Quote:
Originally Posted by pfreivald
I am paid a coaching stipend, so technically I am not a volunteer.
(I was asked to itemize it out this year because we're doing budget negotiations and it looks like the admins are trying to cut compensation for extracurricular advisors, so I did the math and discovered that when it comes down to brass tacks I get paid about $0.07/hour if we keep it to only one summer project, but still...)
|
For those 7 cents I expected more from you!
Just kidding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris is me
Proximity sensors and light sensors are two common proposed solutions.
Personally, I don't see what's wrong with a photo finish here. Yes, "instant replay" is a dirty word, but it would clearly be the best.
|
The biggest problem I see with a 'photo finish' is something still needs to trip the camera. Taking constant video of the poles at a frame rate of 29.97fps may work, but close minibots will still be very close there, it may be hard to determine accurately. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but it's certainly something to think about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory
I don't feel the specification was unclear. There is a force given in the rules. The original tower used limit switches.
Logically one would think that a setup using limit switches would be momentary-ie not having to be triggered for some finite time period.
We should have foreseen that there was not enough real world testing done to show how robots hitting the towers would affect the response of the triggers?
In the future I guess when we see things like this you're saying we should assume FIRST will not be able to implement them properly and as such we should ask way more questions than necessary to ensure that everything works right?
|
Logically a computer system can only sense a condition that exists for a finite period of time related to the sampling rate. Since no specification was given regarding how long the force must be sustained, nor the sampling configuration of the system, it was an incomplete specification. Also, the force specification given appeared to be a rough estimate of the minimum required, not a clear definition of what we had to attain. I believe, as other posters have stated, you're hung up on that number.
Real engineering specifications are pretty explicit, I'm working on a project here at work that has an entire page explaining that the power LED must turn on when I apply power to the system. It even states how fast the LED must turn on when power is applied. The 'spec' we got from FIRST, if you can even call it that, was most definitely incomplete, and yes we should have foreseen complications from a lack of real world test data. I stand by my original argument, both the teams
and FIRST are responsible for this.
Matt