Mad Dash for the Controls?

[Adam Y.]

It seems that FIRST has to be more liberal with their allowance of mobility aids in the alliance stations because of this rule.

Hmm You would think First would have to make people use their wheelchairs in the first place even if they technically can move without them. It would probably be a big safety issue if they didn't. Three feet isn't that long of a distance. I know I am not going to run to it.

[DaveG702]

Originally posted by wysiswyg
Three feet isn't that long of a distance. I know I am not going to run to it.

This coming from the guy who broke his nose by kneeing himself in the face lol

but I do agree, three feet isn't much. If the teams think about it, there shouldn't be too much panic

Dave

[Adam Y.]

This coming from the guy who broke his nose by kneeing himself in the face lol

Well in all honesty I was practicing judo which can be quite brutal if you are new to it. I know somoene who broke her sholder bone because she landed incorrectly. Of course breaking your nose by kneeing it I think that is a first. I wrote a 8 page essay about my karate experience. It is quite funny.

[Rick]

Originally posted by JVN
Ricksta-
I hope you trip on your way to the controls, just to prove that accidents DO happen, especially to those who are cocky about it. Even the most sure footed people stumble sometimes... [/b]

Real nice. Theres no need to say somethin like that at all. I said no one will fall and you go and say you want me too. And havent heard of very many accidents happening behind the glass. as long as your team knows which controls they are going to no problems should insue. I hope no one falls at all. I would never wish bodily harm on anyone in first. way to represent.

[JVN]

Ricksta-
I did not wish you any bodily harm.
I just wanted to prove a point. You told everyone off for caring about what we view as a potential safety issue. As always: way to represent!
As M said: Your attitude NEEDS to be adjusted.

Always think safety. I HAVE seen competition accidents before. On the field, in the booth, and in the pits.

[Ian W.]

john and wysiswyg:

it's not that i want her to be able to use a wheelchair. i know she can get away with that, hell, we even joked about getting her an iBot (she wouldn't complain ). but, it comes down to this. she wants to be independent. she can walk, just not fast. i've walked across the school with her. took maybe twice as long, but she likes being able to walk, not tied to her chair. so, that means she'll refuse to use a chair. and she's stubborn, you don't have your way with her. she has her way with you.

i don't think she wants to be singled out as "special" though either. i may be wrong about this part, but i'm pretty sure she'd rather be a driver, and just have fun. so, for the umpteenth time, this rule should be removed. and now that the E-Stop button isn't an issure, problem solved, i would think.

[sevisehda]

I surprised thw whole issue of wheelchairs or accomidations for disabilities hasn't come up before. FIRST has a rule that says a drivers feet has to be on the ground, well obviously that excludes anyone in a wheelchair from driving. Even if someone has cruches it would take them longer to move forward if there behind some line. Its unfair no matter how short the distance.

I've got an easy solution. Have the drivers put there hands on the glass like there being frisked for the 15 seconds. Obviously they can't control there bot and they can't do any subverted control either. It would have the same impact on the audience as being behind the line

[Soukup]

OKAY...ALL THIS DISCUSSION IS POINTLESS!!!! 3 FEET... is 3 feet. Most adult males could hop above 5 feet at any given second. the discussion of people falling...dumb as well. think about it people. Any one can make it 3 feet in 1 second and have the controls. don't believe...actually try it!!!!! put your controls on a table and stand three feet away from this table. OOOOHHHH..suddenly it's not so far. You couldn't possibly trip unless you are trying to. And if you did trip...your hands..would no doubt brace you because you'd be reaching for the controls right.

The issue of disabilities...talk to first about it. Just complainng about your situation doesn't do anything..talk to first..and you know what they'll probably understand..but you have to talk to first before you post.

If their is anyone that still believs that this is a safety hazard...actually try a leap of 3 feet in about a second...and if you were really smart...you'd program your robot to continue doing it's pre-programmed activity until you touch your joysticks. This issue isn't that big of a deal. Sure the most sure-footed do fall..but this is like taking a step people...someone over-exagerated about he situation.

[ChrisH]

All this talk about safety is just a smokescreen. I am not particularly tall but I can stand behind a three foot line and REACH to the controls. I don't necessarily have to move my feet at all. It wouldn't be comfortable but I can do it.

The real issue is as Dave Lavery posted earlier and many of you seem to be ignoring. There has been much discussion of how to communicate with the robot via the control station. In my not so humble opinion this is to circumvent a very important part of the game design.

There is a reason the human player portion of the game is AFTER the robots are in place. That is so you MUST decide what program your robot is going to run BEFORE you know what the human players are going to do.

The rule is to prevent teams from switching from "attack the highest stack" to "bring home the boxes" or vise versa during the human player portion of the match. It may be that there are technological "holes" in the system that will allow you to do this and that cannot be prevented any other way. I don't know because I for one haven't been looking.

At least those of you who are looking were silly enough to post it here, so everybody knows about it and something can be done. If you were REALLY intelligent and discovered some method to do this, you would understand the tremendous competitive advantage and keep your yap shut. Then you would just use it in competition in such a way that people would marvel at either your programming skill or your ability to read the other team's mind. But you wouldn't say anything about it, certainly not here.

All the fuming is really about having your advantage taken away, and it's your own fault. You made a little too much noise in the kitchen and got caught with your hands in the cookie jar.

Stop whining, you're sounding like children. Oh wait, most of you are children.

[Madison]

Originally posted by ChrisH
[b]All this talk about safety is just a smokescreen.

For some, perhaps. For others, it's definitely not. We don't want to see people get hurt. Ever. It's really that simple. Our intention is honorable, whether you choose to believe it or not.

The rule is to prevent teams from switching from "attack the highest stack" to "bring home the boxes" or vise versa during the human player portion of the match. It may be that there are technological "holes" in the system that will allow you to do this and that cannot be prevented any other way. I don't know because I for one haven't been looking.

My concern is simply that there are probably simpler, equally effective ways to see that the intent of the autonomous period is upheld that don't present an additional safety risk. Nobody should get hurt by tools, or by stepping over the barrier onto the field, or by doing thousands of other things that happen at the competition. But, it does happen. I can't see the point in adding another opportunity for someone to cause themselves physical harm. It's easy enough to walk three feet, or take a giant step, or long jump, or whatever. Now. During the excitement and insanity of a competition, the students will be thinking about so much more than just taking that step that, in my opinion, it presents an additional risk.

I'm a complete clutz when I'm excited. I'm not alone in this.

At least those of you who are looking were silly enough to post it here, so everybody knows about it and something can be done. If you were REALLY intelligent and discovered some method to do this, you would understand the tremendous competitive advantage and keep your yap shut. Then you would just use it in competition in such a way that people would marvel at either your programming skill or your ability to read the other team's mind. But you wouldn't say anything about it, certainly not here.

I was among the first people, if not the first person, to ask FIRST about the legality of using the E-Stop button to cycle through autonomous programs. I noted to my team, however, that its effectiveness would be limited because of the time it would take to cycle through, initialize, and begin running any one of several programs. 15 seconds isn't that long, after all.

FIRST is an opportunity for me to tackle problems that have long been solved. It presents me with an amazing "what if" opportunity. I'm notorious among teams for never, ever taking the easy way out. I design everything I can from scratch, learning from the past, but trying to improve upon it or do things a little bit differently. I would hazard a guess that there are many other people like me, and while they may not have the same opportunities to experiment that I do, their mind is always working.

I don't consider it ungracious or unprofessional to fully examine and consider all aspects of a problem. I've asked FIRST many questions about the legality of certain mechanisms, processes, and strategies - and though I intended to use very few, if any, of them, it gives me a chance to get inside the game and consider what other people may be considering as strategies.

There's nothing wrong with being thorough, in my mind. Sorry.

In fact, I think that asking about these matters is not a result of stupidity, or malice, or childishness. It's about respect for the intent of the rules.

We all could have easily, quickly, and effectively done things to circumvent the need for true, unassisted autonomy. Instead, because we are aware of the intent of the rule, we asked.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Sometimes, you just can't win, I suppose.

[Jay5780]

Does anyone even know how far the controls shelf is? Remember the 3 foot rule is from the backend of the playing field wall not from the edge of the shelf or from the edge of the 8 foot box. So I am out to fingd just how far this shelf extends from the wall. And then we will really know just how far this 3 feet really is as you cannot stand in the same space as the shelf. I bet the distance you have to step is about 1 foot maybe 1 1/2 feet.

[Joe Johnson]

While I still don't like this rule I realize that there is a need for it now.

The autonomous has always meant in my mind autonomous. I have not bent my brain figuring out work arounds -- but others have not been so inclided.

Of course, it would have been better to have a workable, more hack proof system in place prior to kickoff but we have to play the cards we have been dealt.

I still think it is a shame that it makes wearable controls more difficult but ah well... ...we will deal with this as well.

I suppose folks should calm down and work within the framework now proposed, keeping in mind that the letter of the law is intended to reflect the spirit of the law which is autonomy is autonomy.

Joe J.

[Jay5780]

Yeah it does stink when it comes to wearble controlls, but like you said the rues are the rules and even though this is a new rule FIRST felt the obvious need to add it.

Teams have or have tried to figure ways to get around the autonomous mode so they can cycle the program they are running, but this is not in the spirit of this years game.
Atonomous means not controlled by others or by outside forces; independent. If you hit the E-Stop to cycle your program you are controlling your bot via an outside source (the E-Stop button). And dang it's not that much time.

I thought there was no power to the controlls during the autonomous period. FIRST could have it setup that when you hit the E-Stop to kill power to your bot you don't get power back until the autonomous period is over even with the E-Stop pulled out. Something like another E-Stop upstearm from the drivers station that an official would hit after you hit yours.

[Madison]

Originally posted by Jay5780
Yeah it does stink when it comes to wearble controlls, but like you said the rues are the rules and even though this is a new rule FIRST felt the obvious need to add it.

Teams have or have tried to figure ways to get around the autonomous mode so they can cycle the program they are running, but this is not in the spirit of this years game.
Atonomous means not controlled by others or by outside forces; independent. If you hit the E-Stop to cycle your program you are controlling your bot via an outside source (the E-Stop button). And dang it's not that much time.

Precisely. We asked if it were legal to do so, FIRST said no. That was good enough. End of story. Move along. Nothing to see here.

Then, I guess FIRST got frustrated with everyone asking and decidedly to make it abundantly clear that the answer is 'no'. To me, it just seemed a little excessive.

But hey, who listens to me? I am not all hot and bothered or upset or angry with the rule. It's a rule. Whatever. I'm just pointing stuff out with the intent of examining why it happens as it does. That's all. No more, no less. Chill.

[ChrisH]

Originally posted by Joe Johnson
Of course, it would have been better to have a workable, more hack proof system in place prior to kickoff but we have to play the cards we have been dealt.

I agree but I don't think there is such a thing as a "hack proof" system. At the same time, some are definitely easier to crack than others. The best defence is not to make a system hack proof but rather to make hacking easily detectable and more trouble than it is worth. I think that is what this rule does. I doubt our current control system had hack resistance as an original design consideration, particularly in autonomous mode.

So for now we may be stuck with a less than optimal solution. Hopefully next year's system will be more resistant to manipulation during the human player and automode segments. But for now we have to deal with what we have.

I think the safety issue has been blown way out of proportion. The rule states that the line is 3' from the backwall. The shelf is a 1'x1" board. If you center the stick on your control unit on the board, you will have to cross a whole 2.5 feet to reach it. My arms are about 3ft long and I can reach the controls if my toes are right on the line. The required separation is enough to make any attempt to manipulate the controls clearly visible. It is also close enough that the E-stop is easily reachable if needed.

Just be careful when you start jumping around in excitement not to cross the line. If you're really that concerned, have your drivers stand at attention with their toes on the line through the entire autonomous period. Of course, finding somebody who can actually do that might be the hard part.