Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypnotoad
By defenition, a robot is "A machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically." (with google as my witness). Now, Traditionally, FRC "robots" operate on their own for fifteen seconds and are controlled by human operators for the rest of the match. We know that autonomous mode is not often very complex in robots, and the complex task of moving to the feeder station, loading frisbees, finding a suitable firing position, aiming, firing, and later climbing, are not being performed automatically.
What I am getting at is that the machines we build are not "robots", but are instead really fancy RC cars. Now, that doesn't make them any less awesome (these are some REALLY fancy RC cars), but it does make them less... well... robotic.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by yash101
Yes. I agree!
Please do not feel offended by this, anyone. Our "robots" are not robots. They are more-or-less remote controlled cars meant to carry out a special function
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricH
We've discussed this before, on a couple of occasions. Consensus says:
They ARE robots--but they are a special class of robots known as "telerobots". They fall into a similar category as bomb disposal robots, possibly some drones, and any robot operating under a "learning" mode that is being directly controlled by a human, as well as Mars rovers. These robots are mostly under operator control, but are also capable of running autonomously (and to one degree or another, they all have some autonomy).
|
Eric is correct—and unfortunately, you two are not. The
Wikipedia article describes the nuances much better than the simple dictionary definition that forms the premise of this thread.
If that's not good enough, consider that autonomy can be expressed in both large and small scales. Even a feedback control system like a PID loop is to some degree autonomous, even if the overall direction is being provided by a human.
As for making FRC robots fully autonomous in a game similar to past ones, it could be done—at the cost of most of the teams after the first year, and a dramatically lower level of competition. Barring a
much more capable basic software and hardware platform, situationally-aware robots are really hard to build. One of the most important characteristics of that awareness would be a grasp of strategy, but that may well require knowledge of the state of the game in real time—something which isn't yet passed to the robots by the field, and which is very hard to sense directly.
Another way to solve it is to play a different kind of game. Perhaps something like FLL, where there is no opposition to add randomness to the game. I don't think I'd like that.