[FTC]: What do you wish FTC would...

[MattRain]

What do you wish FTC would change or allow in future years? Something I was just thinking of, and wanted to know what others thought of?

Things I would like:
- LEDs that communicate without the Proto-Board
- Voltage Meters being allowed
- Small Pnuematics. (Pre-charged probably, sorta like Vex)
- Upgrade the FCS system to allow for a "The Blue Alliance" type website. (Yes, there is The Yellow Alliance, but as some know, its pretty much dead.)

What would others like to see?

[orangemoore]

An upgrade away from the NXT.

And an update of the Samantha Module.

Both are overdue.

[dcribbs]

Originally Posted by MattRain

What do you wish FTC would change or allow in future years? Something I was just thinking of, and wanted to know what others thought of?

Things I would like:
- LEDs that communicate without the Proto-Board
- Voltage Meters being allowed
- Small Pnuematics. (Pre-charged probably, sorta like Vex)
- Upgrade the FCS system to allow for a "The Blue Alliance" type website. (Yes, there is The Yellow Alliance, but as some know, its pretty much dead.)

What would others like to see?

I would love it if they would upgrade the FCS as well! If not, then just release/post the match data FIRST receives from each tournament.

[WRA]

Agree with all of the above. Sorry to hear that the yellow alliance is dead. But if I were King for a day and could change only one thing it would be to stop giving the Inspire Award to teams with great robots and nothing else. FRC is requiring (trying anyway) to require teams to at least provide supporting info in chairmans submissions. In FTC I see the Inspire Award land in the winning alliance most of the time (in my experence).

Been to 6 events this year and have talked with team members on the Inspire Award winning teams and many other teams at all of them in an attempt to learn. 1 of the teams truly Inspired me. 2 told me directly that all they did was robot. The others were good teams on and off the field but were not teams that match the award description.

My rant is over now. I absolutely Love this program and only wish the best for it.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by WRA

Agree with all of the above. Sorry to hear that the yellow alliance is dead. But if I were King for a day and could change only one thing it would be to stop giving the Inspire Award to teams with great robots and nothing else. FRC is requiring (trying anyway) to require teams to at least provide supporting info in chairmans submissions. In FTC I see the Inspire Award land in the winning alliance most of the time (in my experence).

Been to 6 events this year and have talked with team members on the Inspire Award winning teams and many other teams at all of them in an attempt to learn. 1 of the teams truly Inspired me. 2 told me directly that all they did was robot. The others were good teams on and off the field but were not teams that match the award description.

My rant is over now. I absolutely Love this program and only wish the best for it.

To be fair, the FRC Chairman's Award has a much different focus than the FTC Inspire Award-- Inspire Award winners are expected to be competitive for most if not all awards at the event, while a Chairman's Award winning team can have a mediocre to poor robot and not be a contender for other awards (unlikely, but possible).

I obviously haven't been to your competitions in West Virginia, but at our MN State Tournament yesterday, the winner was also the Inspire Award winner, and they were on the board for almost every single other award we gave out. The expectations for overall performance for Inspire Award teams at competitive events are, in my opinion, relatively higher compared to RCA in many areas.

On point with the thread: I'd love to see a new control system as well-- maybe something that eliminates the need for a central FMS altogether. I've been working on a project with linked BLE arduinos, and I feel like something similar could be quite good for FTC, especially if it lets teams use their own control system.

I'd also like to see some sort of encouragement for teams to use things that aren't Tetrix or Matrix. I get that those kits are nice for teams with few resources, but learning how to fabricate a robot using other techniques is very valuable in my opinion. That's another thing I like about how MN does judging-- we have a specific award for creating a 3D printed part, which I think encourages teams to "think outside the kit."

[MattRain]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

I'd also like to see some sort of encouragement for teams to use things that aren't Tetrix or Matrix. I get that those kits are nice for teams with few resources, but learning how to fabricate a robot using other techniques is very valuable in my opinion. That's another thing I like about how MN does judging-- we have a specific award for creating a 3D printed part, which I think encourages teams to "think outside the kit."

I would like to see the same thing. My two teams are the only two teams in AZ that completely "custom" build our robots. You will see some mounts and such from the tetrix items, but other than that, it pretty much fully custom, with the tools that we have available to us. Its actually cheaper for us to do that.

[PhilBot]

Clearly we need to get away from the NXT. Based on my own testing, the EV3 is vastly more reliable re: motor and servo controllers etc (no more auto glitches), but it would also be great to move away from the Samantha module and to something smaller and not requiring a separate 12V supply.

Surely a micro USB-wi-fi interface would be great if the network requirements could be satisfied.

It also does seem like the time has come to permit more custom sensor interfaces. There are a lot of fun sensor (eg: Pixie cam) that would be great to interface to the EV3 via I2C or SPI

I personally don't think that moving to a Raspberry Pi or Beagle Bone solution would be a good idea simply because these boards don't have any of the mechanical robustness that FTC requires. FTAs would be spending all their time debugging software and hardware issues.

Maybe NI can give us a mini roboRIO.

Phil

[ForgotSemicolon]

I wish that the announcers at lower level competitions were more knowledgeable about the game. If FIRST wants robotics to be a "spectator sport", they need to have announcers who are fully aware of the rules and strategies.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by ForgotSemicolon

I wish that the announcers at lower level competitions were more knowledgeable about the game. If FIRST wants robotics to be a "spectator sport", they need to have announcers who are fully aware of the rules and strategies.

Totally agree. Nothing kills an event like a game announcer/emcee that doesn't know what they're talking about.

In my opinion the best announcers for qualifiers tend to be alumni or people who have worked with FTC in the past. Even if they aren't entirely knowledgeable about that year's game, they at least have a frame of reference from previous competitions.

Take out the T and bring back the V.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by Andrew Lawrence

Take out the T and bring back the V.

Hah. If VEX would open up to using more custom / non-VEX COTS parts, I could support this.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

This is what I sent FTC HQ a while ago...
R10
Add under R10: Samantha power be wired to the output of the robot power switch using legal connections per R10-c.


And under R10-d, paragraph i. should read:
i. All power wiring (Battery, power switch and power inputs to motor controllers) are 16 AWG or larger.


Additionally, RG10 and R08 do not allow a 9 volt battery for the Samantha module power as shown in the Samantha User Guide.


Many teams wire the Samantha module power to the last motor controller in the chain as this is an easy spot. Teams that are using Anderson Power Pole muti-tap connectors (See West Mountain Radio and others) Will wire the Samantha to one of those outputs. Wiring at the end of the chain will virtually guarantee power brownout on the Samantha.
Also, too many teams are using #22 wire to feed the motor and servo controllers. To keep voltage normal, this should be #16 or larger on my opinion.
I do not believe in performance being part of the consideration for judged awards. Teams that have a bad day, have a driver absent for family commitments or illness or some other reason will loose out on a deserved award simply because their performance suffered that one day. I have hated this for many years at the FLL level. A team that deserves to win the Inspire award should win the Inspire Award. Otherwise teams that are not as deserving may be given the awards and that is also wrong.

[safiq10]

I would love to see a hybrid period, just think of all the intresting possibilities!

Getting away from the NXT and Samantha also would be great! I would love if they made using ardiunos much simplier instead of having to wire it through a protoboard.

[wgardner]

Things I'd like to see. Some might be controversial.

. A way to make sure that rookie teams with limited financing can be competitive. Maybe a financial limit to the amount that can be spent on the robot? I have seen some teams from underserved communities pack it in after one season when they see what other teams are spending and when they realize that they can't compete financially. I don't want to see this become a sport for only rich kids.

. An electrical kit of parts that is robust out of the box and doesn't require replacing battery connectors, adding ferrite cores, surge protectors, ferrules, and/or special bracing to connectors, or reading 25 page documents to figure out how to make the wiring robust.

. Games with clear, unambiguous rules. The fewer the judgement calls that refs have to make (e.g., "was that inadvertent and inconsequential contact with the ball tube or not?"), the better.

. Games where good autonomous robots that take many sessions to perfect cannot be blocked by robots with simple defensive routines that take 5 minutes to code.

. No adult coaches on the playing field.

. Live scoring would make FTC more spectator friendly, but I can see how that would potentially require many more volunteers. Maybe an option for allowing this to happen in cases where those volunteers are available?

. The requirement that teams compete in only one state or regional championship. It seems unfair that some teams in smaller northeast states, for example, can compete in the NJ, PA, DE, MD, and VT championships to earn the right to compete in the super regional, while teams located in the middle of large states don't have the same ability without lots of extra cost or effort. If teams can only compete in one super regional, why should they be able to compete in multiple regional championships? Ideally, if you've qualified to compete in your state championship, you should have to compete in only that championship.

. Updates to the game manual in cases where the rules have been changed from what the game manual says. Many forum rulings are clarifications that don't require game manual updates, but some are truly rule changes. For the rule changes, FIRST should update the manual so it's clear what the rules are. And ideally, the game video should accurately show the game too.

. A field that can be built from scratch using readily available parts and clear instructions written by the FTC folks. Then if companies like AndyMark want to market pre-built fields for teams or tournaments, they can. But having a single source for field structures this season wasn't great. And while we're on that topic...

. Robust field structures. No flimsy ramps that break or get bent, rivets that pop out, etc.

. Anti-static spray being required on the fields (or perhaps being required if the humidity is below a certain level), or fields being replaced with a new anti-static surface.

Just my opinions. Probably not the majority opinion...

[MattRain]

Originally Posted by wgardner

Things I'd like to see. Some might be controversial.

1. A way to make sure that rookie teams with limited financing can be competitive. Maybe a financial limit to the amount that can be spent on the robot? I have seen some teams from underserved communities pack it in after one season when they see what other teams are spending and when they realize that they can't compete financially. I don't want to see this become a sport for only rich kids.

2. An electrical kit of parts that is robust out of the box and doesn't require replacing battery connectors, adding ferrite cores, surge protectors, ferrules, and/or special bracing to connectors, or reading 25 page documents to figure out how to make the wiring robust.

3. Live scoring would make FTC more spectator friendly, but I can see how that would potentially require many more volunteers. Maybe an option for allowing this to happen in cases where those volunteers are available?

4. Updates to the game manual in cases where the rules have been changed from what the game manual says. Many forum rulings are clarifications that don't require game manual updates, but some are truly rule changes. For the rule changes, FIRST should update the manual so it's clear what the rules are. And ideally, the game video should accurately show the game too.

5. A field that can be built from scratch using readily available parts and clear instructions written by the FTC folks. Then if companies like AndyMark want to market pre-built fields for teams or tournaments, they can. But having a single source for field structures this season wasn't great. And while we're on that topic...

6. Robust field structures. No flimsy ramps that break or get bent, rivets that pop out, etc.

7. Anti-static spray being required on the fields (or perhaps being required if the humidity is below a certain level), or fields being replaced with a new anti-static surface.

Just my opinions. Probably not the majority opinion...

1. I can see both sides to this. While my team does make robots that are highly competitive and "custom" we spend very little money on the robot. Over the years, our students have reached out to different companies, and have been able to keep those companies as sponsors. They have been able to get metal from one company, plastic from another, and screws/bots/fasteners from another. I'm highly proud of what they have been able to do. Creating a highly custom robot with very little over head. Yes, both of my teams have switched to Andymark motors, but why wouldn't you if they are allowed. We make it a point in Arizona that if any team, whether it be rookie or veteran, that if they need tetrix parts, stock metal, or a field to practice on, that they are more than welcome to come by the shop and grab some or practice.

But back to the point of what you were saying, I wouldn't mind having a financial limit for teams. Just keep in mind that some teams may have the outreach done to companies like we have.

2. Yes, this needs to happen. It comes back to a money issue again, where some teams may not be able to afford to make it robust... it should come that way.

3. It would be nice to have this. I love having it in FRC. (I mentor a community team, not related to my FTC teams)

4. I agree that the video should be correct in every form... even if it has to be redone after a few weeks from kickoff, to show the changes that may happen from rule changes.

5. and 6. FTC needs to go back to a field that teams can build. Spending 450 dollars on a field that can only be used for a year is just not good in FTC. I understand it for FRC, but FTC has been great with the wooden elements that we have seen for the past few years. Along with the fact that the FTC robots are playing on a foam tile field that creates a huge amount of static, and then to put metal ramps that fall apart and create a grounding on the field that can potentially shut a robot off, (and I have seen it happen) just isn't good. Our team decided this year to not buy the whole field, but to reach out to the Regional Contacts to see if we could "store" one of the practice fields down in the metro area where most of the teams are located in Arizona, and where most of the quailfers where being held, and they had no problem with giving us a field, as long as we traveled it to each qualifier in the state. Travel this field this year was a pain. Parts as you have said, just were not robust, and the fact that we could not break down the elements because of pop-rivets just wasn't cool. This field would barely fit in my little Kia Soul..(yes a small car), but for FTC, a field should be able to fit in any car that size or bigger semi easy.

7. Without the static spray this year on the fields, our two robots from my teams would not have done well. In our workshop, we did not spray the field in the beginning, and had a lot of static problems. The later half of our season, we started spraying, and saw a large drop in the amount of times a robot would shock. (autonomous being the worst time to shock as it would restart the encoders and redo the last step, usually running the robot into the wall or completely locking it up.) The Static spray should be enforced at all of the events.