A Request

[popnbrown]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

You're mistaking the impact on students with the actual goal of culture change.

Not necessarily. The impact on students is part of the point of culture change. They are linked. I do see what you mean, but it's not entirely accurate. There are some areas where the FTC team is the all-star, the cool thing to do, and are changing the culture more so than the (now non-existent) FRC team. Perhaps on the average you're right, but it's not appropriate to make as a blanket statement (and you likely aren't making such a general statement) but clearly people are taking it as such.

Originally Posted by Foster

/Vex is to FRC like Varsity to wanna-Varsity, FRC robots lumber across a basketball court like the Seniors League at the Y.

fire with fire, man. not off to a good start, and clearly losing me (I'm somewhat in the middle) as a fan.

Oh yea three robots on an aliance, so two can be lame and one can score. Not in Vex and FTC world.

You clearly haven't seen this year's game. In general, I agree but hopefully more games will be like this years. And this years FRC game was way better (IMO) because of its requirements of good teamwork than other years.

So FTC and VEX is accessable to average Mom / Dad / Grandparent.

Good point.

Oh but FRC worlds!!! Sorry, VEX Worlds is bigger than FRC, but wait, 65 FRC regionals vs 500 VEX events? Not quite the same face time. We run more FTC / VEX competitions within 2 hours of Philly than FRC does in a three state area. (No disrespect MAR, your district program rocks)

The discussion regarding "culture change" does not involve more, it looks for a cool factor. For the average person, FRC looks cooler than FTC. By average person, I mean someone that doesn't know what it takes to build a robot. FRC is a better hook (for most people) than FTC. Albeit, FTC (and likely VEX) is still certainly a hook for others.

So, don't mock the FTC / VEX programs.

I don't think he was mocking either program, he seemed to be indicating what he thinks are differences.

We are trying to change a world, less than 3% of the students in schools have a chance to do the coolest thing in the world, COMPETITION ROBOTICS.

BOTH OF YOU ^ THIS. SERIOUSLY. you know what helps to make a change, if people on the same side stop blowing up at each other and taking things so personal. The tone of both posts seem to be aggressive, if this is not your intent, I'd suggest revising them or taking a minute or two of proofreading.

Most importantly,

Why slam a roboteer and a robotics program that has the same goals and objectives?

So why are you?

[JohnFogarty]

What if I told you the flashyness of each competition comes down to the game and how easiy it can be scord in real time.

Every major sport in the world has a perfectly logical and easy to follow scoring system and scoreboard. FRC has this, FTC does not.

There needs to be a better system built to track real time scores of FTC matches for future games. But at the beginning it come down to game complexity. FTC games have to be complex because of the small field space. Meanwhile FRC can remain simpler because of the much larger space. RTS of FRC is much easier in this regaurd as well. If FTC had RTS it would also help it become more spectator friendly. Hearing match scores post match is great, but not as exciting as watching how close it gets live.

[popnbrown]

Originally Posted by JohnFogarty

What if I told you the flashyness of each competition comes down to the game and how easiy it can be scord in real time.

I think this is a part of it. The bigger part is actually just the size and production of the events.

FRC events with the pipe and drape and giant screens are more "professional" than FTC events. Although, FRC district events are not that anymore (from what I can tell)

FRC robots are just big, and even without realtime scoring (prior to 2010, right?) it was still exciting to see robots climbing on other robots (07), shooting a ton of nerf balls (06), chasing each other (09). It also definitely comes down to the game and the size.

I don't think it can come to the level of flashiness that FRC has, and I don't think it needs to.

[hzheng_449]

Originally Posted by Foster

Oh but FRC worlds!!! Sorry, VEX Worlds is bigger than FRC, but wait, 65 FRC regionals vs 500 VEX events? Not quite the same face time. We run more FTC / VEX competitions within 2 hours of Philly than FRC does in a three state area.
/rant

Just out of curiosity, can anyone else that's been to both Vex and FIRST championships comment on their relative sizes. I'm having a hard time imagining a robotics championship that's substantially bigger than FIRST championships (which are already huge).

Also, as for comparative competition footprint, I'd think FRC regional would have a larger footprint than VEX events, given that FRC teams are generally larger and regionals probably host more teams.

Granted, I'm only familiar with FRC so if anyone else if familiar with both and could clarify, that would be nice.

[pfreivald]

All of these programs are excellent and serve specific purposes, which are different. I think Andrew is right when it comes to impacting non-participants, up to and including a lot of businesses; it has nothing to do with inherent value, the technical challenge, or team size...the deciding wow factor is robot size.

People see FTC and VEX-sized robots and they think, "ooh, neat, toy robots!" People see FRC-sized robots and they think, "ooh, neat, robots!" When it comes to spectacle, scale matters. The fact that you're manipulating objects on a human scale makes it inherently more attention-grabbing, more sports-like, more relatable than the smaller-scale programs.

This isn't particularly fair or reasonable; many common robots manipulate comparatively small things (photocopiers, mail sorters, etc) and are of stunning complexity compared to your average FRC machine. Complexity doesn't scale with size, except insofar as building smaller robots to complete a job is harder than building larger robots for same. Bigger doesn't mean better--except psychologically and therefore sociologically when it comes to wow-factor and spectacle.

Large-scale games are significantly more spectator-friendly, too.

So FRC is intrinsically superior in one particular aspect--but certainly not all, and I'm sure an astute observer can find aspects where the reverse is true.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by maths222

I'm in no way disagreeing or agreeing with this statement (so don't read too much into my question), but I am just wondering what you mean by FTC being less "professional" and "together".

I'm referring chiefly to how FTC runs as a business vis-a-vis FRC and VEX. Supply chains, recruitment/retention of key professionals (employees or volunteers), customer service, contractor management, etc. It manifests in a lot of different ways, for instance in the gap between FTC and VEX events as discussed here. Also for instance, one might think that a program everyone endorses as being lower cost, easier to implement/spread, and generally more accessible than FRC would have a lot more students, right? How many more? 35,640 less. ...Having experienced the FTC/VEX split, it still seems like FTC is reeling from what they lost back then. VEX, at least outwardly, isn't. It's hard to recruit (teams and volunteers) into a program like the former.

Originally Posted by popnbrown

FRC events with the pipe and drape and giant screens are more "professional" than FTC events. Although, FRC district events are not that anymore (from what I can tell)...

YMMV: I've been to FRC off-seasons (a lot of them), to say nothing of districts (basically all of them), that are infinitely more professional and spectator-sport than any FTC qualifier I've attended. In terms of the view-of-field excitement, my experienced average regional/average district divide is essentially nonexistent--the cozier 'home game' feel actually appears to be a plus for district spectators. (As with everything, some of each are below par.)

This isn't to say that FRC and VEX don't have room to grow in these regards...I've spent like 20 minutes now trying to figure out how many VEX teams/students there even are, and don't get me started on FRC webcasts...

[Tungrus]

Here is my humble request....

I think its time to stop comparing various robotics programs. As far as I know most if not all of them have the same intention of inspiring students into STEM. Each program comes with its own set of requirements, limitation, expectations, rules etc. Students get to join those programs, sometimes not by choice, programs don't exists in their schools or they don't have resources. Some programs are better organized than others, some teams/schools do better than others, its all about resources and students interest and dedication. Not every team is lucky to get big sponsors and professional mentors, many teams barely manage with parents/grand parents helping out, some even work in their garage or basements. If you happen to be on a established team with resources and if your team is doing good, be grateful to those who started your team, most likely they would have gone through the same challenges that new programs or teams go through. Please don't assume that these teams or programs are not working hard to improve them. Making blanket statements about who or which program is better is taking this discussions into ugly "bully land". Please show GP and if you think the program you are in is better than other, and be happy and move on.

[techtiger1]

I think this whole thing is a function of a few things. FRC teams especially the big ones now, feel entitled and therefore do not appreciate the other programs. There is a constant brush back since FIRST pushed VEX out between FTC and VEX. This is just the way I see it. I've been happy to see the way robotics programs in general have grown in the ten years I have been involved with FIRST 2004-2014.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by techtiger1

FRC teams especially the big ones now, feel entitled and therefore do not appreciate the other programs...

While I disagree with this wholeheartedly, I find it especially interesting that basically all the 'big' FRC teams that popped into to my mind have VEX or FTC teams. e.g. FRC HoF Team 365 runs* FTC in the state of Delaware, and some of the best FRC teams in the world are VEX (IFI) teams.


*I suspect that they'd prefer me to say that both FRC and FTC in Delaware are largely operated FIRST State Robotics (though there are other teams as well), which is the 501(c)3 that FRC 365 made for the purpose, but you get the point.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by techtiger1

I think this whole thing is a function of a few things. FRC teams especially the big ones now, feel entitled and therefore do not appreciate the other programs. There is a constant brush back since FIRST pushed VEX out between FTC and VEX. This is just the way I see it. I've been happy to see the way robotics programs in general have grown in the ten years I have been involved with FIRST 2004-2014.

I'm not sure which large teams you're talking about. Large programs tend to help set up and run smaller robotics programs both as a feeder program and as a way to get more people involved in robotics.

In 2012, Team 2220 founded a feeder FTC team to help kids from our 20+ FLL teams transition to FRC and give new team members hands on time with the robot (we already had 70 kids on the team, so it was already difficult to give kids we already had time). Since then, our Eagan Robotics (not 2220!) FTC program has grown to 10 teams and as many students as we have in FRC. Next year it will probably be doubling in size, based on preliminary interest.

Good teams grow. The tree trunk is the most visible part of a tree but it can't exist without roots. Strong, sustainable programs recognize this. 254 has a large VEX program and presence. 1114 got FLL teams all over their local elementary schools. Vertical integration is a marvelous thing for team sustainability and long term strength-- and the cool thing is that any team can get in on the positive feedback cycle. FLL, VEXIQ, VRC, FTC, big teams recognize that these are important for their sustainability or they don't stay big for long. Great teams are like icebergs-- you only see 10% of the massive structure that gets them to that point.

[sammyjalex]

The OP's Request is not "Talk to me about the production value of FTC" or "Talk to me about how you relate to FTC". It is "Please do not look down on FTC". So many of these replies are justifying the superiority complex. Why? Where does this need come from?

I am certain, absolutely certain, that both programs are valuable. You might enjoy one over the other - that doesn't mean that one program is better and there is no need to make the argument.

Yes, in Michigan FTC serves as a JV or training camp for FRC - I've heard of other regions where this is also the case. That's not the model everywhere. And I don't think it's an appropriate way to distinguish the programs as we grow the reputation of FIRST. New York City, for example, does not use FTC as a training program for FTC, with perhaps one exception. FTC allows the engineering program that FRC develops after school to have a more formal component in the classroom. Carnegie Mellon has created fantastic lesson plans for FTC architectures, not FRC. A number of schools implement both programs to address engineering education informally and more formally - using a tangible product. Without the appeal of FIRST, it is rather challenging to build engineering curricula in an "average" New York City" public school.

FTC and FRC are both high school programs in New York City. They might serve the same student groups to scaffold learning in the classroom, different student groups in the same school to navigate challenges of after-school participation, or different schools to navigate the challenges of a rigorous school culture, very limited space, some other related issue.

I will concede that the quality of FTC events and the organization of FTC information can serve to improve, but that's up to the FIRST community, us, to address. FTC is organized very differently. If we say, this isn't FRC and I don't like it, then the program will continue to be marginalized as a result. The advantages and the outstanding results of the FTC engineering notebook and the structural iterative process are too good to pass up. Stop the strifin'.

[Alan Anderson]

At a recent gathering of mentors in Indiana [mostly FRC but with other programs represented as well], a recurring theme became apparent. For whatever reason, only FRC seems to have an explicit and highly-celebrated goal of doing outreach and "making it loud" beyond the competition community. All of the competition robotics programs do a fine job of inspiring the participants. FLL in particular rewards finding solutions in realms outside the robot competition. VEX has great support for classroom activity, with FTC getting there as well. But I think FRC as a whole tends to have the biggest and most effective effort in getting the "R" in FIRST out in the wider world where it needs to be in order to achieve the goal of "changing the culture".

Discussions I was part of mostly focused on needing to get the FLL "feeling" to continue through the other programs. Maybe we should also work on getting some of the existing FRC culture to propagate back the other way.

[Allison K]

Originally Posted by Siri

...(snip)...

This isn't to say that FRC and VEX don't have room to grow in these regards...I've spent like 20 minutes now trying to figure out how many VEX teams/students there even are, and don't get me started on FRC webcasts...

The new VRC season just kicked off two weeks ago, so it's not a good time to try and get a count of teams in the program It'd be like trying to figure out how many FRC teams there are the first week of registration, it'll be in flux for a little while. For the 2013-2014 season (that just concluded) VRC was sitting close to 10,000 teams worldwide (I was going to say over 9,000, but I didn't want to invite the memes).

Originally Posted by hzheng_449

Just out of curiosity, can anyone else that's been to both Vex and FIRST championships comment on their relative sizes. I'm having a hard time imagining a robotics championship that's substantially bigger than FIRST championships (which are already huge).

Also, as for comparative competition footprint, I'd think FRC regional would have a larger footprint than VEX events, given that FRC teams are generally larger and regionals probably host more teams.

Granted, I'm only familiar with FRC so if anyone else if familiar with both and could clarify, that would be nice.

The two world events are hard to compare I think. The production value for both is top notch. I really enjoy a lot of the details that go into the "show value" at VEX Worlds including laser light shows, really nice quality medals, etc. VEX Worlds also has a significant non-North American population in attendance which adds to the "worlds" feel. Numbers wise VEX Worlds has about 760ish teams (VRC, VEX U, VIQC combined) and 15,000ish participants, putting it at least on par with FIRST Worlds if not larger. The VEX Worlds dome is smaller than the FIRST Worlds dome, but it's also completely packed (no large portions of empty seats in the stands or only using a small part of the seats for the big finale) so there's not a good direct comparison. Square footage wise both are huge.

At a local/qualifying event level I think FRC generally takes up more square footage than VRC, although that's an odd pair of programs to compare as FTC/VRC are more comparable in that regard.

On an unrelated note, the thing that I find really odd about FTC is that according to section 3.8 of Part 1 of the Game Manual (page 14), the very first team to advance is the qualifier host team, so long as that team attends one other event and fulfills the criteria set forth in the affiliate partner agreement. Does FTC really have an issue finding organizations that are willing and able to host events? Is it possible that part of the perceived lackluster quality of events is due to teams hosting a competition primarily for the advancement benefits?

Regarding the original topic, I think the perception of FTC as "lesser" is similar to the perception of colleges/universities. An institution that charges 50K per year for tuition is assumed to be of higher prestige than one that only charges 5-10K. In the grand scheme of things though, public perception matters little relative to the time and effort that a student puts into their education. There will always be the idea that FRC is the most elite (regardless of whether it is or not), but if an individual grows and learns from their FTC or VRC experience then that's what matters.

[E Dawg]

All the different programs have their advantages and appeal to different people. Instead of getting into arguments about who's program is the best, why don't we work together? Because infighting isn't something that should happen in a culture that promotes being gracious and (especially) professional. If you don't care about one program or the other, that's cool. But let's all just get along.

tl;dr We're members of FIRST, not its FRC / FTC.

[Justus]

Thanks for the responses and discussions so far everyone. There were many good points made.

To clarify my intent, I wasn't trying to say the programs were equal in all respects. FRC certainly has a stronger external presence, perhaps especially online, and is stronger as far public appeal/spectators. I also don't mean to ask for people to like or to value FTC as much as FRC.

I was primarily reacting to statements that say, to a greater or (much more often) lesser degree, "FRC is for the real roboticists. FTC robots are child's play."

Both programs certainly have their pros and cons both for individual teams and those teams' communities.