Go to Post Don’t choose to aim for the stars because they mark the peak of our abilities, don’t choose to aim for the stars because it is easy, choose to aim for the stars because it shows the depth of our potential; choose to aim for the stars because it is hard! - Ken Leung [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Old Forum Archives > 2001
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-06-2002, 03:52
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
OK, OK...

Posted by Andy Baker at 04/27/2001 2:51 PM EST


Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.


In Reply to: Re: basketball!
Posted by Deej- T190 on 04/27/2001 1:28 PM EST:



DJ,

There is a hoop and a court at my house. We'll be playing until the wee hours Sat. night. Last year, the guys and gals from NEW Apple Corps (team 93) ruled the court. We'll see about this year.

I gotta go out and get a new ball anyway, so don't worry about packing one, Erin.

Andy B.

I'm not really that good at b-ball... I just like the game. Go Pacers!

__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #17   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-06-2002, 03:52
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: OK, OK...

Posted by Deej- T190 at 04/27/2001 2:57 PM EST


Engineer on team #190, Gompeii, from Mass Academy and WPI.


In Reply to: OK, OK...
Posted by Andy Baker on 04/27/2001 2:51 PM EST:



Im a big bball fan, but I can't go with the Pacers though... I understand the Indiana thing, but my team is the Miami Heat..(although they are getting embarrassed by the Hornets). Can't wait to play though


__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #18   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-06-2002, 03:52
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Basketball!!

Posted by Matt Leese at 04/27/2001 12:49 PM EST


College Student on team #73, Tigerbolt, from Edison Technical HS and Alstom & Fiber Technologies & RIT.


In Reply to: Basketball!!
Posted by Andy Baker on 04/27/2001 8:04 AM EST:



If we do Basketball we already have experience with
shooting....

Matt who knew that would come in handy some day

__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #19   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-06-2002, 03:53
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Dr. Mario!

Posted by Kevin Sevcik at 04/27/2001 11:44 AM EST


College Student on team #57, Leopards, from BT Washington and the High School for Engineering Professions and Exxon, Kellog Brown & Root, Powell Electrical.


In Reply to: Bill & Dan both have GREAT points
Posted by Jason Morrella on 04/27/2001 3:47 AM EST:



C'mon. I know some of you people played it. Little cartoon guy tossing vitamen pills? Kinda of like tetris? I KNOW you've played tetris.
The whole point is that head to head competition without direct interaction could be a possibiity. Granted, I have no idea how to design a game based on this concept, but a year ago I would've said a 4 person alliance with no competition was impossible too. So I say next year's game should somehow physically divide a pair of two person alliances, yet allows for defense of the goals somehow. Something along the line of double trouble, with a barrier under the goals and across the ramp.


__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #20   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-06-2002, 03:53
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
No Right-No Wrong

Posted by Bill Beatty at 04/28/2001 12:13 PM EST


Other on team #71, Team Hammond, from Team Hammond.


In Reply to: Bill & Dan both have GREAT points
Posted by Jason Morrella on 04/27/2001 3:47 AM EST:



Jason

Thanks for the good words. They are very much appreciated.

Your points are well made. One thing though, there is no right or wrong here. We are exchanging thoughts on what direction each of us would like for FIRST to go.

Before you compromise too far toward some sort of defense allowed format, think about this. Cheesy Poofs had a super capable machine that won two regionals and their division. Would you have been willing to give up one or more of those wins to a box of rocks that hindered your machine's performance? I'll bet not.

Regards,

Mr. Bill

P.S.
I totally agree with your last paragraph. I love the direction FIRST seems to be going and posted such within a few days of the game announcement. However, there are some folks who are voicing the opposite. FIRST does listen I therefore feel compelled to voice my thoughts.

I don't think some of the participants are truly aware of all the interesting and complex aspects of this year's competition, but that is another subject.


__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #21   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-06-2002, 03:53
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: No Right-No Wrong

Posted by Jason Morrella at 04/28/2001 11:51 PM EST


Coach on team #254, Cheesy Poofs, from Bellarmine College Prep & others and NASA Ames/Cypress Semiconductor/Unity Care.


In Reply to: No Right-No Wrong
Posted by Bill Beatty on 04/28/2001 12:13 PM EST:



: Before you compromise too far toward some sort of defense allowed format, think about this. Cheesy Poofs had a super capable machine that won two regionals and their division. Would you have been willing to give up one or more of those wins to a box of rocks that hindered your machine's performance? I'll bet not.
: Regards,
: Mr. Bill

Bill,

Actually, that is what I was referring to when I said we (The Cheesy Poofs) have been on both extremes of this discussion. Last year we were fortunate to have almost the same success as this year (won 2 regionals & 5th at Nationals). But last year, while we were a versatile robot in the qualifying rounds, in the playoffs our robot (by design) became the defensive "shut the other alliance best scoring robot down" robot. (as many noticed, the game last year was TWO TOTALLY different games in qualifying & playoffs, and we designed for the game we thought would be played in the playoffs)
I'm kind of in the middle about the "box of bolts that does nothing but block" arguement - because I felt our team was successful in 99 & 2000 at defeating more complex or offensive designed robots because we either had a better strategy or our drivers out drove the other teams. Also, to defend the "defense" side a little - our program was not capable of building the robot we built this year in 99 or 2000. We had much less experience, fewer ideas to build off of, and less support.
By this year, our third year, we finally felt we had the experience and could build a more complex & offensive machine. We analyzed the game, and decided it was the year for us to go for a robot capable of seeding high as oppossed to a good playoff robot which would compliment the top seeds, make a tough alliance, and hopefully get us picked.
But you are right in that we would have scrapped a few of our advancements in our drive system and arms this year if we were worried about hard contact and trying to build a stronger, defensive machine. There are trade offs to any game.

I didn't mean to imply there is a right and wrong, if I did. I think it is a valid discussion with great & valid points to be made by both sides.





__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #22   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-06-2002, 03:53
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Defense-TWO sides to the story

Posted by ChrisH at 04/27/2001 11:45 AM EST


Engineer on team #330, Beach 'Bots, from Hope Chapel Academy and NASA JPL, J & F Machine, Raytheon, et al.


In Reply to: Re: Defense-TWO sides to the story
Posted by Dan on 04/27/2001 1:26 AM EST:



: What about the high-capability, high-scoring robots that were turned into "a slug of a do nothing robot" when they were simply asked to crossed the field and sit or just pull the ramp down, etc?

Kris Unruh, one of our team leaders, correctly identified the great flaw in this years game at a "lessons learned" meeting we had earlier this week.

He stated that there was one difficult task that absolutly had to be accomplished for a good score, but that only one robot on the field could perform the task. Since most teams figured out the necessity of goal balancing, a large number built goal balancing robots. Most had additional capabilities as well.

So what do you do when you walk into a strategy session and there are three balancing robots, and at least two of them can handle big balls. But none of them are consistent? Who gets to make the "big play"?

I know our team made a deliberate decision NOT to push to do the balancing. We were quite capable of doing so, we could also put up big balls and quite quickly too. But we didn't necessarily push to do that either.

Our motto is "To Learn, To Compete and To Serve" We felt that pushing our way into doing a critical task was not necessarily living up to who we are. But that did on occasion result in our being turned into a "slug-of-a-do-nothing-robot". So be it

I think that FIRST expected us to push more towards niche designs than we did. I think the ideal alliance would be 1 balancer, 2 bigball limbobots and 1 small ball limbobot. But I didn't see any of the later.

I know that next year it would improve the game if there was either more than one crucial task, or more than one opportunity to perform it during a round.

It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

Chris Husmann, PE
Team 330 the Beach'Bots



__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #23   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-06-2002, 03:53
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Defense-A Fancy Word For Poor Ability

Posted by Chris Hibner at 04/27/2001 8:40 AM EST


Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.


In Reply to: Defense-A Fancy Word For Poor Ability
Posted by Bill Beatty on 04/27/2001 12:42 AM EST:



In the past head-to-head competitions, avoiding a blocking robot was part of the design challenge, in my view. We always had debates: should we be fast and maneuverable, good traction and powerful, shift gears and do both? There is just as much good engineering in getting around or through a blocker as there is in putting an inner tube and a tree limb. To me, eliminating blocking eliminates half of the design process and 75% of the strategy.

If someone were to try blocking the TechnoKats this year while they were trying to score a ball, they would have been able to push them out of the way and score anyway (good design). If a blocker completely destroys a team's scoring chances, perhaps the problem is that that team missed something in the design process, not that the game needs to be changed.

-Chris


: Sorry Kyle, I can't agree even a little bit with your push to return to wheel to wheel competition. In the six years of our involvement in FIRST, this competition was, by far, the most exciting, electrifying of them all at the three events we were in. There were more folks watching and cheering at the final matches then there have been for a number of years. I can't imagine a design engineer or design team that can create a high capability, high scoring robot would ever want a slug of a do nothing robot to block, pound, or in any way restrict it's ability to perform. Could it be, that in actuality, the folks who are pushing for head to head and defensive competition are really fearful of putting their design and construction ability on the line? Maybe the ones that are saying they want competition really do not want to try and compete. Interesting.......





__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #24   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-06-2002, 03:53
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 2v2

Posted by Kyle Fenton at 04/27/2001 2:58 PM EST


Student on team #121, Islanders, from Middletown High School and NUWC.


In Reply to: Defense-A Fancy Word For Poor Ability
Posted by Bill Beatty on 04/27/2001 12:42 AM EST:



Bill Beatty,
That is of course your own opinion. Which I have
no problem about. Everyone is entitled to their own
opinion.
"Maybe the ones that are saying they want
competition really do not want to try and compete."
But this year, it was not a competition, it was a
performance. A competition is where when 2
opposite forces meet, and the objective is trying to
work together with an outside force hindering you.
And for the most part, the people were cheering to
teams that screwed up, so their own teams were
bumbed up. Now, this is not a good way to display
gracious professionalism.
Unless there are multiple challenges next year, it
is not a really good idea, to bring back all 4. It is
usually 2 robots who do everything, and others just
sit and park. This year one picked up a big ball,
and the others tried to balance it. Well what about
the other 2? And what if robots you were picked
with, are the same abilities that you are, now what!.
If your robot wasn't agile, it didn't go far. And trying
to plan a strategy with team you only know 2
minutes in advance was very difficult.
"this competition was, by far, the most exciting,
electrifying of them all", you said. But yet, you also
won the national championship, so even I would
be happy of the competition if my team did that.

Look, I'm not trying to diss you, the only thing I'm
trying to say is all the people working together, is
not the real world!. And the real world people
compete.

With 2v2, you get to enjoy the satisfaction of
engineering. Trying to build an agile robot that
works well with another robot, to not only
accomplish a goal, but to compete with the other
team to get it.



__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #25   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-06-2002, 03:53
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Defense-A Fancy Word For Poor Ability

Posted by Patrick Dingle at 04/27/2001 9:49 PM EST


College Student on team #639, Red B^2, from Ithaca High School and Cornell University.


In Reply to: Defense-A Fancy Word For Poor Ability
Posted by Bill Beatty on 04/27/2001 12:42 AM EST:



As I read your post, I cannot believe you are talking about the same competition that I was involved with this year. Although I have only been involved 3 years, I think the competitions were by far the most boring and unexciting of the three. More importlantly, I saw an incredible amount of disinterest amoung high school students which was not indicitive of the type of enthusiasm I have witnessed the past two years. I even saw a team that had to rotate their scouts during nationals because they could not stand watching match after match. From the viewpoint of a spectator, the strategy is the same every match -- there is no significant variety in matches -- and more often than not this strategy ends up in disaster. There weren't that many people watching the finals this year... Why? Because the results are easily predictable. Everyone knew team 71 would win likely with a score of 710.

With all respect, you have a great team and robot this year, but surely your opinion is biased since you won the competition and never really had to look at the competition from a spectator's point of view.

Then there's the fact that when you are one robot out of four on the playing field, you're ability to decide your own destiny is cut in half from that of the previous two years.... But that's another point, and it's already been talked about over and over.

Patrick

: Sorry Kyle, I can't agree even a little bit with your push to return to wheel to wheel competition. In the six years of our involvement in FIRST, this competition was, by far, the most exciting, electrifying of them all at the three events we were in. There were more folks watching and cheering at the final matches then there have been for a number of years. I can't imagine a design engineer or design team that can create a high capability, high scoring robot would ever want a slug of a do nothing robot to block, pound, or in any way restrict it's ability to perform. Could it be, that in actuality, the folks who are pushing for head to head and defensive competition are really fearful of putting their design and construction ability on the line? Maybe the ones that are saying they want competition really do not want to try and compete. Interesting.......





__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #26   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-06-2002, 03:53
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Calling for everbody to sign a petition to FIRST

Posted by Joe Taylor at 04/27/2001 8:36 PM EST


College Student on team #461, West Side Boiler Invasion, from West Lafayette High School and Purdue University .


In Reply to: Calling for everbody to sign a petition to FIRST
Posted by Kyle Fenton on 04/25/2001 10:28 PM EST:



Kyle,
I really don't think expanding the number of places from which teams can purchase materials is a good idea. Small Parts is a FIRST corporate parter just like any other company, only they make a contribution by giving us huge discounts on parts and materials. If you compare small parts offerings and prices to other industrial suppliers (such as mcmaster-carr and grainger) you'll find small parts isn't far off the mark in price. thier selection may be more limited, but the freedom of the additional parts list more than makes up for it. Perhaps you should lobby for a more diverse additional parts list, or for increased freedom in special ordering items from small parts, but to try to cut them out of the equation as a primary supplier is a real slap in the face to a company thats done alot for FIRST.

Thanks,
Joe Taylor
Technical Director, team 461



__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Would you like to learn how to sign? OneAngryDaisy General Forum 0 05-03-2003 20:11
We still need people to sign our Petition archiver 2001 16 24-06-2002 04:08
petition to suport CHAOS archiver 2000 3 23-06-2002 23:58
Team 121's Petition is just about to end Kyle Fenton General Forum 10 27-06-2001 14:30


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:57.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi