Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by archwaykitten

This is a robotics competition. Of course it should aspire to have autonomous scoring. They can't look at the engineering challenge of autonomous scoring and say "nah, that's too complicated. Let's just count things by hand". Not after what they asked us to do.

One of the most important engineering principles you can learn is that sometimes, the flashiest, highest-tech solution is not always the best one.

[Dragonking]

remember discs can go into goals then bounce out

[F22Rapture]

How would you guys prevent the chains from tripping the sensors? Because of the chains "dancing" afterwards, you would need to put them both far to the front or back... the back doesn't work because some low-velocity frisbees never make it back that far. You could put them both close to the very front, but then you wouldn't have much spread available.

Also, I've seen several points at which multiple frisbees converged to enter the goal at almost exactly the same spot and almost exactly the same time. A laser or ultrasonic sensor would have a very difficult time discerning this.

Also extreme wide-angle shots... you would possibly see a frisbee tripping multiple beams at once.

I think weight, despite its current issues, is still the best way to count frisbees.

[ice.berg]

I think weighing after auto and then zeroing the scales for tele. Then after the match while emptying the goals they double check the scores with lexan tubes that stack the discs to count them. Weight is the only way I can think of for doing real time scoring but they need some way to double check it with the inaccuracies shown during the week 1 regionals.

[Jaxom]

Originally Posted by bduddy

One of the most important engineering principles you can learn is that sometimes, the flashiest, highest-tech solution is not always the best one.

One of my early mentors gave me wise words -- when designing a system to compile & analyze information, your first design choice should always include consideration of a stack of 3x5 file cards. After 30+ years is IT, I've yet to find a reason to disagree with him.

[Leor Buch]

Originally Posted by bduddy

They're not automated, though. If something is unsure to the referees in real-time, they go back and look at the tape. Why FIRST doesn't allow the same thing, who knows...

field reset usually takes longer than the regional expected. imagine having the refs fiddle with a video of the match each time something wasn't clear. this could easily take 5 additional minutes and the time adds up quickly.
I'm not saying that this is fair, but there is no way FIRST could run events this way.

[GaryVoshol]

Where we gonna get the video? The feed that goes to the big screen is often not clear, especially when shrunk down to a laptop-size screen. How often do we hear that you can't see very much when you're watching webcasts?

And more likely than not, the camera will be focusing on something away from the event in question. This isn't the NFL where we have dozens of HD cameras looking at many different angles of play. It would hardly be fair to reverse some ruling based on being lucky that the camera saw it, when it couldn't be seen on the video in the last 4 protests.

[Alexa Stott]

I think there are a lot of strong arguments for having video replays, but, as pointed out in other posts, it's simply not financially feasible at this time.

[Orion.DeYoe]

So it seems like there aren't many simple ideas that are foolproof for real-time scoring. The weight sensors seemed like a good idea but I think the biggest problem is that the discs not only exert force on the bottom of the bin but also on the sides (which leads to the settling problem).
In my opinion they should use through-beam sensors running top to bottom in the goal . They would have the sensors (receiver on top and emitter on bottom or something like that) spaced out evenly in a row right in the opening of the goal with no gaps big enough for a disc to slip by without triggering a sensor. Then they would have a duplicate set spaced 2-3 inches farther inside the goal than the first set.
This would allow them to not only sense the discs presence in the opening of the goal but also it's direction of flight. If the first set is triggered first and the second next then the disc is entering. If the back sensors are triggered first then the disc is bouncing back out. You might actually have to look at the other end of the sensor spike just in case of a disc not going all the way past the sensors. If the first sensor turns off before the second then the disc has gone in whereas if the second sensor turns off first then the disc was leaving the goal.

[Orion.DeYoe]

Originally Posted by Orion.DeYoe

So it seems like there aren't many simple ideas that are foolproof for real-time scoring. The weight sensors seemed like a good idea but I think the biggest problem is that the discs not only exert force on the bottom of the bin but also on the sides (which leads to the settling problem).
In my opinion they should use through-beam sensors running top to bottom in the goal . They would have the sensors (receiver on top and emitter on bottom or something like that) spaced out evenly in a row right in the opening of the goal with no gaps big enough for a disc to slip by without triggering a sensor. Then they would have a duplicate set spaced 2-3 inches farther inside the goal than the first set.
This would allow them to not only sense the discs presence in the opening of the goal but also it's direction of flight. If the first set is triggered first and the second next then the disc is entering. If the back sensors are triggered first then the disc is bouncing back out. You might actually have to look at the other end of the sensor spike just in case of a disc not going all the way past the sensors. If the first sensor turns off before the second then the disc has gone in whereas if the second sensor turns off first then the disc was leaving the goal.

I guess this idea still doesn't work with designs like 1503's where all four discs go in at once.

[EricH]

Might be able to do it with both top/bottom and side/side, but that could get pretty nasty pretty fast. You'd get a "I know there's something at points X, Y, Z that could be a disc", but then you have to figure out if it's big enough and how many there are.

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by joelg236

I know for a fact hockey and basketball use sensors and cameras to count.

Got a source for that fact? I'm curious how the basketball sensor identifies a 3 point shot versus a foul shot, and how the hockey sensor detects the puck in the net when it is under the goalie's pad.

I know they use cameras to record and replay but am willing to learn more about the "automated" scoring systems of which you speak.

Jason

[MotorHead]

What about the use of RFID? They put RFID tags in all kinds of things now for tracking purposes. In the triathlon world it is very effective at tracking athletes on a course. They can even embed them in the ear of my dog. So I don't think size would be a major drawback to performance of a game piece.

Biggest drawback is added cost to game piece.

[pmangels17]

I think weight works fine. I believe the problem is that to empty the goal, they poke it with a big stick. I can't believe that that doesn't damage the weight sensors. If they had a less aggressive way to remove game pieces, I don't believe that weighing would be a problem.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by MotorHead

What about the use of RFID? They put RFID tags in all kinds of things now for tracking purposes. In the triathlon world it is very effective at tracking athletes on a course. They can even embed them in the ear of my dog. So I don't think size would be a major drawback to performance of a game piece.

Biggest drawback is added cost to game piece.

Hmmm.... That COULD work. However, there are a number of potential concerns I would have.

1) Range. Where I've seen RFID used tends to be very short-range applications, like reading a badge. I'm not saying it can't be long-range, because I don't know the maximum range, but that's a definite consideration.
2) Cost. You need to be able to get the equipment and use it with every game piece (though reading equipment could be used year-to-year as needed).
3) Putting one in every game piece...time is not in your favor.
4) Read speed--with the volume of pieces coming in at any given time, a quick read is a must--there isn't very long where a piece is in range.