View Single Post
  #15   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-03-2011, 14:56
Tristan Lall's Avatar
Tristan Lall Tristan Lall is offline
Registered User
FRC #0188 (Woburn Robotics)
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 2,484
Tristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Minibot's triggering targets?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TEE View Post
I asked a ref about it at Traverse City, and he cited the "dwell time"; the programming for the field makes it so that the sensor plate doesn't trigger unless it is held for a short time (long enough that hitting the base won't trigger it). Ours triggered it because it held the sensor for a short time.
Interesting design choice. If the FMS is handling that debounce routine, those are field faults: the sensor tripped and sent a signal (hence the tower has been triggered), and the FMS ignored it, because of an arbitrary timer with no basis in the rules. If, instead, the debounce is being handled on the sensor (so the FMS doesn't get a signal), then the fault lies in not accurately describing to everyone how the sensor actually works.

Ultimately, I think we've got to see a rule change and/or a design change, because it looks like the field is implemented in a manner that encourages field faults, and the only solutions available to the referees are by definition complete subjectivity with a large margin of error.