Real-Time Scoring Not Working?

[thursam]

My team has yet to go to competition, we're due there on March 14th, but we have been keeping an eye out for the scoring. A lot of people have been saying they're pulling in volunteers to fill in the spots for scorekeeping and such.
Can anyone validate these claims?

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by thursam

My team has yet to go to competition, we're due there on March 14th, but we have been keeping an eye out for the scoring. A lot of people have been saying they're pulling in volunteers to fill in the spots for scorekeeping and such.
Can anyone validate these claims?

What kind of validation are you looking for? Isn't "a lot of people" pretty good validation? What about Frank's blog?

[thursam]

"A lot of people" is enough to support it, yes, but I was looking for a general number. (I should have specified.)
And could you please link me to Frank's blog?

[jyh947]

Originally Posted by joelg236

Yup...

but because of the number of variables involved, the reported number of discs may be off by a disc or two from time to time

Yes. Off by one to two discs.

[Alexa Stott]

Originally Posted by DonRotolo

Good choice of words Gary: Unfortunate. I am sure everyone had hoped it would work, but that's just not how it works in the real world.

I can't do better; anyone who can should do so before the end of the season and give one to FIRST for their use. Hey, maybe you'll end up on the GDC...

I completely disagree with the attitude you are taking towards this. This is an issue that has some real on- and off-field consequences. Matches can be won or lost based on an error with the scoring system. Those matches affect who wins/loses events, who qualifies for championships, etc.

Sure, you might fall back on the whole "it's not about the robot" thing that people love to throw around. But I know that when talking to press, community members, potential sponsors, etc., it sure helps a lot to be able to show them some on-field success.

And what about when you explain to them that you missed out on winning an event because of an error with the scoring system? Doesn't that negatively influence their image of FIRST? Why would they want to sponsor a team that participates in a program that can't get its act together to figure out how to effectively score their own game?

This is another instance where FIRST should have anticipated this issue. How often have automated scoring systems worked out in games that have multiple game pieces being flung at high velocity into the goals? None that I can remember.

I also take issue with being told that I basically have no right to raise my concerns because I don't have a better solution. I'm a college student. My "job" is to study, learn, and pass my classes. The GDC and FIRST's job is to make sure their field works properly and that it collects accurate information about what's gong on.

[apalrd]

I almost posted a picture earlier of a 300+ score coming out of Auton at Kettering. The blue alliance side was usually off by at least 50 points. Apparently they tried recalibrating it every few matches and then gave up.

At least with this system they realize that it really doesn't work, and have people manually scoring. Kettering had 4 people dedicated to counting discs during the match.

Everyone was basically ignoring the on-screen score since it changed wildly post-match.

Edit:
I think the best solution is to do something like what they did in many past games: Leave the scoring to the humans, but give them some sort of button box to deal with realtime scoring.

[Michael Hill]

I was watching parts of the Palmetto and Finger Lakes regionals today, and what I didn't quite understand was how the automatic scoring system was generating odd scores in autonomous. You cannot have an odd score in autonomous since everything is multiplied by two...It looked like something was going on weird with the software.

[Qbot2640]

Originally Posted by Robotmmm

Here in Palmetto the scoring is awful. High score so far according to system was 1008 and not a single robot shot a disk. Like that in so many matches. Seems like even when it is corrected that it is still not right.

Yes...many of the matches at Palmetto would start with a score of 30 or more on the scoreboard - before a disc was even shot.

It is particularly rough for those teams that developed a flexible endgame to apply for different needs...if you don't know how many points you need to win, how do you know what to do?

[Jacob.B]

I worked as field reset and was told the weight sensors were for real-time scoring, and are highly sensitive. The reset volunteers count the discs and relay this to the front table, which overrules the real time scoring.

[dellagd]

Originally Posted by joelg236

Yup...

Darn. We had a 348 points for an alliance here at Hatboro.


Darn I thought we'd win.

[mandrews281]

I'm sure the real time sensors are weight sensitive and the refs were watching the auton scoring so they could subtract the number of discs from the total count. I suspect the photo had something mechanically stuck making the goal box seem heavy. If someone is counting the discs for each Q match, that's one hell of a job. There was more time being taken between elimination matches at Palmetto (including huddles at the scoring table), so they might have been counting them for eliminations.

If anyone here has a better suggestion for a real time scoring system for now or in the future, I'd suggest adding it to your feedback forms; but sometimes the real world is not a very precise place.

[Crazy Ewok]

I was at the Kettering District competition in Michigan this weekend and the volunteer coordinator had me and a teammate counting the disks and reporting the scores to the scoring table to double check the automated scoring system. For the most part the scoring system seemed fairly accurate, however we did find that the one two point goal wasn't registering disks at the end of the day. Now keep in mind that me and my teammate are both certified referees and trusted to report the scores honestly and accurately. To just grab to random team members and have them reporting scores could result in opportunities/temptations to alter the scores but it keeps the load off referees and I expect to see it at the rest of the Michigan competitions.

Good luck to all teams

I'll see you at Gull Lake, St. Joes (as a Ref), Livonia, and Bedford

[Cameron1986]

At the Hub City Regional in Texas they would count all of the discs at the end of autonomous and at the end of a match to decide the final scores. The live scoring system wasn't very accurate as the scores got higher, matches with fewer discs would be scored better. It is something that I hope to see calibrated better as the weeks move on.

[MooreteP]

I would not worry too much about this.
Humans, with our vastly superior computing power have found a solution and it is working fine.

I was sitting at the scoring table with the scorers counting the goals. It was actually kind of fun, especially when 1519, a cross court shooter, got in their calibrated zone. "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ,9 in the 2 point goal"

Here in New Hampshire, all of the FIRST horsepower was there analyzing the signals and checking the variance of each matches counts in each goal.
Data was taken and will be analyzed.

Between the visual counting of the frisbees going in in autonomous and tele-op, and the final volunteer counting verification, the scoring was sound. IMHO

A better solution may been to use RFID's on the frisbees. That way we could also catch the souvenir hunters.

[FrankJ]

Load cells used in weighing systems are generally accurate & robust. The problems come up with how they are placed into the system. The goals need to be total supported by the cells with no contact with anything else. I aspect this will get better as the weeks go on & lessons learned get incorporated into field set up.