Annual Thread: Whats this years game going to be?

[DaBruteForceGuy]

Originally posted by Gadget470
And DaBrute: that's a bit to close to 2000's game for FIRST to be choosing it.

I guess u';r right about the hanging part, but i guess i could see varying levels (hights) of trouphs to place things in.....it would def be more complicated, more expensive and less drive train dependable...... I don't think autonomous would be any more cost affective than not either.

[Jon K.]

Straight from FIRST
http://www.usfirst.org/robotics/2003/kickoffpreview.htm

[Stephanie]

Quote:
But Flowers was willing to offer a single, cryptic clue.

"y = ax(2) + bx + c," he said solemnly, before adding with a chuckle, "Just don't ask me about the rumors about the gerbils and the thousand pounds of Jello."
/Quote

hmm... somthing's going to be parabolic. maybe the field? think skatepark

[IVIaxor]

I think that this can not mean anything other than controlled projectile motion. It does not seem logical to make parabolic elements in the field because they are very difficult to manufacture. I think it is very possible that we will have to shoot balls thorough multiple targets in one toss. Possibly moveable targets.

This would almost certainly mandate automation of the aiming system of the robot (FIRST seems to try to make the competition more automous every year) because it would be very difficult for a driver to set that up visually.

Just my 2 cents....

[Moshingkow]

if projectiles are first's new thing, then I guess they've moved away from safety... but anywho, i guess whiffle balls wouldnt be to harfull. speaking of projectiles, maybe there is a goal hanging above the field, like a disco ball, and everyone has to shoot it (ill bet its first's way of saying disco is dead!). the team who hits it most, wins! simple as that. but the catch is, its covered in diamond tape!!! mwahahaha. an auto aiming system would be craaazyyy. im already thinkin up some railgun ideas...


TENKAI

[DanL]

That actually would be pretty fun to create a automatic launching mechanism.... ala pnuematic potatoe cannon. y = ax(2) + bx + c THIS!! ;-)

[Marc P.]

Parablolic motion does not necessarliy mean projectile motion, but something a bit more twisted than that. What if the field were shaped like a half pipe? Or a more curved ramp approach, or parabolic shaped goals (in 3 dimensions, try balancing one of those with stuff in it). Unless the field were completely enclosed (e.g. caged in) I don't think projectiles would be possible otherwise (for liablilty reasons, etc). Just my two cents.

[Adam Y.]

Does anyone else find it odd that first decided to put the two in parenthesis and not use the proper notation or am I just a nitpick and is pointing out a small typo? Mathematically the equation on the first site isn't quadratic.

[ChrisH]

Originally posted by wysiswyg
Does anyone else find it odd that first decided to put the two in parenthesis and not use the proper notation or am I just a nitpick and is pointing out a small typo? Mathematically the equation on the first site isn't quadratic.

You are correct, the equation as printed is not quadratic. However, I would attribute it to the probably non-technical PR person at FIRST being unfamiliar with the accepted method of rendering such equations into a typed line.

We are probably assuming the quadratic version because Dave Lavery started it and used the correct format.

Seeing as the equation can be applied to any motion in any uniform field, you could apply it whether there are projectiles or not. The acceleration term could just be the acceleration of your robot for example. Nothing new or exiting there.

So it may be just Woodie's way of letting us know he's watching and enjoying our speculations, and spreading a little dis-information at the same time. It is barely possible that Dave was giving us a subtle hint ahead of time, which Woodie simply repeated to fuel the fires.

We'll know in a couple of weeks.

[IVIaxor]

Originally posted by Marc P.
Unless the field were completely enclosed (e.g. caged in) I don't think projectiles would be possible otherwise (for liablilty reasons, etc). Just my two cents.

All projectiles means is anything moving through the air (and i know thats not a technically correct definiton).

We had projectiles last year: the soccer balls. I don't think anyong was hurt by flying soccer balls, or at least I didn't hear about it.

[Raul]

My predictions:

1) The field will still be rectangular or at least use the same border structure that FIRST invested so much money in last year.

2) The robots will drive on carpet. There may be some other structure that require climbing other materials, but let's face it, other floor materials are either too expensive or too difficult for rookie teams to deal with.

3) They will limit what type of material can contact the carpet! No explanation needed - right?

4) The game scoring will not be too complex. They want an average spectator to easily be able to figure out who is winning.

5) If the game strategy requires complex actions to get a good score, it will also include a very simple task to at least get some score. FIRST does not want teams to feel worthless and let the alliance down if their robot is not working well. Just like last year, a simple task like just driving to your home zone (or just staying there) made a significant difference in the score for your team.

6) Scoring items will be a simple shape. Or, they will provide some form of "handle" if it is not a simple shape.

[Johca_Gaorl]

Originally posted by IVIaxor
All projectiles means is anything moving through the air (and i know thats not a technically correct definiton).

We had projectiles last year: the soccer balls. I don't think anyong was hurt by flying soccer balls, or at least I didn't hear about it.

However, the soccer balls were being thrown by the human players, not the robots. If there are projectiles this year being thrown by the bots, they can be thrown much much faster and can become dangerous if launched into the crowd. If we get projectiles, I see us getting a BattleBots type closed in field.

[Adam Y.]

It depends on the projectiles though. If its a foam ball then I'd doubt that anyone would get hurt by getting hit by one but if its a soccer ball then I'd be ducking.

[srawls]

Originally posted by Johca_Gaorl
However, the soccer balls were being thrown by the human players, not the robots. If there are projectiles this year being thrown by the bots, they can be thrown much much faster and can become dangerous if launched into the crowd. If we get projectiles, I see us getting a BattleBots type closed in field.

Wrong. The soccer balls COULD be thrown by the robots. At the kickoff last year, they showed exactly that, a robot that would shoot the balls into the goals. I think they wanted more teams to do that, that's why they showed it at kickoff. I only saw one or two teams actually do it, but it was done.

And you assume the soccer balls didn't go out of the field last year. They did. So, I really so no problem with projectiles, because FIRST will of course put safety rules in. Just because a robot could throw a soccer ball 90 mph doesn't mean they will be allowed to (and it may not even be helpful to the game!).

But, again, this is all wild speculation ... I'll wait till kickoff (or at least the BOM) to worry about the game.

Stephen

[Johca_Gaorl]

Well they could be thrown, but as you said, they weren't really. And they probably weren't being thrown very quickly correct? I'm thinking projectiles like playing dodge-ball with the robots (that would be fun!) so that's where the closed field comes in in my thinking.