED CARD

Am I reading it right to say that is anytime during the match?

Re: Team Update #13
 

No, <G23> still falls under the END-GAME part of the manual.

Re: Team Update #13
 

In short, no. That's not what Gracious Professionalism is about.

That said, adding a penalty for a yellow card action is not a bad idea necessarily. There have been situations where yellow card actions were the best move strategically...

Re: Team Update #13
 

I think the update is a response to feedback to the ref rules test.

I think the GDC assumed that when a rule is violated a penalty would be given unless stated otherwise. These changes make sure that this is the case not just a supposition.

When I took the test I flunked the first time because I didn't make that assumption and missed the red/yellow card AND penalty part on some questions. I passed when I added penalty to my answers.

Re: Team Update #13
 

<G21> HOSTBOTS may DEPLOY MINIBOTS only onto their ALLIANCE’S TOWERS and entirely below the DEPLOYMENT LINE. Violation: PENALTY plus RED CARD.

So if you deploy a bit to high, you get a RED CARD? I would think that it would at worst be a YELLOW CARD with the TOWER disabled.

Re: Team Update #13
 

While none of the updates in particular bug me, I am also bothered by the fact that there are so many of them, and that game is getting lawyered to death already and we haven't even started playing.

My favorite games are all the ones with the simplest rules, and the relative freedom. Teams come up with interesting things, and to stifle that with a quagmire of hard to consistently enforce rules is... irksome.

FIRST/GDC has done better in the past, we know they're capable of this, I just don't understand why they haven't strived to continue that.

Re: Team Update #13
 

I completely disagree. Part of GP means(to me) doing the right thing even if its not the smart thing.

Please remember that GP means different things to everyone and nobody should use it as a means to condemn or justify actions. When it comes to GP, there are no definite answers as to yes or no.

Re: Team Update #13
 

The implication here is that taking a penalty is immoral. In most instances, I see it as an opportunity cost.

Re: Team Update #13
 

Gents,
Shall we keep this conversation about the updated and not turn it into another "This is what GP means to me" thread? There are several running around here somewhere...

Re: Team Update #13
 

Just as important is today's Bill's Blog entry: http://frcdirector.blogspot.com/

Re: Team Update #13
 

Good to know! We practiced with both over- and under-inflated tubes, just in case...

Re: Team Update #13
 

Good to know! We designed for over, under, and not at all inflated tubes.

Actually this is always one of the biggest issues with tubes or anything inflated like this. Pressure plays a huge role and it fluctuates based on the temperature of the event. I wonder if tubes will be periodically rechecked through the day.

Re: Team Update #13
 

Yes, quite. We worked with deflated tubes as well. Encoders = our friends!

Re: Team Update #13
 

I need more info on how you are using pneumatics to know if this solution would work, but here's an idea I wanted to try

If your cylinder is pushing up you arm, what if you had a mechanical lock the arm so that when it reached the desired height, you would lock it in position? If you had a sprocket-like piece on the arm at the pivot, and another toothed piece that locked into the first but didn't rotate, it would effectively lock your arm in position. I don't know the technical term for the part I am describing, but I see them used on some microphone stands and stands for percussion equipment in band.

You may want something more industrial than what is shown here, but here's a picture of what I am struggling to depict. I thought maybe you could either use a motor(to turn a screw as intended purpose of this specific product) or a non-rotating piston to actuate the lock. http://www.fullcompass.com/common/fi...A9500_List.pdf

Has anyone ever tried what I am describing?

Re: Team Update #13
 

Our first year we used a pneumatic actuator that was then held in place by a spring pin (mechanical stop). It worked fine.