What First is missing.

[Marc P.]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Which means there are about 100 students a year no longer exposed to STEM. If there were a viable competitor to FRC it may provide an opportunity that currently doesn't exist for those students.

Sounds a lot like what VEX and FTC are intended for. Some areas don't have the financial means/mentors/build spaces available to support a program on the scale of FRC in every school. Grants are often available to get teams started, but they don't provide the means for these teams to be self sustaining once the grant money runs out. I saw this happen in Boston with the Smith Foundation grants- we had something like 23 rookie teams in one year. The next year, all but a handful did not return.

FRC is and always will be expensive, and not just financially. The tools, space, mentor and student hours (not just during build season, but planning meetings, organizing fundraisers, public outreach and demonstrations, recruiting, etc), parts, other materials, and competitions all have fairly high costs associated with them, and not all are monetary. Any competitor on the scale and of similar mission to FRC is very likely to have similar requirements in terms of time and material.

VEX and FTC appear to be designed to avoid such requirements. With primarily bolt-together components easily assembled with hand tools, much more relaxed time requirements, reduced system complexity, and dramatically lower cost, these programs were started with the intention of getting STEM into schools where FRC scale teams are either impractical, or unfeasible. These "100 students per year no longer exposed to STEM" don't need something on the scale of FRC to be inspired if their school/community can't support it, and a competitor of equal flashiness and cost likely won't change that. Practical alternatives do exist, if the powers that be are willing to consider them.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Marc P.

Sounds a lot like what VEX and FTC are intended for. Some areas don't have the financial means/mentors/build spaces available to support a program on the scale of FRC in every school. Grants are often available to get teams started, but they don't provide the means for these teams to be self sustaining once the grant money runs out. I saw this happen in Boston with the Smith Foundation grants- we had something like 23 rookie teams in one year. The next year, all but a handful did not return.

FRC is and always will be expensive, and not just financially. The tools, space, mentor and student hours (not just during build season, but planning meetings, organizing fundraisers, public outreach and demonstrations, recruiting, etc), parts, other materials, and competitions all have fairly high costs associated with them, and not all are monetary. Any competitor on the scale and of similar mission to FRC is very likely to have similar requirements in terms of time and material.

VEX and FTC appear to be designed to avoid such requirements. With primarily bolt-together components easily assembled with hand tools, much more relaxed time requirements, reduced system complexity, and dramatically lower cost, these programs were started with the intention of getting STEM into schools where FRC scale teams are either impractical, or unfeasible. These "100 students per year no longer exposed to STEM" don't need something on the scale of FRC to be inspired if their school/community can't support it, and a competitor of equal flashiness and cost likely won't change that. Practical alternatives do exist, if the powers that be are willing to consider them.

I'm well aware of these programs and these problems (I've publicly announced a distaste for rookie grants numerous times). The primary barrier to entry for Vex (I'll get to FTC in a minute) for me is the lack of scholarships. I can start an FRC team, doesn't matter how bad they do, my students are now eligible for a lot of scholarships. Vex doesn't really have the range of scholarships. For FTC the primary barrier to entry is less but still there, many scholarships are written for FRC not FTC.

For me, viable competitors do NOT exist. My students need to pay for school and FRC is the only game in town for that.

[OZ_341]

FIRST needs to start with a consistent high quality webcast of every event. They need to require a standard set of criteria for broadcasting an event and then it needs to be SUPPORTED and FUNDED.

A minimum production value standard and equipment list will raise the broadcast standards and attract more viewers. Viewership will not increase overnight, but this is playing the "long game". Lets also pay what ever fee it takes to eliminate all of the incredibly annoying commercials.

I need to be able to tell outside people to watch a webcast and not worry about what they will see. Some of the broadcasts this year were just flat out embarrassing. So many were bad this year that I stopped telling people to watch. If you do not know anything about FIRST, you are not going to watch a pixelated, commercial filled, webcast from a cheap robot camera struggling to figure out what you are watching.

It can be so much better.

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by OZ_341

FIRST needs to start with a consistent high quality webcast of every event. They need to require a standard set of criteria for broadcasting an event and then it needs to be SUPPORTED and FUNDED.

A minimum production value standard and equipment list will raise the broadcast standards and attract more viewers. Viewership will not increase overnight, but this is playing the "long game". Lets also pay what ever fee it takes to eliminate all of the incredibly annoying commercials.

I need to be able to tell outside people to watch a webcast and not worry about what they will see. Some of the broadcasts this year were just flat out embarrassing. So many were bad this year that I stopped telling people to watch. If you do not know anything about FIRST, you are not going to watch a pixelated, commercial filled, webcast from a cheap robot camera struggling to figure out what you are watching.

It can be so much better.

+1 and QFT. This should be a top priority.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by OZ_341

FIRST needs to start with a consistent high quality webcast of every event. They need to require a standard set of criteria for broadcasting an event and then it needs to be SUPPORTED and FUNDED.

A minimum production value standard and equipment list will raise the broadcast standards and attract more viewers. Viewership will not increase overnight, but this is playing the "long game". Lets also pay what ever fee it takes to eliminate all of the incredibly annoying commercials.

I need to be able to tell outside people to watch a webcast and not worry about what they will see. Some of the broadcasts this year were just flat out embarrassing. So many were bad this year that I stopped telling people to watch. If you do not know anything about FIRST, you are not going to watch a pixelated, commercial filled, webcast from a cheap robot camera struggling to figure out what you are watching.

It can be so much better.

And add to this camera operators that actually know what to watch for in matches. I honestly think that, just as refs are trained for each game, camera operators should be "trained" as well. I know every team deserves to be given spotlight on the webcast, but I really dont want to see two robots sitting at the pyramid doing nothing and the 3rd struggling to get their robot to shoot into the low goal when the other pyramid has a robot climbing to the 3rd level with 15 seconds left or dumping in the pyramid goal.

[JeremyLansing]

Originally Posted by dodar

And add to this camera operators that actually know what to watch for in matches. I honestly think that, just as refs are trained for each game, camera operators should be "trained" as well. I know every team deserves to be given spotlight on the webcast, but I really dont want to see two robots sitting at the pyramid doing nothing and the 3rd struggling to get their robot to shoot into the low goal when the other pyramid has a robot climbing to the 3rd level with 15 seconds left or dumping in the pyramid goal.

This is one of the most irritating parts of webcasts for me. I can distinctly recall a match where during autonomous I listened to the announcer call out the blue alliance as they made 1 autonomous shots, while the camera operator focused on the red alliance which had one robot shoot 2 disks over the 2 point goal. It was incredibly frustrating. I completely agree that the camera operators need some sort of training on where to point the cameras. If FIRST is going to spread, we need to have webcasts that are more exciting and better quality. I swear some of these must be filmed with a potato, they are completely embarrassing to share with people outside FIRST.

[404'd]

Originally Posted by SilenNex

I swear some of these must be filmed with a potato, they are completely embarrassing to share with people outside FIRST.

Although I could be wrong, most of the webcasts are usually filmed on decent cameras (if they are streaming the video shown on the audience screen), but streaming high quality video becomes a problem with bandwidth constraints and other problems. But I agree there were some pretty low quality streams that I saw.

http://qkme.me/3uednw

[fb39ca4]

Originally Posted by 404'd

Although I could be wrong, most of the webcasts are usually filmed on decent cameras (if they are streaming the video shown on the audience screen), but streaming high quality video becomes a problem with bandwidth constraints and other problems. But I agree there were some pretty low quality streams that I saw.

Then find a better website to host your streams. Try something new, like the new Bittorrent streaming protocol that needs significantly less bandwidth on the broadcaster's end.

[synth3tk]

Originally Posted by OZ_341

FIRST needs to start with a consistent high quality webcast of every event. They need to require a standard set of criteria for broadcasting an event and then it needs to be SUPPORTED and FUNDED.

A minimum production value standard and equipment list will raise the broadcast standards and attract more viewers. Viewership will not increase overnight, but this is playing the "long game". Lets also pay what ever fee it takes to eliminate all of the incredibly annoying commercials.

I need to be able to tell outside people to watch a webcast and not worry about what they will see. Some of the broadcasts this year were just flat out embarrassing. So many were bad this year that I stopped telling people to watch. If you do not know anything about FIRST, you are not going to watch a pixelated, commercial filled, webcast from a cheap robot camera struggling to figure out what you are watching.

It can be so much better.

Yes. Some of these streams were unbearable. Some of them looked liked washed-out CCTV security cameras. Fixed views from the very back of the stadium does not a good stream make. As someone who already knows what's going on and into the program, I found it hard to watch them, so I know a random parent/friend/stranger that stumbled onto the stream was probably not impressed.

I feel like if there were production standards and a minimum budget, we may even see some local stations pick it up, whether live or after-the-fact. While we may not compete easily with NFL/MLB/NASCAR/LMNOP on Sundays, there's always the Saturday slots that are usually reserved for paid programming during the afternoon. Or the digital over-the-air channels such as 5.2, 8-3, etc.

Originally Posted by fb39ca4

Then find a better website to host your streams. Try something new, like the new Bittorrent streaming protocol that needs significantly less bandwidth on the broadcaster's end.

Twitch, Ustream, Justin and NASA all have plenty of bandwidth to stream up to 1080p+ (and Twitch can even go higher). That's not the issue. The problem is sending the video to the streaming servers. Some venues only have access to DSL/T1, so they can't put out a high-quality video alongside normal internet usage.

That said, if you'd like to give that new Bittorrent streaming thing a try, then contact your regional director and see if you can try it out next year. I've never heard of it before, so I'm going to go look it up.

[plnyyanks]

Originally Posted by synth3tk

That said, if you'd like to give that new Bittorrent streaming thing a try, then contact your regional director and see if you can try it out next year. I've never heard of it before, so I'm going to go look it up.

I believe this is what yoqu're looking for, it seems to be a pretty cool concept with a lot off potential. Definitely something that we should look into (and preferably someone with more webcasting knowledge than I have)

[Mike Schreiber]

Originally Posted by synth3tk

Fixed views from the very back of the stadium does not a good stream make.

I see that a lot, but a lot of venues don't have a place to put cameras, so what if FIRST incorporated 2 fixed cameras into the field; one on each side on top of the alliance wall. Every webcast could have the same views and we'd have a standard. Cameras ship with each field so everyone is the same. Thoughts?

[Bennett548]

Originally Posted by ICanCountTo19

I see that a lot, but a lot of venues don't have a place to put cameras, so what if FIRST incorporated 2 fixed cameras into the field; one on each side on top of the alliance wall. Every webcast could have the same views and we'd have a standard. Cameras ship with each field so everyone is the same. Thoughts?

What about the setup 2337 brough to a couple events. I was a sigle camera with a wide angle lens on a pole behind the scoring table:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...64&postcount=9
Here is a randomly selected video from that setup:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=lOCOmD2keeY

I don't know much about the bandwidth aspects of it, but that hardware setup would be pretty affordable to have one for each field.

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by ICanCountTo19

I see that a lot, but a lot of venues don't have a place to put cameras, so what if FIRST incorporated 2 fixed cameras into the field; one on each side on top of the alliance wall. Every webcast could have the same views and we'd have a standard. Cameras ship with each field so everyone is the same. Thoughts?

An HD camera with a fisheye lens mounted right next to the field (just like the MSC feed) provides the best viewing angle from home, as the field fills up like 90% of the viewable area. Tiny GoPro cameras on poles can do this just fine without obstructing the audience's view.

[fb39ca4]

Originally Posted by synth3tk

Twitch, Ustream, Justin and NASA all have plenty of bandwidth to stream up to 1080p+ (and Twitch can even go higher). That's not the issue. The problem is sending the video to the streaming servers. Some venues only have access to DSL/T1, so they can't put out a high-quality video alongside normal internet usage.

That said, if you'd like to give that new Bittorrent streaming thing a try, then contact your regional director and see if you can try it out next year. I've never heard of it before, so I'm going to go look it up.

Oh, in that case P2P streaming won't help this specific problem, as the broadcaster must have enough bandwidth to upload the stream in the first place.