Quote:
Originally Posted by brennonbrimhall
I loved the Einstein chess match. It's definitely one of my favorite FRC moments of all time.
As far as the original question, I've actually been thinking about this for a while. One thing that I've noticed throughout my tenure in FRC is how FRC really is less of a programming competition, and more of a mechanical competition. Let me clarify: programming, yes, is vital to the final outcome of how a team performs. And don't forget the role of code in teleop either.
However, the effort/reward ratio for programming in FRC does is dissimilar to the effort/reward ratio for mechanical design, strategy, or even drive team training. As a programmer, I can name off some robot code that's been inspirational to me: 341's auto-aim SmartDash widget, 254's auto-climb sequence, and all of the crazy autonomous modes that are out there. 987's centerline in 2013 that would gracefully degrade to the 2pt goal was awesome, as was their autonomous scripting system. But I can name so many more robots, designs, or mechanical things that are just as inspirational. All of 67's, 254's, 469's, and 1114's robots. But when's the last time we, as a community, have celebrated true innovation in programming? Gordian is a fully implemented scripting language by 4334. 4334 also spent the time to completely rewrap WPI in the form of ATALibJ. 1540 has their own custom robot framework that's open source. When's the last time I've heard anyone post in awe of any of those things?
It's because that the subset of FRC people who can appreciate them is a much smaller fraction of the total population; additionally, it's hard to appreciate it because it's much more abstract than a linkage or a drivetrain. And it's not directly convertible to points. Innovation in code does not guarantee better robot performance. In reality, programming innovation has a habit of blowing up in the face of a humble high school programmer. The FRC just does not reward attempting top-notch programming.
This helps to define the effective ceiling for programming. Effective programming is transforming the robot from an expensive paperweight and making it controllable. Auto modes are just calls to the same code. Yes, teams can do better -- but the marginal reward for doing so is much lower at higher levels. The same is true for anything in FRC, but I have the distinct feeling that it's a much sharper decrease in reward than in other aspects of FRC. Part of the reason for this is because of the defined floor that we have too. WPILib makes it really, really hard to screw stuff up. This is intentional -- to have a massive, expensive paperweight is not how I would like anyone to spend their FRC season. But, at the same time, it makes programming easier, almost handed to you. The marginal effort for making a Talon spin a CIM is so low. Everyone does it. And non-robot stuff, like driver assist programs are great -- but I've noticed that my drivers are just fine (and often prefer) going it solo.
I see 'Hybrid modes' as rewarding more complex programming for improved control during autonomous. As I think that bringing the programming floor down is a major violation of GP, ethics, and morals, something has to be done to increase the rewards of programming. This is one such way.
|
I disagree. Nowadays, robots are much less mechanical and a lot more electrical. For example, every single design we prototyped this year for shooting the ball was used effectively by some top team. We essentially arbitrarily used a catapult. Top teams are all very well engineered, however, at one point it stops being effective to maximize strength and it becomes more useful to program.
However, using PID drive controls, automatic shifting, swerve drives, etc. are all primarily electrical now. Programming plays a very large part in how a robot performs, whereas mechanical can only go so far. Top teams have good code.
I vote no for using kinect/ vision control for auton. This is because if programmed well enough, autonomous can easily become just an extended teleop with little effort, especially for defensive autons.