2013 ACTUAL game hint!!!

[|DELTA|]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

...we aren't certain the KOP chassis is smaller, we just know it all fits in a smaller box.

Good point. Many people are assuming to much, I think.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by jspatz1

I guess I was remembering that they dramatically increased the allowance in 2009. At the time the reason given was to allow more time with the new control system, but they have continued the larger allowances. An even bigger change is that it used to be prohibited to work on actual robot components, upgrades, or software after build season. We were allowed two 5-hour "fix-it" work sessions after ship date, and between each regional, where we could build or repair spares or minor modifications, or work on software, but there was no on-going redesign and fabrication allowed after build season. Your robot was what it was at the end of build season, and that's what you competed with.

Ok, though I can't say I noticed much of a difference. I know we were far from the only team seriously iterating during those 10hrs every week (that had a regional) to "manufacture SPARE, REPLACEMENT and UPGRADE PARTS and develop software". Given the heavier NI system, the allowance hasn't changed much aside from the '09 switch and '10 snow.


Regardless, has the hint ever alluded to a construction rule? Most of the ones I remember are field-related--and pretty direct at that. 2012 said ball shooting, 2011 said tower climbing and logo pieces, 2010 said soccer ball and divided field, 2009 said ice game, 2008 said hurdling and race track... Some were more difficult than others (kudos to the guy who did the 2010 soccer ball calculations), but very specific information was there for those geniuses out there who could get it.

I suspect we're looking for something more direct (arena, game or robot) as far as the poem goes...though other than lifting allies and coopertating, I have no rational guess as to what. Hey, I never said I was one of those geniuses.


As far as the AM chassis size, how long has the 20" long Nano been for sale? While I could see the robot size limits going down, is it possible that Andy simply wants to provide Nano instead of the C-Base? I don't know about performance or assembly (trickier?) trade-offs, but it is cheaper ($479 vs $549). Note that nothing on the site currently sells for exactly the PDV value ($450), and the Nano is actually among the closest.

Originally Posted by F22Rapture

It's my understanding that 4" plaction wheels have been available on and from Andymark for years, the only new development this year is that they're offering a new tread for them similar to the 6" HiGrips

He's talking about these.

EDIT:
@dotbran: I'm still waiting for traffic cones and nerf footballs. ...Just not simultaneously.

[srolack2]

Water game 100%

[DampRobot]

Although it sure would be interesting to find out on the 5th that we need a smaller chassis, I really don't think the size will change. As I said earlier, the GDC tends to stick with what works. I find it especially hard to believe that they would both change the chassis dimensions and the number of robots on the field at the same time, since both haven't really changed since 2005, and neither present huge problems.

In case others on this thread didn't know, the reason they chose the 38" by 28" frame size was to allow robots with bumpers to fit through standard sized doors. Not that smaller frames would change this, but the 28" number wasn't just pulled out of a hat. I would suspect that the kitbot is just smaller than usual, but I could easily be surprised come kickoff.

Changing the withholding allowance wouldn't "level the playing field." Powerhouse teams don't just iterate heavily, they often just get how to play a game successfully because they've had successful designs in the past. Sure, all the best teams upgrade their robot, keep parts of it back for software, or just manufacture parts after build is over. But if they had to ship their final robot, it would be very good anyway. Eliminating the withholding allowance would hurt the teams who didn't get the robot right the first time (the non-powerhouse teams) a lot more than those who mostly did (the powerhouse teams).

[dotbran]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

Changing the withholding allowance wouldn't "level the playing field." Powerhouse teams don't just iterate heavily, they often just get how to play a game successfully because they've had successful designs in the past. Sure, all the best teams upgrade their robot, keep parts of it back for software, or just manufacture parts after build is over. But if they had to ship their final robot, it would be very good anyway. Eliminating the withholding allowance would hurt the teams who didn't get the robot right the first time (the non-powerhouse teams) a lot more than those who mostly did (the powerhouse teams).

In my experience it is the powerhouse teams who withhold the most weight and have the resources and expertise to take best advantage of the extra time.

Originally Posted by dotbran

In my experience it is the powerhouse teams who withhold the most weight and have the resources and expertise to take best advantage of the extra time.

It's not that the powerhouse teams get the time to iterate, it's that the teams who use the time given to them to iterate end up being powerhouse teams.

Iteration is something everyone can do.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by dodar

...yes, Andymark is now making robots with multiple sections where they have to bolt together instead of making sturdy, one-piece sides. I'm sorry, but that makes zero sense.

There are several totally plausible designs that could feature a multi-part chassis rail. Maybe a chassis with angled ends (think like this \_/), or a chassis with a transmission bolted to the end, or a system where the outer parts of the frame move out to tension the outermost wheels. Maybe it won't even be square. Perhaps the game will have an incentive for a smaller chassis, but not a requirement. We just don't know.

We're not a powerhouse team and we have always brought in as much weight as possible. Iteration is a necessary but not sufficient criteria to being a powerhouse team.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by Siri

I'm still waiting for traffic cones and nerf footballs. ...Just not simultaneously.

Traffic cones are very high on my list of game pieces that would be great for FRC. Frisbees or other disks would be interesting.

Foam cubes like VEX elevation would also be fun.

I'm dreading the day they finally give us small balls. Racquetballs would be so hard with FRC robots.

[inkspell4]

Has anyone else noticed this new product on andymark?

http://www.andymark.com/product-p/am-2414.htm

[dcarr]

Originally Posted by inkspell4

Has anyone else noticed this new product on andymark?

http://www.andymark.com/product-p/am-2414.htm

Yep - a long-running joke has finally been made into a T-Shirt.

[inkspell4]

Truthfully just making a robots control system accessible yet waterproof might be a challenge in itself not including the fact that it would most likely require some type of easily manipulated propulsion system.

Lastly would the venues used for the competitions even have a area where a water game could be played.

I believe first will stick to games based on land

[F22Rapture]

Originally Posted by inkspell4

Truthfully just making a robots control system accessible yet waterproof might be a challenge in itself not including the fact that it would most likely require some type of easily manipulated propulsion system.

Lastly would the venues used for the competitions even have a area where a water game could be played.

I believe first will stick to games based on land

I don't think anyone disagrees

Hence why it's a "long running joke"

[alectronic]

Originally Posted by dotbran

In my experience it is the powerhouse teams who withhold the most weight and have the resources and expertise to take best advantage of the extra time.

Just in response to people that have speculated an end of stop build or whatnot, it looks like that is already outlined in the manual. It says stop build day is the 19th, but it is true that there isn't details on the withholding info.

http://frc-manual.usfirst.org/viewItem/7#4.6.1

[Chimera0x694]

Originally Posted by holygrail

Here are the things I think are important for the info we have so far.
1. I think the significance of the 12/21/12 release date is that if you add the 1s and 2s together you get 3/3/3. Three groups of 3.
2. This was game hint 3, even though you really have to stretch to assume that there were two other official hints.
3. Pi was the key to decoding the hint (a version of 3)
4. The Rick Astley video was from exactly the three minute mark
5. This doesn’t have to do with three, but the box dimensions on the chassis are smaller this year.

Okay, so here is what I think it all means.
I think we had correctly figured out that the 3:00 mark on the Rick Astley hint means that we will have 3:00 matches this year. This bothered me because I, like most people (I think) would rather play more matches rather than fewer.

But if there are 3 alliances of 3 robots each, you can still have each robot play about 10 matches in qualification rounds with only about 2/3 of the matches. Usually at a 60 robot regional, you have to play about 100 matches for each robot to be in 10 matches. With 9 robots on the field, you only need 67 matches to do the same thing. I don’t even want to think about what this means for scouting though.

Fewer, longer matches also means more time with robots on the field and less reset time. Also, more interesting for the spectators.

This also goes along with the smaller robot dimensions. To have more robots on the field, they need to be smaller.

3/3/3 – 3 robots, 3 alliances, 3 minute matches

As for the nature of the game, I feel like it is much more speculative. I do feel like there may be a big tower in the middle of the field for something, but I wouldn’t bet much money on that thought. I feel more confident about the idea that you will have to hold up something heavy since it is (kind of) in both clues. The Rick Astley song – “Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down” and in the cypher “A dinner missed, holding weight.”

About the "Game hint number 3" issue. the # sign is NOT known officially known as the symbol for "Number", it is the "pound" symbol. So, since there was no OFFICIAL game hint one and two, we can only assume that it is not labeling it as number 3, but as pound 3. Maybe the game pieces weigh 3 pounds... Maybe if there is a minibot again this year, it has to weigh less than three pounds....

[Chimera0x694]

I have been thinking about how the game hint was labeled "#3"... we have all been assuming that the # symbol stands for number, when in actuality it refers to "pound". Pound 3? Maybe the game pieces weigh 3 pounds....