[FRC Blog] - NASA Grants and Something New for 2015

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

It could easily be exciting and not a safety risk.

It would add an interesting end game dynamic.

Almost any of the automodes in the last few years could have been done at the end of the match w/ some tweaks.

Except for matches where a many of the robots barely have an auto that moves forward. This is with the opinion that, for all intents and purposes, the endgame /end of the game should be one of the most exciting points of the game.

Safety being an issue is more of a game specific (ie. 2011/2007 arms being 'entangled')

[The_ShamWOW88]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

It could easily be exciting and not a safety risk.

It would add an interesting end game dynamic.

Almost any of the automodes in the last few years could have been done at the end of the match w/ some tweaks.

Would add to pre-match strategy too since you probably would have to have your robot situated properly to perform it's auto-function effectively.

[PayneTrain]

Adding to autonomous period would result in painfully boring regionals and really exciting champs elims.

I think auto routines are something that would be great to see with bigger emphasis. When you tell people new to the sport kids are working with their teams to not only build these complex machines, but program them to run by themselves, you get a special kind of reaction.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

Adding to autonomous period would result in painfully boring regionals and really exciting champs elims.

I think auto routines are something that would be great to see with bigger emphasis. When you tell people new to the sport kids are working with their teams to not only build these complex machines, but program them to run by themselves, you get a special kind of reaction.

The end game autonomous could be optional.

It could also make use of 2011/2012/2013 style safe zones so that teams opting to not end in autonomous can't just bash you.

[Mark Sheridan]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

The end game autonomous could be optional.

It could also make use of 2011/2012/2013 style safe zones so that teams opting to not end in autonomous can't just bash you.

That's a really good idea. Teams that don't want to run end-game auto can just stay in teleop. Teams that want the end game auto could for examples opt in to be switched into auto for the final 20 seconds and get a 2-3X bonus on points scored during that period. I think it would have that crazy end of match feeling that aerial assist had, with people nail-biting to the very end, wondering if the auto will work and get the clutch victory.

[rick.oliver]

No Bag and Tag.

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by rick.oliver

No Bag and Tag.

YES PLEASE! PLEASE! FIRST, if you are listening, TAKE THIS MAN'S ADVICE. Or at least put restrictions on practice bots.
But let's not turn this thread into that. We've been there done that.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

Or at least put restrictions on practice bots.

Not to get sidetracked too much, but I would be very hesitant to suggest FIRST do anything of the sort-- it seems like any rules that FIRSt could make would run into several problems, namelf that they would be very difficult to enforce, they would be extending FIRST's reach outside of the competition proper (ie, build season and competitions), and they woudl probably lead to some more venom if people start accusing other teams and such... just a couple thoughts.

With regards to the build season being open or closed, I agree, it's already been discussed enough.

[Ali Ahmed]

I like the idea of bringing back an old game, but one from way back in the day like the 90's.

My reasoning is that the technology has changed enough that whatever robot was the best then may not be today with the new motors, gearboxes, control system, etc. Older teams wouldn't have a huge advantage because old parts are no longer available, drill motors, for example. The game could be tweaked a bit to allow for 6 robots and autonomous but it would be interesting to see what teams would come up with.

[Jacob Bendicksen]

I agree with the 'bring back the 90's' sentiment - it would be a (relatively) level* playing field compared to bringing back Aerial Assist. While certain long-established teams would have some amount of experience, no members and very few mentors would have been around for the original game.

*...though it seems like the actual field will be anything but level.

[Lil' Lavery]

Well, most of the 90s games didn't have alliances...

[The_ShamWOW88]

Originally Posted by ali_rockon22

I like the idea of bringing back an old game, but one from way back in the day like the 90's.

My reasoning is that the technology has changed enough that whatever robot was the best then may not be today with the new motors, gearboxes, control system, etc. Older teams wouldn't have a huge advantage because old parts are no longer available, drill motors, for example. The game could be tweaked a bit to allow for 6 robots and autonomous but it would be interesting to see what teams would come up with.

Id love to see them revamp/refresh an earlier FIRST game for 3 team alliances and adding a challenge(s) to meet today's standards.

[Derpancakes]

Might I add that in the blog post about the 2015 chassis, Frank mentions, "Our goal is to give you as much information as possible without revealing details about the game. For example, the limited ground clearance on last year’s KOP Drive System implied that the 2014 field would be relatively flat, while a drive base with significant ground clearance would imply some type of obstacle on the field that robots will likely have to traverse. If we revealed details such as ground clearance, we would be giving away too much of the game." In the provided cross-section image, it's visible that the through-holes for the wheels are quite a bit lower than the AM14U. I think this is a clear indicator that the chassis rides higher, and that there will be some terrain.

[piersklein]

Originally Posted by Derpancakes

Might I add that in the blog post about the 2015 chassis, Frank mentions, "Our goal is to give you as much information as possible without revealing details about the game. For example, the limited ground clearance on last year’s KOP Drive System implied that the 2014 field would be relatively flat, while a drive base with significant ground clearance would imply some type of obstacle on the field that robots will likely have to traverse. If we revealed details such as ground clearance, we would be giving away too much of the game." In the provided cross-section image, it's visible that the through-holes for the wheels are quite a bit lower than the AM14U. I think this is a clear indicator that the chassis rides higher, and that there will be some terrain.

I also noticed that the file is labeled "AM14U2" (Last years was AM14u) not as one would expect "AM15"
Does anyone have a link to this same view from the AM14U?

[mklinker]

The AM14U and the AM14U2 = AndyMark One for you and AndyMark One for you too.

AndyMark one five you doesn't work as well!!!!!!!!