IN District - Tippecanoe Event 2016

[Chris_Elston]

Originally Posted by Wayne Doenges

Did I miss something or do they not announce the District Woodie Flowers nominees at each district event?
They weren't announced at the Tippy event.

Opening ceremonies on Sunday, they announced them.

[logank013]

Sorry to bring this up again, but I'm trying to get it soon. Does anyone know where (or if) the live stream was archived? I know the individual matches aren't up yet, but did someone upload the whole 8h or so stream? Thanks!

[michael5402]

Does anyone know what light 1024 was using.

[Alan Anderson]

I only saw a few brief minutes of the qualification matches. But those eliminations -- wow! From the first seconds of Quarterfinal 1-1 (high score of the day, right?) to literally the last seconds of Final 3, there was more than enough action and excitement to go around.

Putting on my orange hat for a bit:

I'd like to thank all the teams who graciously accepted any of my unsolicited advice as I walked around looking at robots. I also appreciate the fact that I didn't have any angry mentors to deal with this year.

I want to apologize to at least two teams for spending so much time trying to debug problems that eventually went away only after replacing the roboRIO, or for failing to find a bad connection in the power path until late on the last day of the event. I would like to offer my continuing help by reviewing any software that teams want to post here (or send to me privately).

And I'll see you all again in the next couple of weeks!

[tickspe15]

Originally Posted by logank013

Sorry to bring this up again, but I'm trying to get it soon. Does anyone know where (or if) the live stream was archived? I know the individual matches aren't up yet, but did someone upload the whole 8h or so stream? Thanks!

I uploaded elimination matches and 1747s qualification matches. The live stream was not recorded due to technical difficulties. Hopefully the event will be archived next week.

Link to videos is in my previous post

[Carolyn_Grace]

Don't forget about our Brackets for Good incentive for teams!

Step 1: Go here to make your donation: https://indianapolis.bfg.org/matchup/indianafirst-inc

Step 2: Click the red heart or PLUS by IndianaFIRST.

Step 3: Checkout using your cart at the top.

Step 4: When checking out, in the memo line, indicate which Indiana FRC team you want your donation to go!

IndianaFIRST will process the donations to the proper teams at the end of the Brackets for Good tournament!

Every donation helps any Indiana FRC team you choose, while also helping IndianaFIRST move on to Round 4 of Brackets for Good.

[Theseusgoats]

What do you guys think about the overall outcome of the event. Who were the unexpected teams to do really well? Who were the dark horses? It seems like there were only a few consistent high goal shooters. There was one particular one other than 1024, 1501, and 1747. Can't think of the name, I think they won Industrial Design or something. Whoever they were, they performed really well.

[Wayne Doenges]

Hello All
I took allot of pictures at the event. You can see them here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/teamthrust1501/albums
If you are unable to copy them, get the photo number (DSC_xxxx) to me and I will send them to you.
I also have allot of volunteer pictures.

[Chris_Elston]

Originally Posted by Theseusgoats

What do you guys think about the overall outcome of the event. Who were the unexpected teams to do really well? Who were the dark horses? It seems like there were only a few consistent high goal shooters. There was one particular one other than 1024, 1501, and 1747. Can't think of the name, I think they won Industrial Design or something. Whoever they were, they performed really well.

That would be 4982, Olympus Robotics, from Fort Wayne, Indiana. According to our scouting data, they had 17 goals in the high and 10 goals in the low. 4th highest high goal shooter at the event.

[Richard Wallace]

I didn't get to watch any Tippecanoe matches -- was tad busy in St. Joe.

Video of 1747 practicing (TBA) shows very high quality crossing and accurate high shot from outer works. I look forward to seeing 1024 and 1501 in the videos uploaded today.

TBA Insights indicate a very high level of play at Tippecanoe, particularly the 44% Capture rate in eliminations. Also, low success rate (13%) on Sally indicates the refs were having trouble seeing clearance on solo attempts. I was reffing at St. Joe, where we used hand signals between courtyard and outer works refs to confirm door clearance on solo Sally attempts, and our success rate (54%) may be due to that. Hopefully refs will sees all the crossings better as the season progresses.

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by drwisley

Heya Chris-

How were the boulders being scored. I rewound your QF3-3 match a few times and it would appear that you scored 9 boulders, but were only credited for the first 7. Even the announcer said you only needed one more, or did something else occur that I'm not aware of?

Boulders are scored automatically, not by the refs. In order for a boulder to be scored, it HAS to end up in the corral. Unfortunately, this means that for a high goal, if it goes in one and out the other, it does not count. Additionally, occasionally a boulder would get stuck in the opening of the tower. Usually this would only be taken into account if it affects the outcome of the match - ie if the winning alliance had a stuck boulder, there's not much point in changing the score to reflect that.

[tickspe15]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

Also, low success rate (13%) on Sally indicates the refs were having trouble seeing clearance on solo attempts. I was reffing at St. Joe, where we used hand signals between courtyard and outer works refs to confirm door clearance on solo Sally attempts, and our success rate (54%) may be due to that. Hopefully refs will sees all the crossings better as the season progresses.

I can't speak for other teams but we(1747) didn't Sally port with the exception of the one match that we needed to do it for the breach. In that one match the refs marked the crossing correctly. We decided that the time spent to get the 5th defense crossing was better spent shooting a ball which got us closer to capturing the tower. This may change later in the season as alliances become more capable of quickly capturing the tower.

I do agree with the assessment that refs do need to get better at seeing and recording crossings of defenses. With the frequency of missed defense crossings and the lack of visibility of the lights on the defenses there is no reliable way to confirm that defenses have actually been breached. I would like to see the addition of a screen displaying tower and defense strength to the alliance station like in 2014.

[tindleroot]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

TBA Insights indicate a very high level of play at Tippecanoe, particularly the 44% Capture rate in eliminations. Also, low success rate (13%) on Sally indicates the refs were having trouble seeing clearance on solo attempts. I was reffing at St. Joe, where we used hand signals between courtyard and outer works refs to confirm door clearance on solo Sally attempts, and our success rate (54%) may be due to that. Hopefully refs will sees all the crossings better as the season progresses.

There were many 4/5 breaches occurring in qualification matches (with the Class C defense ignored often) due in part to, I think, the low margin of error between capturing and not capturing in quals. Many alliances had the potential to capture in qualifications, even if they didn't have one of the big shooters, but in order to do so they would have to hurry to score enough boulders. Due to this, most alliances completely ignored the 5th defense once the breach had occurred.

My conjecture is that as the probability for successful capture approaches some constant c, the probability of breaking all 5 defenses (as opposed to only 4) decreases significantly. The level of play at Tippecanoe was around this point where going for the last defense was unnecessary for the win, and would have cost alliances a chance for the capture.

It's apparent that the lights at the front of defenses and on the side of the tower are intended to be signals of the field's state to drivers, but most of those lights are in a spot with poor visibility, plus many of them seem to either not work or are delayed during a match. FIRST is hopefully working on devising a better system than that. I noticed during this past weekend that the blue alliance had a tremendous advantage in that they were able to view the big screen right behind them in order to see tower and defense strengths and match time easily, while red alliance would struggle to see the screen due to the blue tower being in the way.

[Peyton Yeung]

Originally Posted by tindleroot

... I noticed during this past weekend that the blue alliance had a tremendous advantage in that they were able to view the big screen right behind them in order to see tower and defense strengths and match time easily, while red alliance would struggle to see the screen due to the blue tower being in the way.

That coupled with the fact that the 2nd screen with the scores was on the opposite side of the field of the red driver's station and facing the blue driver's station.

[Peyton Yeung]

Originally Posted by CalTran

Boulders are scored automatically, not by the refs. In order for a boulder to be scored, it HAS to end up in the corral. Unfortunately, this means that for a high goal, if it goes in one and out the other, it does not count. Additionally, occasionally a boulder would get stuck in the opening of the tower. Usually this would only be taken into account if it affects the outcome of the match - ie if the winning alliance had a stuck boulder, there's not much point in changing the score to reflect that.

We had a couple of shots (at least 3) go in the left side of the goal and come out the right side of the goal. We were surprised because our catapult isn't too powerful and we were pretty far back (outer works).