Team Update 2012-02-14

[gurellia53]

We are given a definition. We design around that definition. The definition changes but the deadlines don't. Sounds kind of like engineering...

Originally Posted by Cory

nobody should be surprised at this update.

Ok, in the future I will push my team's designs away from being creative and no more thinking outside the box.

[GW Kalrod]

Originally Posted by gurellia53

We are given a definition. We design around that definition. The definition changes but the deadlines don't. Sounds kind of like engineering...



Ok, in the future I will push my team's designs away from being creative and no more thinking outside the box.

Not the purpose at all, look at the breakaway finals. You just have to be prepared for rule changes.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by gurellia53

We are given a definition. We design around that definition. The definition changes but the deadlines don't. Sounds kind of like engineering...



Ok, in the future I will push my team's designs away from being creative and no more thinking outside the box.

Part of engineering is anticipating what your customers want. Ever worked a project before it's fully funded? I have, and it was because if I didn't I wouldn't have met the schedule expectations. How creative teams get with that anticipation is 100% on the teams.

If FRC were the open marketplace, the GDC basically just said customers aren't going to buy cute little troll bots with pink hair. If this were the government or a large company who put out an interactive RFP, this is like them saying "that's not what we meant". And "that's not what we meant" was almost a weekly occurrence on some of my projects.

So Swamp Thing -- does your bot still comply? I'm not sure what all encompasses the "Bridge Base", but from a first look it still does.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by JesseK

Part of engineering is anticipating what your customers want.

Yup. I'm actually pleased that FIRST is moving even more toward a non-positivist rules set, wherein reasonable interpretation of intent guides design. It's much more realistic...

...at least FIRST doesn't change parameters like footprint, weight, and allowable power sources during the build season -- that would be an even more realistic engineering project!

[its da PAT!!!]

I remember in 07', we got to champs and they told us that if any part of a tube was touching your ramp then the lift didn't count. Which made us very mad.

[BrendanB]

Wait, people were surprised by this update?

[Aren_Hill]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

Wait, people were surprised by this update?

The fact it's week 6 and we had some things based off the "official" answer to two QandA questions, that were "official interpretations", yes I am surprised by it.

Engineering drawings don't have gray area, the one they referenced even had the balloon breakouts labeling every part, and they used that twice as answers to what defined "the bridge", you'd think if they were referencing a drawing they could at least read the list that is on the page for the sole purpose of quickly showing what is included in an assembly....

[ThirteenOfTwo]

Tough luck for the teams who built a design around this concept, but I have to say I saw this one coming a million miles away. To me, it was always obvious that the intent of the rule was to get you to balance while only touching the top of the bridge. Since the Q&A that defined the bridge wasn't related, you probably should have been a little more suspicious about this one.

I feel like they definitely should have had a ruling out on this sooner, though.

[lemiant]

Even though this doesn't affect us, this makes me really mad . I remember when I was at champs in 2008 and one of the teams had a base that couldn't move and a crane that picked up the ball and moved it around the field. They won their regional, but the GDC screwed them between then and champs by changing the rules to make their strategy illegal. This seems wrong. Think how discouraging it would be to any teams who did use this strategy.

I don't like the comparison to engineering either. This is not engineering, this is a sport. The objective is to compete within the framework defined by the rules. The rules should be static and not open to killing edge-case designs. No one changes the rules of hockey because they came up with a new play. Even battlebots had the decency to let Son of Wyachi ride it's lawyering to a victory before changing the rules next season.

My 2 cents,

- Alex

[Cory]

Originally Posted by lemiant

Even though this doesn't affect us, this makes me really mad . I remember when I was at champs in 2008 and one of the teams had a base that couldn't move and a crane that picked up the ball and moved it around the field. They won their regional, but the GDC screwed them between then and champs by changing the rules to make their strategy illegal. This seems wrong. Think how discouraging it would be to any teams who did use this strategy.


My 2 cents,

- Alex

This is not true. 190 was always in violation of the rules. It did not take a GDC ruling to figure it out. They just somehow managed to compete at one event regardless of the legality of their robot.

[Nick Lawrence]

I'm a bit to steamed to make this long winded, so I'll make it short.

I feel sorry for the teams I know that built short bots. It does slightly annoy me that a major part of the game is now illegal on week 6 because if mis-definitions.

But how could the GDC know this strategy without someone posting "Is the Bridge considered balanced if the robot is fully supported by something other than the top surface? (or ball ramp)"

-Nick

[fox46]

Imagine you were designing a product for a customer and they said - "we want a machine which will be able to balance on this bridge".

What do you think your customer is going to say when you give them a machine that simply wedges itself underneath the bridge against the ambutments?

Really guys.. is it that difficult to see that this is not what FIRST wanted you to do?

[Taylor]

Against my better judgement, I can say the precedent was set in 2010 when the GDC allowed teams to elevate from the vertical parts of the Tower.

That being said, previous rulings from previous games do not reflect or hold true for current or future games. I can see both sides of this debate; I can also see which side is clearly "right" and intended by the rules. For those that wish to draw parallels to 71 in 2002 or 469 in 2010, those teams repeatedly, pointedly requested clarification to ensure their designs were in fact legal.

[Aren_Hill]

Originally Posted by fox46

Imagine you were designing a product for a customer and they said - "we want a machine which will be able to balance on this bridge".

What do you think your customer is going to say when you give them a machine that simply wedges itself underneath the bridge against the ambutments?

Really guys.. is it that difficult to see that this is not what FIRST wanted you to do?

If they said "balance this bridge" I would ask "what is the bridge?, and what is balanced?" both of which we had black and white definitions for in this case. No lawyering, no stretching, nothing.

If you wouldn't take that same approach what route would you take? The animation didn't show that?

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by its da PAT!!!

I remember in 07', we got to champs and they told us that if any part of a tube was touching your ramp then the lift didn't count. Which made we very mad.

It was worse that that, they said any part of the robot.

In the first match we had two robots on top of us and they ruled that our arm was touching a tube so it didn't count. The ruling was that the the tube was supporting us!