Team Update #18

[Mike Copioli]

=MagiChau;1040834]Found the rule G46 the minibot may only be used to climb the pole.

You missed the point.

Besides this states nothing about HOW the PLATE gets pushed only about what may climb the pole. There are many forces that can 'PUSH' the plate without actually climbing the pole or even contacting the plate at all.

In case you have not figured out my point, I will clarify: To differentiate between TRIGGERING first and WINNING the race is lawyering the rules as the obvious intent is to determine who is first, second, third and fourth and assign a point value to represent each place.

If we lose a match because the other alliance scored more points than us. I can accept that and applaud the victors.

If we lose a match because our alliance partner goes into the opposing alliances scoring zone contacting a robot incurring a red card. I can accept that and commend the refs for making the correct call.

But if we lose a match because the field did not operate as intended or described in the user manual as interpreted by the TEAMS, FIRSTs customers, using a minibot that was built to operate under said parameters....This I cannot accept and will not accept and will result in a student standing in the little ? box at the end of the match every time it happens.

If TRIGGERING requires some amount of debounce time to register, or something greater than 4 Newtons, or Coke turning into Pepsi, this should be CLEARLY published in one of the many user manuals put out by FIRST.

[MagiChau]

Only the minibot is allowed to trigger the plate and be awraded points and the minibot is only allowed to climb the pole so only the minibot is allowed to climb the pole to trigger the plate and scores points according to the race's results. Is this not the intent of the rule and the wording of it? Why can a flawed field not be accepted as possibly existing? Week one after all usually has delays from fixing some electronic errors. I, myself, got frustrated in week 1 trying to fix why the robot sat still for 2 qualification matches when the drive-team reports they have communication, we already tested in the pits, and it was working earlier.

Humans only have so much insight before forgetting something. The GDC might have thought saying 4N of force acting on the trigger plate was enough but apparently it did not happen so. I cannot say anything on what they should have or should not done.

[boomergeek]

At week 1, with one sample, "force of 2-4N" was a complete rule.

If an X sampling time requirement is added to a trigger event and not reflected in a rule update: then FIRST is not being completely open and honest.

Some teams will end up with more access to more information than other teams.
I didn't know sampling was added. All that was officially reported was it was being fixed to prevent false triggers from robot collisions.

Some teams found out some of the sampling changes- was any of the that information given outside the Q&A?
(I could not find any discussion of sampling on FIRST Q&A)

[colt527]

[EDIT] Originally referenced a post later removed by author later, so I wont quote that, but I still think a post about attitude is generally relevant, so I will leave the rest even though it is now somewhat out of context.

I understand the frustration of losing a match because of something that you think is out of your control. Back when I was driving in HS, I felt the same way. As a volunteer, I can tell you it gets pretty old pretty fast to have teams getting in your face and giving you an attitude about these types of issues. I know it sucks to lose matches, but please remember the greater purpose we are here for and how negative attitudes affect that.

So even if you can prove that something unfair happened, please lets all keep a calm and professional composure and remember our true greater purpose here. Let's debate issues, but in a civil and professional manner. I am not saying that this conversation has turned into this, but what type of example is being set for the students if after a match the minibot doesn't trigger and you start complaining about FIRST and the field staff to your students.

[Mike Copioli]

Originally Posted by colt527

So even if you can prove that something unfair happened, please lets all keep a calm and professional composure and remember our true greater purpose here.

I am well aware of the greater purpose here....are you? It's to inspire. It is not inspiring to work as part of a team, to inspire others to strive for excellence and success only to have that under minded by a poorly documented field condition that changes the outcome. As far as unprofessional and uncalm at what point did you think my post was any of those things?

You may want to consider these points before you appoint yourself mediator in a battle that has not even happened yet.

Originally Posted by colt527

I am not saying that this conversation has turned into this.

Then what are you saying?

I'll tell you what, when and if it happens to your team you can pretend it did not affect the outcome and then later face the disappointing faces your student members who worked so hard on solving a problem only to have the question change after answering it correctly. Oh if first can't find 4 dudes with a button I know three that would be happy to help with this problem.

[colt527]

Originally Posted by Mike Copioli

As far as unprofessional and uncalm at what point did you think my post was any of those things?

The simple answer is: at no point.

I wasn't referencing your post. It was a different one where the author deleted after reconsidering its GPness. Without that post for context, I think mine seems overdramatic.

The intention of the post was not really meant to chastise a single individual or set of individuals, but to remove some of the tension in the air, which seemed to be coming up after the now deleted post. So if it came off that way, I apologize, like I said, wasn't the intent.

[Matt Krass]

I for one am on the bandwagon of wanting a final official specification from FIRST. I want to know exactly the force I'm expected to exert, for exactly how long, and exactly how clean the signal needs to be. I want to know what kind of sample rates, sensor wiring, and hysteresis is in place here. FIRST owes us that.

Before anyone jumps on me for blaming FIRST, I want to make it clear that I'm not mad at them. They gave us a very vague specification, we designed to it, we did our best, and it appears we have fallen short.

FIRST also designed to it, they designed a system to react to that vague specification, it seems they also have fallen short. They're now taking steps, within reasonable bounds, to correct that. I agree it's not wonderful, and it is unfortunate that teams in prior events are not going to benefit from this system, but I think we can all agree we'd rather improve it, then have everyone suffer in the name of fairness, especially on a playing field that will never be entirely level anyway.

Also, I agree with the people here that are concerned the system still isn't reliable, my inner engineers hunch is telling me it's not going to work as well as they want, and I don't agree with their approach of "We fixed it, trust us, and deal with it.".

But wait! I hold the teams responsible as well! We were given a vague specification, and everyone made their own interpretation of it, and many of us were wrong, and this is our mistake. Questions should have been asked weeks ago, more research done by teams, we all dropped the ball. I'm not saying people should assume failure, or injustice, but just one team asking FIRST for more information could have made a world of difference.

As I said before, I'm glad FIRST is stepping up and trying to fix their foul-up, now it's our turn to return that professionalism, ask questions and see what we have to work with, and do our best to meet the most accurate specification we can wrangle out of them.

Matt

[colt527]

I know this has been suggested already, but I think the right place to pose questions is directly to the Q&A:

http://forums.usfirst.org/forumdisplay.php?f=1465

You need to have the team leader account to post there, but I am sure that FIRST will be more than receptive to answer all the questions posed here. If people do get an answer to some of the common questions, can they please post them here as well?

The main questions that seem to need answering is:

How long must the contacts be connected for FMS to trigger / what other technical constraints of the triggering system should be kept in mind by the teams?

I do not have an account for this, otherwise I would pose the question myself. I do think teams have full right to ask these questions though.

[Dad1279]

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

..... Questions should have been asked weeks ago, more research done by teams, we all dropped the ball.......

Questions were asked. Here's one:http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=16174

The answers were vague. We didn't drop the ball. We built a pole, with lexan plates, three limit switches & timer. Worked 100% with our minibot during development.

At NY, our minibot triggered the pole most of the time, pole didn't trigger once, but it was counted. I can only hope they are all counted at our next competition in DC.

If a time specification has been introduced, that has changed the specs and the game. We expected and designed to "Only one limit switch needs to be actuated" as per the Q&A Jan 16th.

[wireties]

Originally Posted by Mike Copioli

I am well aware of the greater purpose here....are you? It's to inspire. It is not inspiring to work as part of a team, to inspire others to strive for excellence and success only to have that under minded by a poorly documented field condition that changes the outcome.

I hope this all gets resolved in a way that satisfies everyone. BUT this is a good life lesson for aspiring engineers. We have to respond to technical specifications all the time that are vague (where our potential customer knows much less about the problem/solution domain than we do). On some level, it is our responsibility to request clarification BEFORE designing/building a solution.

And BTW Linux == Embedded, my company has put it on several satellites and on some tiny tiny platforms. Linux does soft real-time quite well these days and is closing in on hard real-time performance.

HTH