TOWER Malfunctions since Week 3

[dodar]

Originally Posted by nikeairmancurry

What's weird with this is per update 18... If the tower does not tigger it doesn't count... 27 did not trigger the tower... Therefore shouldn't of had counted... As in other regionals where this was upheld...

The tower did trigger. Even though the lights didnt show it, the FMS system saw it.

[Racer26]

@dodar: Are you sure? Based on the way I read the discussion in the Michigan State Championship thread, FMS did NOT pick up 27 at all. I'm inclined to believe this based on the video, and my personal experience with the instance at WAT. (if it had, it would be a case more like what happened in Semi 1-2 at WAT - TOWER lights not illuminated, but other towers still showing correct readout [1114's mini had 4 lights, 2056's had no lights and no chase sequence after impact, 1075's had 2 lights]) 27's TOWER maintained the chase sequence, even after impact.

[dodar]

I am pretty sure I remember hearing Dave say that the FMS system did pick up the hit even though the lights did not. But if a member of 27 could tell us what actually happened, that would be better.

[Racer26]

I know thats what happened in Waterloo. The FMS picked up the score (evidenced by 1075's mini only scoring 3rd), but the lights were toasted. Thats not what happened in Michigan though, at least, the failure mode isn't the same. 1718's TOWER showed 4 lights.

[Joe Ross]

I've also seen several cases where a tower TRIGGERedd prior to the minibot hitting it.

[IKE]

We had a match where our alignment device triggered the tower sensor before the minibot deployed. Unfortunately, this was the "4th" minibot which disabled the field and thus our team did not get a chance to deploy that match. It was an interesting ruling in that the "tower" triggered, but since a minibot did not deploy, the team could not be given the points.

Gotta love automated scoring systems. When they work, they work, when they don't... well... were not gonna talk about that, and instead focus on how they almost always sorta kinda most of the time work pretty much as planned (once they have been fixed a couple of times).

[pathew100]

Originally Posted by IKE

We had a match where our alignment device triggered the tower sensor before the minibot deployed. Unfortunately, this was the "4th" minibot which disabled the field and thus our team did not get a chance to deploy that match. It was an interesting ruling in that the "tower" triggered, but since a minibot did not deploy, the team could not be given the points.

That happened a few times at MSC in quals and elims. And it brings up an interesting quandary. Because of the false trigger, the game ends about 5-6 seconds early.

At that point the referees have to huddle and determine whether or not an alliance could have done enough in the 5-6 seconds that should have happened to effect the outcome of the match. (Because this is technically a field fault)

In most cases hanging 1 or 2 tubes that late in the match will not change the outcome (Most matches at MSC had 3-4 logos on the top and middle rows already so your possible points for hanging 1-2 more tubes is low).

If the score was close and the refs thought someone could have scored tubes to change the outcome then we would have replayed the match. Luckily this was not necessary.

[FRC4ME]

I saw a few sensors fail to trigger that probably should have at VCU.

That the sensors don't work all the time is not an issue. While I would have liked to see less failures, we can't expect the field to work 100% of the time. Where I see a problem is FIRST explicitly disallowing referees from overriding the automated scoring system in instances when it clearly did not work correctly. To pretend that the sensors work perfectly ("you must not have hit with enough force," "you must have hit a bolt," "it works when we whack it with a broom so it must be your minibot's fault..." etc) when they obviously do not is, IMO, a bit arrogant.

[ChristopherBuck]

There were at least three innstances where minibots did not trigger a particular tower at the VA (VCU) regional. I don't have the match numbers on hand, but I will look through the archive of the even later to find which ones they were. It happened to three different teams (at least), 612, 11, and 339 as stated above. In the cases I saw, it was pretty clear that the minibots hit with enough force, did not hit the bolt, and as far as the human eye could tell, looked like they hit the plate for more than 5ms.

[Jared Russell]

At Philly, both 365 and 1403 deployed minibots that failed to trigger the tower (despite a very loud THUD at the top).

[Bill Moore]

Originally Posted by Jared341

At Philly, both 365 and 1403 deployed minibots that failed to trigger the tower (despite a very loud THUD at the top).

Watching the webcast on Friday (Thanks to Team 1517, the Lumberjacks), in their second match, the MOE minibot went up the pole twice and struck the plate both times. I assumed this was a deliberate change to the program to ensure no repeat of a field issue as in match #1. I found out later it was not planned, but when the minibot went back to the bottom of the tower the impact reset it. So it climbed and scored a second time.

Not a bad strategy though if you have field issues and a very fast minibot.

[Akash Rastogi]

Eventhough there is nothing we can do about it, here is the video of the tower malfunction that cost 11's alliance a spot in the finals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvUwW...e_gdata_player

Very disappointing to watch. 11 first then 1676 then 25. Final score without malfunction was 92-91. Two regionals of being the 2nd overall Pick. Two regionals of taking the semis to 3 matches. Two straight regionals of very bad luck.

[Chris is me]

The weird thing was that 25 and 1676 lit up for second and third place, which indicates that the FMS correctly scored 11's tower as first place.

[EricDrost]

Not only did 1676 and 25 trigger as 2nd place and 3rd place, at the end of the match they were changed to 1st and 2nd place respectively, even though our minibot must have timestamped to display the other towers as 2nd and 3rd.

[Akash Rastogi]

Also, all the latest revisions of EWCP minibots were not large enough to hit the bolts. Otherwise 1477, 1323, 816 and 2415 would have all reported the same issues.