Team Update #18

[Mike Copioli]

Originally Posted by JesseK

yet the whiners haven't proposed a solution..

What makes you think they haven't. If they did, what makes you think FIRST will listen?

Originally Posted by JesseK

The fact of the matter is, Physics beat the crap out of FIRST's system during Week 0 and Week 1 by exposing a severe flaw. Why are we complaining that FIRST had to adapt to it? Why should they put out a specific spec in the form of a rule that teams WILL simply complain about regardless? .

Because it is their job and responsibility. A 'spec' is not a rule, it is the specifics of how something should work, hence the name 'spec.' A rule or ruling is what update 18 is and I do not consider "Oh well trigger it or else it does not count" as adapting to it.

Originally Posted by JesseK

Honestly, the only concession FIRST can make at this point is to give us dedicated MINIBOT time on Thursday.

A spec would be easier and much more efficient since teams have unlimited access to the minibot.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by Mike Copioli

What makes you think they haven't. If they did, what makes you think FIRST will listen?

Because the "solutions" in this thread haven't been well thought-out solutions so much as they've been ideas that would introduce the same magnitude of risk as the current implementation did 2 weeks ago. The GDC would be vilified further if they implemented a "new" design that had the same issues as the current/old (Week 1) design.

Because it is their job and responsibility. A 'spec' is not a rule, it is the specifics of how something should work, hence the name 'spec.' A rule or ruling is what update 18 is and I do not consider "Oh well trigger it or else it does not count" as adapting to it.

The Update simply enforces the rule as it was before referees made their decisions to manually score it. The spec and the update have nothing to do with each other in that regard. The Update simply points out a spec that was available before (though this is more opinion in regards to what the intention of putting that note in an official rule update is).

A spec would be easier and much more efficient since teams have unlimited access to the minibot.

Yet the argument that has been made very clear (and most accurately) is that the specs provided by FIRST haven't been 100% complete or accurate thus far.

I do agree that it's an insane amount of information in too many different places that make things confusing, but I'm more inclined to think that (right now, moving forward) more test time would be less time consuming and less frustrating that expecting teams to believe a new specification at this point.

[Mike Copioli]

Originally Posted by JesseK

Because the "solutions" in this thread haven't been well thought-out solutions so much as they've been ideas that would introduce the same magnitude of risk as the current implementation did 2 weeks ago. The GDC would be vilified further if they implemented a "new" design that had the same issues as the current/old (Week 1) design.

That's because the spec is incomplete. Debounce time is a necessary component for solving this problem. Without it you can apply 100 newtons or Karthiks or grains or whatever unit you like until you turn blue, if you do not apply that force for at least the time needed to debounce the switch it does not matter.


.

Originally Posted by JesseK

The Update simply points out a spec that was available before (though this is more opinion in regards to what the intention of putting that note in an official rule update is).

Yes, an incomplete spec.

Originally Posted by JesseK

I do agree that it's an insane amount of information in too many different places that make things confusing, but I'm more inclined to think that (right now, moving forward) more test time would be less time consuming and less frustrating that expecting teams to believe a new specification at this point.

Ok, if you think that clarifying a spec is more difficult then every team in FIRST using trial and error to find what works then FIRST is less efficient than I thought.

So fine I have a simple solution.... Use the sensor plates as primary feed back and four dudes with a button as secondary. This is how it is done in swimming events, including the Olympics.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by Mike Copioli

So fine I have a simple solution.... Use the sensor plates as primary feed back and four dudes with a button as secondary. This is how it is done in swimming events, including the Olympics.

How do you safely account for paradox? The refs would need to be up on a ladder (or something similar) to ensure they hit the button at the actual impact time and not a microsecond later. In swimming the judges are able to stand over the lanes to get the best view (from what I've seen).

The issue with sending out a time spec isn't efficiency, but rather accuracy. If it's wrong in 1 case at 1 regional, causing a tower to not be triggered and a match to be lost, was it worth it to argue over what the actual number is to begin with?

I'm not defending FIRST so much as I'm trying to be pragmatic about this from a project engineering perspective.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by JesseK

How do you safely account for paradox? The refs would need to be up on a ladder (or something similar) to ensure they hit the button at the actual impact time and not a microsecond later.

All of the refs are standing from more or less the same spot on the floor relative to their respective towers.

[Mark McLeod]

I think pole-sitting refs would add greatly to the amusement factor, as well as, giving them a kick in the pants to push their button.

[c-parent]

Originally Posted by Mark McLeod

I think pole-sitting refs would add greatly to the amusement factor, as well as, giving them a kick in the pants to push their button.

I think you may be on to something for next years game...I'm seeing dunk tanks maybe?

[boomergeek]

I think we have one ref concentrating on every tower anyway looking for penalties and disablement.
I think we can trust ref's to press an "enablement" button as soon as the minibot crosses the starting line, then use the sensors on the plate integrated over 40 milliseconds to record the time I.e., the tower plate is inactive until after the ref decides the minibot crossed the start line fairly.

Whatever the triggering mechanism: it NEEDS to be published and the sooner the better. If not, then some teams will end up getting an advantage over others because of the multiple hats of developers, testers and facilitators.