I understand that this rule is partially intended to level the playing field, but I think that certain teams will always have an advantage (due to financial or machining resources) that will not be able to be restricted. Instead, rules like this penalize the rookie teams that may need more time just to get to the level that a more advanced team can within the 6 weeks.
My main complaint about R17 is from the standpoint of programming. While I understand that there are often constraints on mechanical development in business situations, the software development often continues. Firmware updates correct major issues in electronics (I know my current PDA would be useless if not for post manufacture updates), operating systems and computer software are patched constantly due to new discoveries and games are updated to ensure stability and compatibility. Last year FIRST said that it was OK to fix problems in the code as long as the changes were retyped at a competition. Now there is the ruling below:
Quote:
|
There are no restrictions on developing practice code for practice robots. However, if even one line of the code is developed after the primary robot has shippped and outside of the Fix-It-Window, then none of the code may be used on the competition robot.
|
This seems unreasonable to me due to the fact that any code that is necessary to run a second robot (which we have for driver practice) would have to be duplicated on the competition one. Therefore, I understand this rule to say that no improvements could ever be used on the main robot. If I were to develop a better autonomous or shooter control, I could not in any way use this in competition, as a recreated code would surely use the same structure and statements. This ruling discourages improvement and makes me reluctant to change any code to better the control of our practice robot, because if I did anything more than think about it, it could not be used. Then, I probably will not have enough time to debug at the competition, or remember what needed to be implemented.
This total restriction therefore does not make sense if FIRST would like to see the best robots possible from all teams, because code is one area where all teams should be somewhat equal. We can all retain the control system and work with something to refine our code. This ruling only gives an advantage to those teams who had the ability to finish their robots more than a day before ship. While I will follow this and not continue coding, I believe FIRST should rethink this restriction in the spirit of innovation and gracious professionalism to the less privileged teams.
Just my opinion from a member of a team who has gone from building one robot to two during my participation. I have experience both ways, and believe banning after-ship coding only hurts both types of teams.