FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?

[bEdhEd]

I searched CD for a thread with a similar topic and could not find one, so here we go. I was on YouTube viewing the Sronghold reveal once again so I could gauge field element scale and decided to browse through the comments this time. This isn't the first time I've started a thread with a possibly controversial topic with regard to YouTube comments, so please don't reply with something along the lines of "they're YouTube comments, what do you expect?" as this does nothing to contribute to the discussion. My post in 2013 titled "UNgracious UNprofessionalism" is the thread that I am talking about, and it turned into quite a heated discussion.

So here is the comment that I saw:

Here we go again... sigh Those are not robots. Those are telebots. A robot is a machine that can carry out a sequence of actions automatically. These are r/c cars.
I really wish people wouldn't misuse the word "robot" like this.

This is not the first time I've seen or heard someone refer to FRC robots as simply r/c cars. I don't wish to detail the short lived and sassy conversation between OP and another fellow FIRSTer about how OP was not impressed at how the robots had only a 15 second autonomous period, but this is what I had to reply:

Sigh....I really wish you wouldn't misuse your assumptions like this. These machines that students build are not merely "r/c cars" as your benign ignorance of the program leads you to believe. However, I can understand this misguided assumption. Most people don't get the chance to really look at the guts of these robots (and yes, these are undoubtedly robots). Take any high performing robot in a competition, and you'll find plenty of automation integrated into most if not all subsystems. Many teams use gyros, potentiometers, encoders, infrared sensors, cameras, and a whole host of other automation solutions. This automation is used in BOTH autonomous and teleoprated period. If a team were to give their drivers a switch or button for every little movement or decision the robot does on its own throughout the match, you'd have drivers that would go insane after just a few minutes of driver practice. Your strictness of the definition of "robot" tells me that you are interested in robotics in some way, and I encourage you to attend the nearest FIRST Robotics Competition to you. Please talk to the students and mentors who make these robots. If you seek out the best performing robots at a competition and go to their pit and have a conversation with these young bright minds, I'm sure the automation that goes into their robot will convince you that they are not merely "r/c cars." I guess I'll have to end this by saying, SEE YOU AT THE COMPETITION!

My main reason for starting this thread is to ask this:

Do you, members of CD and the FIRST community, think that FRC Robots fit the definition of "robot" or are they just expensive, glorified, industrial r/c cars? I personally believe that these are robots of course!

What is your opinion, and what are the reasons for why FRC robots are indeed robots, or why they can be regarded as more r/c cars than robots?

I've made my case in my quoted comment, so what's yours?

[Foster]

They are "Human Dream and Inspiration Enablement Devices" but since that takes too long to say and explain I use the word "robot".

Much as wires, nuts, bolts, switches, relays, batteries and light bulbs launched me into a life of computers and electronic engineering; I'm taking these "robots" and helping launch kids today into the future. Was what I built then a "computer"? No, not by today's standard. But I helped build today's standard.

The roboteers I work with are going to build tomorrows standard. So if you are unhappy with us using the word "robot"(*) wait a few years to see what our inspired roboteers come up with. It's pre-future time, be part of it!

(*) And if you are unhappy about me using "robot", let me break your heart over what we've done to the word "cheesecake".

[Mikell Taylor]

Look, I'm a robotics engineer who works for robotics companies. If you get more than one robotics professional in a room, they'll all disagree on the definition of robot. The CEO of iRobot thinks a vending machine is a robot. I disagree. Drones are remote controlled, AUVs aren't, both are generally considered robots. FIRST robots definitely meet many commonly agreed upon definitions of robots. Some will disagree. Good for them. In my opinion, it's not worth arguing over.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by Mikell Taylor

Look, I'm a robotics engineer who works for robotics companies. If you get more than one robotics professional in a room, they'll all disagree on the definition of robot. The CEO of iRobot thinks a vending machine is a robot. I disagree. Drones are remote controlled, AUVs aren't, both are generally considered robots. FIRST robots definitely meet many commonly agreed upon definitions of robots. Some will disagree. Good for them. In my opinion, it's not worth arguing over.

Can confirm. Work in IT. Spend lots of time with manufacturing companies, hospitals, energy companies, and more. Engineers do not agree on anything.

Robots have sensors for input right? Well, what is a controller if not a set of sensors for input? It's a silly debate.

[SoftwareBug2.0]

Forgive me if you've heard me say this before, but I think FIRST needs to make a game where there's a huge penalty for not moving at all during autonomous. The number of teams that do nothing in autonomous every year is ridiculous.

As an example rule, let's say that driver control doesn't begin until you leave the starting zone of the field. You can either make your robot drive a few feet or hope that your teammates come to push you out of the zone.

There's no team where turning on motors for a few seconds is out of reach. If they can't it's because they've prioritized something else.

[mathking]

Originally Posted by SoftwareBug2.0

Forgive me if you've heard me say this before, but I think FIRST needs to make a game where there's a huge penalty for not moving at all during autonomous. The number of teams that do nothing in autonomous every year is ridiculous.

As an example rule, let's say that driver control doesn't begin until you leave the starting zone of the field. You can either make your robot drive a few feet or hope that your teammates come to push you out of the zone.

There's no team where turning on motors for a few seconds is out of reach. If they can't it's because they've prioritized something else.

I get the frustration that many of us feel when many robots don't move during autonomous. This rule at first glance sounds good, but there are some practical problems to think about. The first is that you would need to define the game in the right way to make this practical. In many games there is a substantial penalty when your robot interferes with another robot's autonomous mode. In others there are potentially really bad mistakes that can happen in autonomous that should be avoided. Some teams opt to do nothing not because they can't but because they don't want a mistake to cost their alliance. We have had sensors that prevented a collision during autonomous, making our robot not move very far.

Another consideration is that this rule will definitely lead to more matches (potentially many more) where robots sit and do nothing. There is nothing more frustrating in FRC competition, for any team but particularly for new teams, than having a dead robot.

Yet another consideration would be that sometimes the field communication system can mess up a team's autonomous mode. We had at least one match this year where another team not being able to connect to the field led to a reset of the communications. Our autonomous mode had been selected, but when the field reset this choice was lost. The robot did nothing, even though it was consistently scoring. We ended up losing that match 118-119. That was frustrating but nowhere near as frustrating as it would have been if as a result of a field reset we had not been able to move at all for the entire match.

I think if you want to increase the number of robots that do something in autonomous the best solution is to provide a sufficient incentive to get teams to do something. In general positive incentives tend to be more effective in game theoretic / behavioral economic motivation anyway. (Humans tend to underestimate the chance of events triggering negative consequences and overestimate the chance of events triggering positive consequences.)

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by SoftwareBug2.0

Forgive me if you've heard me say this before, but I think FIRST needs to make a game where there's a huge penalty for not moving at all during autonomous. The number of teams that do nothing in autonomous every year is ridiculous.

As an example rule, let's say that driver control doesn't begin until you leave the starting zone of the field. You can either make your robot drive a few feet or hope that your teammates come to push you out of the zone.

There's no team where turning on motors for a few seconds is out of reach. If they can't it's because they've prioritized something else.

I think the GDC tried to implement something like this in 2015, and the result was that even fewer teams bothered with autonomous at all.

This year struck a good balance in my opinion. 2 points just for running motors a few seconds, and 3 more bonus points if you could just make it over a defense. I wouldn't mind seeing some form of disincentive for smashing into the opposing alliance wall at full speed though.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes

I think the GDC tried to implement something like this in 2015, and the result was that even fewer teams bothered with autonomous at all.

This year struck a good balance in my opinion. 2 points just for running motors a few seconds, and 3 more bonus points if you could just make it over a defense. I wouldn't mind seeing some form of disincentive for smashing into the opposing alliance wall at full speed though.

My take:

If you don't leave zone X (in the right direction) by the end of auto, -2 points/robot AND temporary disadvantage. If you do leave, +5 points/robot. If you leave in the wrong direction, then that can be discussed later--game-dependent.

The temporary disadvantage would be that for 10 seconds, you are stuck in auto unless you leave the zone (by any means). At 10 seconds or zone exit, you're put into teleop.


That being said, points for running your motors is good, with more points for doing more being better. But I suspect that a mild point penalty for not moving in auto--and a piece of code, from FIRST, that is set up for "move so far"--would provide a large incentive to teams to make sure everybody moves in auto.

[SoftwareBug2.0]

Originally Posted by EricH

My take:

If you don't leave zone X (in the right direction) by the end of auto, -2 points/robot AND temporary disadvantage. If you do leave, +5 points/robot. If you leave in the wrong direction, then that can be discussed later--game-dependent.

The temporary disadvantage would be that for 10 seconds, you are stuck in auto unless you leave the zone (by any means). At 10 seconds or zone exit, you're put into teleop.


That being said, points for running your motors is good, with more points for doing more being better. But I suspect that a mild point penalty for not moving in auto--and a piece of code, from FIRST, that is set up for "move so far"--would provide a large incentive to teams to make sure everybody moves in auto.

I like the way you're thinking. There's some room for creativity in the autonomous mode rules. It's rarely something other than gain a few points for completing easy objectives, more points for hard objectives, and a big penalty if you interfere with the other alliance.

As for the specifics, I like the idea of losing some points, and not just gaining them. In games with the scoring levels we've seen recently, 7 points probably isn't enough though. 2014 had 5 points for driving over a line and a lot of teams didn't do that. My first thought had been to make moving in auto worth like 50 points, but then that might make games where one partner was missing unwinnable from the get go. If instead there was a penalty for robots left in an area the alliance isn't totally hosed.

I also like the idea of a temporary disadvantage. This is something FIRST has done before. In the 2004 game if a certain action didn't happen in auto then gamepieces were held back for a certain number of seconds.

Also, as mathking brings up, there may be some teams that don't do anything for fear of messing things up. One way to reduce this is to eliminate penalties for interfering with the other teams during autonomous.

[Type]

Originally Posted by SoftwareBug2.0

Forgive me if you've heard me say this before, but I think FIRST needs to make a game where there's a huge penalty for not moving at all during autonomous. The number of teams that do nothing in autonomous every year is ridiculous.

As an example rule, let's say that driver control doesn't begin until you leave the starting zone of the field. You can either make your robot drive a few feet or hope that your teammates come to push you out of the zone.

There's no team where turning on motors for a few seconds is out of reach. If they can't it's because they've prioritized something else.

I think it's a good idea but at the same time I disagree. There have been matches where they start the match without us, even when we were banging on the glass, so we didn't get a chance to do auto since we didn't have time to select one, I'm notrying even sure if we had codecided loaded from the Rio, like I don't know if it was reading it. If they waited until everybody was ready like they are suppose to, it may work, but things can mess us and the auto on a robot may not start.

[SoftwareBug2.0]

Originally Posted by Type

I think it's a good idea but at the same time I disagree. There have been matches where they start the match without us, even when we were banging on the glass, so we didn't get a chance to do auto since we didn't have time to select one, I'm notrying even sure if we had codecided loaded from the Rio, like I don't know if it was reading it. If they waited until everybody was ready like they are suppose to, it may work, but things can mess us and the auto on a robot may not start.

I'm not sure that I totally understand what you mean, but couldn't you solve your problem by having a default that's not "do nothing"?

[Type]

Originally Posted by SoftwareBug2.0

I'm not sure that I totally understand what you mean, but couldn't you solve your problem by having a default that's not "do nothing"?

It was awhile ago so I don't remember it all but our default auto didn't work either. I wanna say we weren't connected to the field but it seems like they would have noticed the light. I was just trying to say in a world where everything worked as its supposed to, it would be a good idea but there are times where the field messes up.

[mathking]

Originally Posted by Type

It was awhile ago so I don't remember it all but our default auto didn't work either. I wanna say we weren't connected to the field but it seems like they would have noticed the light. I was just trying to say in a world where everything worked as its supposed to, it would be a good idea but there are times where the field messes up.

The problem we, and others, have had is that if you use the dashboard to select an autonomous mode, and the field has to be reset in order to get another robot to connect, you can lose your dashboard selection of autonomous mode. This happened to us at least once this year where when the reset happened we lost the selection and the drive team was unable to get the attention of the field crew to wait.

There are a number of different ways the the FMS to robot interaction can cause problems. (This is not a complaint about the FMS, so please let's not start that discussion in this thread.) Any sort of complicated communication system like that is going to have problems from time to time. I think that punishing a robot for not moving by making it not move for an even longer time is not the way to go. That would make one of the most frustrating situations in FRC, a robot that is unable to move, far more common. It would also disproportionately disadvantage inexperienced teams. Adding incentives to make it worthwhile to move is great. And avoiding game rules, such as we had in 2015, which encourage some teams to tell others not to move as a standard plan is also a good idea. But please let's try to not to increase the number of times robots can't move.

[bEdhEd]

Originally Posted by Foster

They are "Human Dream and Inspiration Enablement Devices" but since that takes too long to say and explain I use the word "robot".

That's one way to put it. For those in FIRST, we tend to say "it's not all about the robot" because we know that the machines we build are mainly the catalyst for "Dream and Inspiration Enablement."

I argue that we do indeed use robots in our competition, but to spend too much time debating on whether or not these machines are robots is missing the point. I expect someone who is unaware of FIRST's model for inspiration to have more of a focus on the machines vs what they do for the students.

Even if FIRST was just an r/c car competition, you'd still be getting just the same out of the program. I too sometimes wonder about easier ways for someone outside FIRST to understand the "not all about robots" concept.

Originally Posted by Mikell Taylor

FIRST robots definitely meet many commonly agreed upon definitions of robots. Some will disagree. Good for them. In my opinion, it's not worth arguing over.

I don't think it's worth arguing over and taking too much time with someone who disagrees either, but it's more of the tone of those that I've seen or heard that mention the "r/c car" idea that can bug me a bit. It's used in a way that devalues FRC and takes credit away from the hard work of the students. It's less of "those machines are mainly remote driven" and more of "because these machines are remotely driven, this competition is of less value to me as a viewer."

Those who think this are likely in a very small minority though, but for the sake of curiosity, I'm still interested in how others would react to or have reacted to those who don't see the automation side of the teleoperated period.

[Sunshine]

Ask the police or bomb squads that use "robots" in their line of work. Many of our creations are more sophisticated than what they use. May not be as robust but more advanced technologically. Just sayin