[FTC]: New Android Control System

[FTC5110]

I don't believe the Matrix 9.6V system is functional in the current beta app release 20150803.
Keep an eye on http://ftcforum.usfirst.org/forumdis...FTC-Technology

[RedfishRobotics]

Originally Posted by FTC5110

I don't believe the Matrix 9.6V system is functional in the current beta app release 20150803.
Keep an eye on http://ftcforum.usfirst.org/forumdis...FTC-Technology

Thanks. Fairly distressing if in fact this issue isn't resolve less than a month from kick-off, but I guess no more distressing than the fact that it wasn't resolved in advance of making the switch.

I understand the "if you wait for it to be perfect you won't ever launch" theory, I just don't subscribe to it.

Thanks again, and good luck to EVERYONE this season, looks like we're going to need it.

[skatefriday]

Support for the Matrix controller does not yet exist.

When it does, you should see a Matrix selection in
the configuration tool for the robot controller that
contains selections for 4 motors and 4 servos.

[RedfishRobotics]

Thanks Skate, with the kids first scrimmage just over 3 weeks out, they're going to keep pushing on a design that will hopefully work.

We've made some test leads for them so they can at least test lifts and such, but as they're already back in school, build time is a LOT more limited that areas that go back after Labor Day. (One more thing to love about Louisiana, lol).

Thanks again and good luck all!

[skatefriday]

How do you scrimmage before the game has been announced?

[Gdeaver]

Over the summer,our team has gone thru basic tool training and built a basic robot. Last week we bogged down trying to bring up the electronics and programming. A father and I work thru the problems and have basic control of motors and servos. Next meeting we should be able to mount everything on the robot and have the kids driving around. This should complete our summer goals.

REALITY CHECK FTC PEOPLE!!!!!

OUR team is all 7th and 8th graders. Smart but not geniuses. The Java programming model that Qualcom has created is full blown object oriented, event driven and multi threaded. In stead of the students working on specifying the behavior of the robot, we mentors are going to be teaching and beating a whole lot of very complex CS knowledge into their brains. This is going to take allot of work on the mentors part. Many teams are not going to have the people available to do this. Right know I have 2 students that are good enough to take this on. Unfortunately, the rest are most likely going to be blown away and give up on programming. Qualcom people, Have you worked with 7th graders on this system? This is a step back. I know many people hate Labview, but I have always been amazed at how the young minds picked it up. Even our good students who programmed last year's robot have called this a mess. Their has to be a better programming system. It's to late now. This fall is going to be long and hard. I've got some real home work to do. Yuk, YUK, Yuk, YUK.

[wgardner]

Gdeaver,

I agree that the Java/Android Studio environment is a step up in complexity from RobotC and a HUGE step up in complexity from Labview. It will definitely be a challenge for teams without strong CS mentors.

Have you considered using AppInventor instead? It's simpler to learn and use than Java is, and probably much easier to learn for folks coming from Labview.

You might want to have your kids try both for a week or so and see what they're more comfortable with.

Good luck!

[Gdeaver]

AppInventor is some lipstick on a pigs face.

[wgardner]

OK, then don't complain that Java is too hard for middle schoolers.

[Gdeaver]

App Inventor can assist in the basic's but is no better when complex auto actions are required. There has to be a better paradigm. The goal of FIRST is to bring more kids into technology. This current system could potentially push all but the best away at an early age. I don't have the answer but am sure this is not it. Now for teams that are high school level this may not be too bad. 7 and 8th graders, No.

[wgardner]

App Inventor can assist in the basic's but is no better when complex auto actions are required. There has to be a better paradigm. The goal of FIRST is to bring more kids into technology. This current system could potentially push all but the best away at an early age. I don't have the answer but am sure this is not it. Now for teams that are high school level this may not be too bad. 7 and 8th graders, No.

For Middle Schoolers, FIRST offers FLL with the EV3 GUI-based programming environment. For Middle and High Schoolers, FIRST offers FTC with AppInventor, a hybrid GUI/Text programming environment, and Java, a full fledged advanced text programming environment.

What I'm trying to suggest is that middle schoolers with no programming experience or only experience with GUI-type programming like Scratch, Labview, etc., may be better served doing FTC with AppInventor or FLL with EV3 programming. High schoolers taking AP-CS are better served with Java and Android Studio.

My opinion only: if you go with Java, you have chosen the most advanced programming environment for your 7th and 8th graders, and you are expecting them to be able to perform complex auto actions that are competitive with advanced FTC high school teams. ("Smart but not geniuses." "Right know I have 2 students that are good enough to take this on. Unfortunately, the rest are most likely going to be blown away and give up on programming." "App Inventor can assist in the basic's but is no better when complex auto actions are required.")

I would humbly suggest that some options are:

1. Stick with FTC and Java which only your top 2 students can do, be as competitive as possible, but leave many of your team members out of programming.

2. Try FTC and AppInventor, get all of the kids learning how to do it, and perhaps sacrifice a bit of competitiveness when it comes to autonomous routines, but have a kick-butt teleop with simple autonomous routines and a full team of kids who are engaged and contributing to the programming.

3. Have some of the kids who aren't the best programmers consider doing an FLL team (instead of or in addition to FTC). They may be jazzed by the simpler EV3 programming environment, may get more turned on by technology and programming, and may be more motivated to move towards FTC and advanced programming in future years.

How you decide to balance all of this is your choice, of course. But I might humbly suggest that perhaps the expectation that your "non genius" 7th and 8th graders will be able to compete with complex autonomous routines against advanced high schoolers who have been coding in Java for multiple years might be contributing to some of your frustrations?

I'm not trying to be "flame-y": hopefully it's not coming across that way. I'm just trying to point out that there are other options out there to you and to others in your situation who might be reading this thread.

[RedfishRobotics]

Originally Posted by skatefriday

How do you scrimmage before the game has been announced?

Sorry, I could have explained that better. For the last couple of years, one of the teams in Baton Rouge has hosted an off-season event called the "Redstcik Rumble". It's a combined FRC & FTC scrimmage (using the previous season's games), and an FLL workshop. This year's event just happened to fall on FTC kick-off, so having a bunch of LA/MS teams together for that will be a bonus.

Normally rookie teams don't participate, however, since we've been planning the move up to FTC since last season the team decided they'd like to try it.

Good news (since my last post) in that the kids got their "legacy" motors running by splitting out the encoder leads and just using the power leads in a "dumb" motor (my term) config. No telemetry and obviously no autonomous, but at least they have a robot they can drive in the event.

[samfruth]

I was able to make the .apk file on App Inventor and then move that file to the phone that gets connected with the bot. I created a new configuration on that phone as well for the bot that we have built. The phones are direct connected already through Wifi and set up appropriately as far as I know.

I'm having troubles with the OP mode on the phone that has the controllers plugged into it though. The phone on the bot runs the congif just fine but then tells me that the Robot Stop OP mode is running.

The question I have is how do I create a new OP mode on the phone that has the controllers plugged into it so that it communicates with the phone on the bot correctly with the new code that I have loaded?

[DavisDad]

Originally Posted by samfruth

...
The question I have is how do I create a new OP mode on the phone that has the controllers plugged into it so that it communicates with the phone on the bot correctly with the new code that I have loaded?

I'm not a programmer, but I've followed the tutorials and am able to create new op modes in AI. I don't think we can change the ""FTC Driver Station"" phone app. The op modes are built on the "FTC Robot Controller" app, and the Driver Station app just reads the op modes you create in the Robot Controller app.

Have you worked through these two docs:

1. FTC_AppInventor_Local_win_v0_07.pdf
2. FTC_AppInv_Training_v0_07.pdf

[samfruth]

Thank you for those. I was able to solve the problem by deleting the FTC Controller app on the device that was on the bot.

I do have another request:

Does anyone know of a place other than the Google Play Store that I can download the FTC Driver Station and FTC Robot Controller apps? I don't have access to the internet for the phones that I just received and the Google Play Store will not let me download the apps, giving me a messages that says I "don't have any devices".