Ideal FRC Game

[sebflippers]

Water game with minibots. The normal robot is on the field, but dumps a minibot into a small tank to push a button or something.

[Nemo]

My wishes for good games:

No Kinect please.

Autonomous that does not require vision targets to be good. I don't think it was necessary to use the camera in any of the games I've been involve in (2009 on). It seems like getting a camera to work in FRC is less about developing the code to process images and determine robot moves and more about the struggle to calibrate for the event lighting and figuring out how to get an image back without lagging your cRio. Unless those issues get easier, I will remain wary of cameras.

Tough Strategic Tradeoffs - I don't want it to constantly be obvious what we should be trying to do next like it generally was in 2011. In 2010 and 2012, you had to make tough choices about where to be and what to do - that was cool.

Flat field. But if the field has topography, design it with the idea that some teams aren't going to be able to make it over the obstacles, so there should still be a mostly flat path available (possibly less conveniently located or more crowded) from one end of the field to the other.

Seeding system that never rewards you for scoring less or intentionally scoring for the opponent.

Absence of penalties that constantly require difficult judgments by the referees.

Easy field to build.

My #1 wish: a game that can be practiced in a room with a 9 foot ceiling!

[JJackson]

Imagine a game where the field is like a giant ball pit and those balls are your game pieces....
plus there is either hanging or robot lifting at the end

[KJGreen]

Coming from someone who competed in BotBall, I would like a much longer autonomous period. BotBall was a fully autonomous competition and it really challenged our programmers. A 15 second period it just not long enough to really allow teams to show off what they can do. In the 2012 game, with more time I am sure teams would have been able to shoot 2 shots, clear their bridge, cross their bridge, and pass the opposing alliances missed shots back to their side.

[apalrd]

Originally Posted by ToddF

Because of the size of the slots, previously developed, "stock" drivetrains won't be the biggest scoring bots. Robots which are small, light, fast, and can get through the slots on their own would be the best. If you stick with a previously developed drivetrain, you have to go over the 6 foot wall, help other bots through the slots, or wait until the center section drops, and fight to get through.

I think you're completely missing the point about developing drivetrains, and using designs from the design shelf.

When we build prototype drivetrains pre-season, we have several goals:
-Design exercise for everyone involved
-Better performance in any number of categories (turning performance and weight are most commonly optimized) than what we have now
-Find a way to manufacture it easily using our resources
-Create a list of lessons learned that we would change the next time we built a similar drivetrain.

We built a nice development platform in the 2010 off-season. We ended up with an 8wd Dual Drive articulating rear wheel cantilever live axle chassis, with fully automated articulation (all written in C on the IFI processor) and Toughboxes that went around 11fps. We used kit wheels (2008 gray style) because we had a lot of them. We had a lot of things we wanted to learn, so we designed it to test all of them:
-Could we get away with thinwall (1/16th") box tube?
-Would our 2-plate bearing carrier work?
-Would the dynamic performance of the articulating drivetrain be better than a flat 8wd? We also wanted to develop algorithms for this since it worked well in initial tests.
-Would our method of chain tensioning work? We were slightly concerned about the lack of dynamic tensioning on the articulating wheels, and wanted to prove it.

We learned a lot. If, in 2011, we wanted to build a wide robot, it would not have been very hard to use the lessons learned from previous designs to build something good. We put the test chassis on our design shelf (figuratively, it was physically left in the basement), and decided it might be useful in the 2011 season (which it was). When we took the design off the shelf for season use, we also had a list of things we didn't like that we would change, changed them all, and modified it to fit our design goals for that season.

Most of the design in a design from the design shelf is not the exact length and width of the chassis. Had we been required to build a smaller or larger robot, we could have taken the wheel module assembly and located it anywhere along the frame rail, and adjusted the frame rail as necessary, or even added or subtracted wheels easily. To change the length and width, a total of four pieces would be made differently. All of the 'tough' design work was already done, in designing the wheel module assemblies. Those would not change, even as the robot dimensions change.

What's cool about that is we already have the 'stock' engineering done. For a specific game, once we decide we are building a skid-steer robot, and we make a general mechanism package model (large rectangles of space reserved for mechanisms, and optimal hard mounting points), we can CAD the frame rails or panels, and drop in the wheel module model we already have, and make it.


Basically, what I'm saying is that it's not hard to change the dimensions of a shelf design to fit another set of requirements.

[ToddF]

apalrd,
You raise some great points. If you don't mind, I'd like to paste your response into a new thread topic, as not to hijack this thread.

[Justin Montois]

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

Why do you think they were undervalued? A bad (ie someone didn't move) autonomous in 2009 was basically a death sentence. In 2010 a typical alliance would score about 3 pts in the entire match, so a free shot on goal was actually a pretty big deal.

If anything I think hybrid in 2012 was if anything over-valued, more basket points were scored in hybrid than in teleop! Should 15 seconds be more important than 2 minutes?

Originally Posted by IKE

I think you highly underestimated the importance of Auto Mode in 2010 and 2009. While 2009, you just needed to move (spinning worked well), if you didn't you were loaded up.

In 2010, clearing your zone, and sending balls to your home zone was huge. Getting those 3 balls into your home zone was a a potential 6 point swing.

I think you both are right but missing the point at the same time. Of course in those years having little to no autonomous mode hurt you, but like I said, there wasn't a significant bonus for completing it, at least in my opinion.

In 2011, 1 ubertube on the top row, could increase your score by 12 points, while the tube itself was worth 6. A regular tube was worth 3.

In 2012, each ball was scored was 4,5, or 6 points instead of 1,2, or 3.

Both 2011 and 2012 to me are perfect auto modes as they essentially doubled the teleop value of the same action. This is what I prefer and I hope that style continues.

[dellagd]

Originally Posted by Nemo

My wishes for good games:

No Kinect please.

~snip~

My #1 wish: a game that can be practiced in a room with a 9 foot ceiling!

While I really second the thing about the ceiling, I don't get why everyone is hating on the Kinect so much. They offered a fun way that you are able to control the robot. Nothing more than that. It's your choice whether or not you want to use it. Some teams did, some did not. Personally, even though I do not like the way the Kinect was used THIS year, I think the Kinect will be a very fun and interesting to use in FRC, both on the robot and with a human player. But even if I didn't, that doesn't mean that I WANT it not to be there, other teams may want it. I'm just not understanding all of the "get rid of the Kinect" stuff people are saying. No one said you had to use it.

[Nemo]

Originally Posted by dellagd

While I really second the thing about the ceiling, I don't get why everyone is hating on the Kinect so much. They offered a fun way that you are able to control the robot. Nothing more than that. It's your choice whether or not you want to use it. Some teams did, some did not. Personally, even though I do not like the way the Kinect was used THIS year, I think the Kinect will be a very fun and interesting to use in FRC, both on the robot and with a human player. But even if I didn't, that doesn't mean that I WANT it not to be there, other teams may want it. I'm just not understanding all of the "get rid of the Kinect" stuff people are saying. No one said you had to use it.

Last year it was harmless, and it won't bother me if that type of implementation sticks around. But I'm hoping Kinect doesn't become crucial for being competitive in the hybrid period, because I don't think it's the right tool for the job. If it's important this year, maybe we'll just use it as an elaborate switch.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by dellagd

While I really second the thing about the ceiling, I don't get why everyone is hating on the Kinect so much. They offered a fun way that you are able to control the robot. Nothing more than that. It's your choice whether or not you want to use it. Some teams did, some did not. Personally, even though I do not like the way the Kinect was used THIS year, I think the Kinect will be a very fun and interesting to use in FRC, both on the robot and with a human player. But even if I didn't, that doesn't mean that I WANT it not to be there, other teams may want it. I'm just not understanding all of the "get rid of the Kinect" stuff people are saying. No one said you had to use it.

All Kinect was good for last year was to cause Replays at the events I worked at. We had to assign to people to guard it as if Obama was in the zone prancing around. If anyone set one foot in there during the autonomous period the match was a scratch and had to be redone.It was more trouble than it was worth.

[Jwingate3015]

I think it would be neat if the game field had multiple levels to it, and it would have stack-able game pieces that the robot would have to stack, then drive up to reach higher levels where it would then accomplish a second objective.

Or, perhaps if the game field or the drive team were completely concealed, having no physical view of the robot, requiring them to rely completely on cameras and sensors on the robot in order to maneuver around the game field.

[cmrnpizzo14]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

All Kinect was good for last year was to cause Replays at the events I worked at. We had to assign to people to guard it as if Obama was in the zone prancing around. If anyone set one foot in there during the autonomous period the match was a scratch and had to be redone.It was more trouble than it was worth.

Not necessarily true. For hybrid, yes it caused replays and was not often utilized by teams (although we did benefit from one of those replays at CMP.... ). However, the teams that took advantage of the Kinect's vision capabilities for targeting were incredibly successful if their programmers spent some time on it.

I like the idea of having the kinect available in Hybrid/Auton. especially if that period were increased to say 30 seconds (?) This would help fulfill a 3 minute game like so many people are looking for, and allow more utilization of the kinect. For 15 seconds, it is not useful, but in 30 seconds a lot could happen. We would see a lot of dead robots on the field for the final 10 seconds of hybrid, but if a team could successfully utilize the kinect, even for a brief 10 seconds after a 20 second Auton program, I think it would be a real game changer and make for an interesting competition.

......but really, those field issues do need to be resolved......

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by cmrnpizzo14

However, the teams that took advantage of the Kinect's vision capabilities for targeting were incredibly successful if their programmers spent some time on it.

As far as I know, this should be team.

[Phyrxes]

My only real Kinect memory from last season is a team that used it help their bridge balancing. After successfully balancing the student became excited and celebrated by making a few "happy gestures" and as the match wasn't over yet, the bot reacted to the motion by driving off the bridge.

[MetalJacket]

The kinect last year did open up the opportunity for the human players to have a little extra fun during hybrid, as was seen in the Cheesy Poof's wonderful hybrid mode