Official Rebound Rumble Thread

[Ricky Q.]

Where is the Definitions section? Doesn't appear posted yet. Could prove useful.

[cosmicexplorer]

Are we allowed to use outside libraries for our code? We were thinking of using OpenCV, but [R18] says "Robot elements designed or created before the Kickoff presentation, including software, are not
permitted."

Now later in [R18], it says, after describing another team making robot code, that

After completing the software,
they post it in a generally accessible public forum and make the code available to all
teams. Because they have made their software generally available (per the definition of
COTS, it is considered COTS software and they can use it on their Robot).

This doesn't specifically mention outside libraries, but it seems implied. I'd like to get some confirmation on whether they're allowed, though.

[rcmolloy]

My question to the GDC is why is there not a "3 point line" bonus beyond the key?

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by rcmolloy

My question to the GDC is why is there not a "3 point line" bonus beyond the key?

It should be if you can hit from the opposite side of the field you get 5 points.

[Tetraman]

I like the game quite a bit. However I do find the Hoop setup rather silly looking.

And I'll echo everyone's comments on how AWESOME the game manual looks and breathes. Very very very well done by the GDC, and probably the best thing about this year so far.

At our mentor meeting, 174 thought about challenging Syracuse to a little 1 on 1. haha.

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

The Key has that 2005 Danger Zone element to it. No matter who initiates the contact the defensive bot get the foul. Teams need to think carefully about defending that area, if at all.

In the same way, I expect to see the return of Zip-Tie Skirts on every robot chassis. Because even if your robot is OVER your Key, per [G28] only if a robot is IN CONTACT with the Key will it be a foul. Having those Zip-Tie Skirts will ensure that refs can accurately foul and give you those 3 points.

[zozeypop]

Anyone know the angle of the bridges?

[Donut]

This game has the best manual I have seen in years, probably ever. It really does not take that long to read through most of the manual (the important sections total to only 50 pages or so) and the new viewing methods such as the smart phone app make it so much easier to pull up at any time.

Getting across the field is going to be hard I believe; a lot harder than my initial impression. I thought at first that the bridges would be a nice quick way across, but after watching the field walkthrough videos on the FIRST youtube page I think the bridge is going to be more difficult to cross than it looks (for all the students out there I encourage you to run the numbers based on the test that FIRST gives for making sure your bridge behaves properly. With some torque calculations you can find it is not a trivial weight required to lower the bridge down to get on it). Add the bump that is rather large and teams with a poor drivetrain really have no shot at getting more scoring elements.

Also, was anyone else less than impressed by the option of using Kinect to drive? I think the cool factor of it is through the roof, but from a usefulness perspective I don't see how it provides any benefit beyond regular autonomous.

[EricLeifermann]

It seems like the GDC got lazy and copied 2006.

I like that they twisted it and made the goal(s) parallel to the floor, it adds complexity to the game 2006 didn't really have.

I don't like that there is really only one way to score(yes there are the bridges but its an end game bonus type thing so im not counting it.) I'd like some variety in the game so we can see some new stuff. This is 2 years in a row now that they have recycled a previous game.

[gyroscopeRaptor]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

It seems like the GDC got lazy and copied 2006. This is 2 years in a row now that they have recycled a previous game.

FRC has similar (not recycled) games often.

Toroid Terror was copied by rack n roll omg!!!!eleven1

There are key differences. Aim High and Lunacy, when compared to RR, are mostly different due to the amount of balls you can carry, and removing this element (mostly) from the robot makes a difference in design.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

It seems like the GDC got lazy and copied 2006.

I like that they twisted it and made the goal(s) parallel to the floor, it adds complexity to the game 2006 didn't really have.

I don't like that there is really only one way to score(yes there are the bridges but its an end game bonus type thing so im not counting it.) I'd like some variety in the game so we can see some new stuff. This is 2 years in a row now that they have recycled a previous game.

There is nothing new under the sun. Everything takes inspiration from something. I have no problem with what the GDC came up with,

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

It seems like the GDC got lazy and copied 2006.
... I'd like some variety in the game so we can see some new stuff. This is 2 years in a row now that they have recycled a previous game.

If you really think the 2012 game is the same as 2006, why not try building a copy of your 2006 robot? Perhaps your Aim High robot's shooter wasn't accurate enough to hit a basketball goal?

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by gyroscopeRaptor

FRC has similar (not recycled) games often.

Toroid Terror was copied by rack n roll omg!!!!eleven1

There are key differences. Aim High and Lunacy, when compared to RR, are mostly different due to the amount of balls you can carry, and removing this element (mostly) from the robot makes a difference in design.

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

There is nothing new under the sun. Everything takes inspiration from something. I have no problem with what the GDC came up with,

Yes I understand that games have similarities(I have been around this competition for few years) but this is straight up Aim High, they just moved the ramp/platforms to the center and made you balance it and turned the goal 90 degrees and took away 82 balls. There was very little creativity in this game and that is what I dislike about it. I might just be "upset" because I am one of the very few who thought aim high was boring.

That being said I do feel that this game will be better than Aim High, shooting a ball into a basketball hoop is going to take finesse, and this game is going to take alot of game strategy.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Richard

If you really think the 2012 game is the same as 2006, why not try building a copy of your 2006 robot? Perhaps your Aim High robot's shooter wasn't accurate enough to hit a basketball goal?

I doubt many aim high robots could clear the bump in the middle of this years field

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

I doubt many aim high robots could clear the bump in the middle of this years field

I think that ramp to the platform for Aim High was steeper.

[Schnabel]

Originally Posted by zozeypop

Anyone know the angle of the bridges?

I don't know of a specific angle, but in the field demo video they stated that it will be about 1' off the floor when balanced, then 2' off of the floor when up. You can always get an aprox. angle from the measurements.