Thread: Team Update #18
View Single Post
  #180   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2011, 12:32
Matt Krass's Avatar
Matt Krass Matt Krass is offline
"Old" and Cranky. Get off my lawn!
AKA: Dark Ages
FRC #0263 (Sachem Aftershock)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 1,187
Matt Krass has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Krass has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Krass has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Krass has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Krass has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Krass has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Krass has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Krass has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Krass has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Krass has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Krass has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Matt Krass
Re: Team Update #18

Quote:
Originally Posted by pfreivald View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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
__________________
Matt Krass
If I suggest something to try and fix a problem, and you don't understand what I mean, please PM me!

I'm a FIRST relic of sorts, I remember when we used PBASIC and we got CH Flightsticks in the KoP. In my day we didn't have motorized carts, we pushed our robots uphill, both ways! (Houston 2003!)
Reply With Quote