Re: Team Update #18
 

I'm sorry but I don't get the feeling. I definitely think it's a lot better, it's certainly an improvement, but it's not ready for prime time yet in my opinion.

Matt

Re: Team Update #18
 

The definition of triggered includes "the act of pushing the bottom disk of the TARGET" as a necessary condition. <G20-B> sees to it that only the minibot does the pushing.

Re: Team Update #18
 

I'd like to see a really fast minibot that reverses direction when it returns to the BASE, and goes back up again to make sure the TARGET is TRIGGERED.

:rolleyes:

Re: Team Update #18
 

That would be neat: install some sort of ratcheting mechanism that is disengaged for the initial ascent. Once it hits the top, it switches output direction, and then winds up for a fixed number of revolutions of the wheels, and then switches direction again (so that it's headed for the top again). Repeat forever.

Re: Team Update #18
 

I'd like to offer another perspective on this....

We have a mediocre HOSTBOT that designed and built itself, without any effort on our part. It can play at the 90th percentile at an "easy" regional.

A couple of times during our matches, our HOSTBOT had a GAME PIECE right there ready to HANG, but the darn PEG dodged out of the way, and the GAME PIECE fell to the floor.

I wonder if we should have received points in that situation?

Re: Team Update #18
 

I think maybe FIRST is starting to make your brain go in to that oatmeal state.... :rolleyes:

Seriously though, I think Adam is right, regardless of how well the minibot sensors work, or not, they're a little overweighted in the competition. I've seen a single minibot beat an entire other alliance scoring for the whole game. Just the minibot score. It's kind of frustrating, but it's probably also a topic for another thread.

Matt

Re: Team Update #18
 

This isn't even close to a fair comparison.

The pegs work, and they are purely mechanical; there is no mystery magic involved.

The towers currently "work", and during week 3 regionals there are some good points of evidence that show they aren't perfect.

Re: Team Update #18
 

Analysis of the game scoring should have happened in week 1 of the build season (if not the 1st day).

... and if your alliance cannot score more than the points of 1 minibot then you'd best be able to stop your opponent from launching said minibot.

On topic: The rules state that it is the order of the sensors being triggered by minibots, not the order of minibots to the top of the pole. Lets focus on what triggers (or doesn't trigger) the sensors rather than blame the system when a minibot doesn't trigger the sensors. Does anyone have factual data on the triggering mechinism and its failure modes?

Re: Team Update #18
 

It sure would be nice if we new all the specifics of the towers, but as it stands, there is a rule that says it is triggered when the sensor trips, and not before then. Sure, the towers may have some degree of unreliability, but if the rules are built that way (and this team update suggests FIRST is standing by their towers), then we all have to play the game they designed, whether we like it or not.

I remember a rule in 2008 that caused large amounts of penalties and was seemingly overdone, but it was a rule, and we all followed it.

Re: Team Update #18
 

My gripe was with the distribution of the points, just because I'm voicing it now doesn't mean I didn't have a gripe with them in week 1 of build. I don't think it's a question of robot ability, I think it's a question of absurdity, one singular game action should not be able to offset the rest of the game so dramatically, to me that screams unbalanced.

I agree that the game should be played by the rules, even if I don't particularly like them. I think it's about time that FIRST gave us some concrete data to work with, if they're going to stand by the towers, we have a right to know what they're (the towers) expecting us to do exactly. I'm honestly getting a pretty sour impression from FIRST on this whole situation.

Matt

Re: Team Update #18
 

You wouldn't get any points, but I'm pretty sure the match would be replayed due to a field malfunction. In fact, that was one of Adam's suggestions.

Re: Team Update #18
 

In qualifications this seems to be true, but as far as Einstein (and many of the finals) goes, the robots will be much more important than the minibots. Teams will need minibots, don't get me wrong, but I don't think they will take home many banners. Minibots are worth at most 50 points, which can be offset by 3 ubertubes and 2 logos. I believe that the game is offset during qualification matches, but creates an incredible dynamic in finals matches.

Re: Team Update #18
 

The minibot score can't be offset at the high level of play, every competent alliance come champs will fill the top and middle rows along with some ubertubes. The sole decider in the win will be the minibots.

Re: Team Update #18
 

I would pick 148 or 1114 with no minibot over the fastest minibot any day.

Both robots put up over an average of 33 pts per match (only robots, excluding minibots)

Re: Team Update #18
 

Come champs, every competent alliance in eliminations will be scoring the entire top and middle row. Elite teams, great teams, or even just good teams, it will happen.

Re: Team Update #18
 

74 already did that. They had a minibot score, then it went down to the base and back up to hit the trigger plate again.

Re: Team Update #18
 

I'm not sure you can say that without watching all of their matches and figuring out how many points they scored on tubes each match and then averaging them. I'm all for using statistics, but they must be reported properly. I'm not sure ERC (or opr) supports that statement.

Re: Team Update #18
 

I think considering both had a double cap, and were both powerhouses on the rack, 33 points as a guesstimate is pretty fair. Also I think I am safe to say what separates 1114 from 148 is their minibot.

that being said I think you are right. I shouldn't have stated that they average that, I should have said that I estimate it. just so everyone know the E in ERC stands for estimated. Sometimes I forget to argue that these numbers are rough estimates. I chose 148 and 1114 specifically because of their reputation right now.

Re: Team Update #18
 

At Chesapeake, the only bot I saw touch the plate and not trigger the tower were slow minibots that either didn't exert the required force or ran out of time (I am not sure which was the case).

There was a case in QF 2-1 where our Minibot was the the first to reach the top but the lights on the tower turned off. The rest of the towers lit up with 4 lights, 3 and 2 when the next 3 minibots hit. We still got the 30 pts for first so I guess they looked at the triggers in FMS and the lights just malfunctioned.

Re: Team Update #18
 

If the tower lights turned off (as opposed to continuing to cycle up and down), that means the tower was disabled. Apparently the referees later determined they were incorrect to do so.

EDIT: Or, there was a major malfunction of the tower.

Re: Team Update #18
 

Thats what I thought initially but I was told that wasn't the case. I am really not sure.

Re: Team Update #18
 

I believe it was the very last elimination match when the minibot didn't trigger the tower. The thing is far too small to hit the bolts, and the switch on the top of the minibot that turns it off takes more force to depress than the limit switches on the tower. (Earlier in the day, we found out that if one of those minibots hit a tower with a hard stop instead of the cushion of the moving ones used in matches, the minibot will actually separate from the tower from the force of impact and go flying. I got a fun little cut on my finger from catching "Marvin" when he decided he wanted to try his hand at flying off the tower.)

Of all the matches that one of the 1868 minibots went up, that was the only time it didn't trigger a tower.

Re: Team Update #18
 

Well, if we're getting to that level of lawyering the rules, there's no official definition for PUSH in the rules. There's clearly a force being applied to the bottom disk in order to TRIGGER the sensors on the TOWER. In 7th grade I learned that a force was a PUSH or a PULL. So, by that logic, shoving the bottom of the tower should count.

Or we can use commons sense... :rolleyes:

The difference in 2008 is that FIRST told us what the lines would be made out of, where they would be located, and how that rule would be officiated from week one. The lines never changed nor malfunctioned during the season. Any penalties incurred because of them was the result of the actions of the teams on the field, not because of mystery forces created by field elements that were never fully explained to teams.

You're missing his point. BOTH alliances will have robots like 148 and 1114. While the points scored by 1114 could offset a minibot if the opponent isn't scoring tubes, it's not going to offset the scoring from 148 AND 148's minibot.

There's a definite potential for the tube scores for both alliances to be both incredibly high, and incredibly close. That's where minibots are going to decide matches. It's not going to be a case where those 50 points alone are going to overcome the opponents scoring, but those 25 extra points from getting 1st and 2nd in the minibot race would easily offset the 2 extra tubes the opponent scored more than your alliance did.

Re: Team Update #18
 

Your interpretation of the bolts is correct, and that issue has already been brought up. But there are other instances that cannot be explained by hitting the bolts (as certain minibots designs cannot hit the bolts and there have been cases where these minibots didn't trigger the tower).

Re: Team Update #18
 

There were not very many deployed minibots at Arizona. I saw two times the towers didn't trigger. In one case (forgot the team number) the minibot clearly hit the bolts and did not move the plate. In the second case, 842s minibot clearly moved the plate, but it's impossible to say if it moved it the full amount. It did not affect the match result.

Re: Team Update #18
 

If a minibot does stick out far enough from the pole there is definitely potential for it to hit a bolt. That's definitely something teams should take into consideration as something to design around.

This is based on my personal observations of the field.

Re: Team Update #18
 

In your scenario, bumping the base causes the pole to move, and as the structure sways, the target's guide bolts exert a force on the bottom plate of the target. When the pole springs back, the momentum of the bottom plate trips the sensors. So yes, something pushed on the bottom plate, and so the definition of triggered was satisfied.

But where's the minibot? Per <G67>, zero points are awarded, because it wasn't a minibot pushing on the bottom plate that triggered the tower.

Even worse, because something else triggered the tower, the minibot race is over on that tower (per the definition), and no minibots can score. (<G20-B> supports this interpretation.)

Re: Team Update #18
 

Chris told me it came from Duluth

:confused:

Re: Team Update #18
 

That also matches the Truck Schedule posted in the Field Supervisor forum. The San Diego field is listed as going to Sacramento this past weekend.

Re: Team Update #18
 

Arizona was red

Re: Team Update #18
 

I fixed my post. I knew we were playing with the San Diego field, but not until LA.

Re: Team Update #18
 

So, according to team update 19, the electrical side of the towers *shouldn't* be an issue, since there is a dedicated module and any press longer than 1ms should trigger. I saw a post a while back mentioning 20ms sampling times, but a few samples at <=5ms should be a short enough time for faster minibots.

Are there any other possible explanations? Everything I've heard and seen about the towers says they should work flawlessly..

Re: Team Update #18
 

The wording is ambiguous and leaves room for doubt. Maybe it means what you said, and maybe not. It doesn't say a signal longer than 1ms will TRIGGER the tower. It says "any input signal longer than the noise buffer is immediately time-stamped and reported back to the central field controller". OK, then what? The central field controller then "processes the received data". What does "processes" mean in this context? Does it require N consecutive positive readings before it TRIGGERS? If so, how many consecutive positive readings?

Re: Team Update #18
 

That's what I was getting at with the 5ms sampling period, although you're correct, the FMS could require more than 10 or so consecutive positive samples, which may be enough to prevent a fast minibot from activating the tower. A post in Q&A might be the fastest way for clarification on the number of required samples.

It seems like the easiest way to fix the issue though is to slow down your minibot. People are getting all riled up that FIRST didn't explain exactly how the towers work when their minibots are so fast that they look the same to the FMS as a robot bumping the base of the tower :) Some teams are too efficient...

Re: Team Update #18
 

I wonder if FIRST had an oversight with this rule being so strictly enforced. While they are confident the hardware for the minibot towers are solid, the software's registration of the towers are under the swiss-cheese umbrella of the FMS.

I don't mean to take anything away from 75, 2988, or 3143, but in match 46 of the Virginia Regional, the apparent software issue decided the match. Not the hardware on the towers, or the minibots' interactions with the towers, but the towers didn't register anything.

Now, you may be saying, "How do you know that you didn't hit the bolts?" I think it's odd that two minibots didn't trigger in the match, and the head referee did as well, which is why the field was reset after our match. She explained this update that I know all too well, but that doesn't shake the fact that the only failure in the chain was the inconsistent FMS, which has kept me at the Virginia Regional until 8:30 on Saturday before.

TLDR: I understand the rule, but I feel there were some variables unaccounted for. It cost my team a match it shouldn't have lost.

Re: Team Update #18
 

first match of DC regional our minibot didn't register. they "proved" it wasn't the towers themselves by reseting them and shoving up the crew's hook to trigger it manually, with i'm sure plenty more than 5 newtons.

it didn't effect the match but reasserted my worries of more competitive matches at champs being decided by field errror

Re: Team Update #18
 

See, I like to think that by being in 19th after 6 matches (even though with that win we would be 9th or 10th) we would make it into elims.

In 2009 our run ended when an opposing robot ran into the opposing alliances tower with so much force that it knocked out power and communication to the Driver Stations with 20 seconds left. If we had won that match, we would have gone onto finals and, by beating the 1 seed, have a good chance of winning.

The problem I had was that not only was the disconnection of the DS's self-inflicted, but there was no statistical way the other team could have caught up to us. Lunacy had a finite number of points to be scored, which meant that unless our alliance could rack up 40 points in penalties, we would have won.

I get being on the short end of "luck of the draw", and I have to put my faith in our tech every regional, but I get nervous when I have to put faith in the field holding up its end of the bargain.

Re: Team Update #18
 

Just watched an alliance lose the semifinals due to a sensor failure at Virginia.

The frequency with which conditions other than team performance decide winners every year is understandably discouraging. There isn't a year without issues and I really wish FIRST could make the field more reliable. If that's not possible, they could at least give referees the power to override obvious failures, rather than insisting that there is no problem when there obviously is. The field failures are not unfair - they do not discriminate among teams - but they are discouraging to teams.

On a positive note, some parts of FMS seem to be improving. We did not have to replay a single match this year.