2006 game hints?

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Bharat Nain

I shall second that
I WANT MY HINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I WANT MY HINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I WANT MY HINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I WANT MY HINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I WANT MY HINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I WANT MY HINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You already have it.

-dave

[phrontist]

Originally Posted by dlavery

You already have it.

-dave

YESSSSSSSS!!!

Okay guys, start paging through his post history...

[663.keith]

"the fox is in the hen house" was posted a while ago as a Dave hint, as well as "think of hovercraft's and the English Channel"


hmmmmm

[Ian Curtis]

In response to this post by Mr. Lavery.

Only two acronyms show up in that paragraph, one being "GDC" and the other being "MST" both being used fictionally. Now "GDC" also stands for "Game Design Commitee". So using inductive reasoning I'm assujming that MST is either the acronym for the object we must manipulate or the acronym of the name of the game.

New and Pressing!
A search for MST reveals that it is also an acronym for microscrewcap tubes, or tubes used in science labs. This is way to blatant to be a game object, isn't it?
http://www.evergreensci.com/lh/mst.htm

[Swampdude]

Related to my guess in my first post of this thread, I found this post from the 2006 game post early this year. This is an interesting link because team 116 is none other that Daves team.

[Ryan Foley]

Originally Posted by iCurtis

In response to this post by Mr. Lavery.

Only two acronyms show up in that paragraph, one being "GDC" and the other being "MST" both being used fictionally. Now "GDC" also stands for "Game Design Commitee". So using inductive reasoning I'm assujming that MST is either the acronym for the object we must manipulate or the acronym of the name of the game.

Now, going off this, and Grayswandir-75's find about Tammy and 2001, here's my guess.

Manchester Standard Time: the important thing here is "time"
2001: remember the 2001 game, teams could shut themselves down for points
Dave's mentioning of RC's shutting down on their own: supports idea above.

I think points/ multipliers based on time are back.

[Rickertsen2]

I think we can rule out snow, water etc. They playing field must be something that can easily be moved from regional to regional and must be something that is within the reach of teams to make.

[lukevanoort]

I think that we might be able to put the batons onto the less likely side, if not eliminated. That hint seemed a bit too obvious.

Originally posted by Birdman1011395

Don't know about other regionals (and I don't believe this has been brought up before), but Dave Lavery at the VCU regional said something along the lines of "It's snowing outside, and it gives me some ideas". Or something to that effect and made mention of how he got an idea from the Richmond Science Museum for 2005's competition.

I remember that snow/freezing rain. I walked to the grocery store in it. I really can't see how that'd give him ideas though, unless its electronic "snow." Maybe they'll stick a transmitter set to throw static into the signal, and you have to program to counteract it. Sand and such would also be very bad for gearboxes, and maybe compreesors (are they filtered?). I can see FIRST being a little sadistic, but that's too much. I think a traction comprimised floor is quite possible though, like the top of the ramp in '03.(I might have the year wrong)

[kjohnson]

I remember that snow too - it was weird to see snow on top of the bus in Richmond in MARCH. I sure hope Dave was joking about that, but maybe he could mean a blizzard: the driver's vision will be blocked but they will have someone else (like the human player at the corner of the field this year) to tell them where to go.

Other that that kind of blizzard, I seriously doubt FIRST would make any kind of game involving something that could so easily damage an expensive robot. Even if something was falling from above, the robot would need to be completely sealed (And that starts a problem with heat not being able to escape properly). And like Rickertsen2 said, the playing fields will need to be somewhat easy to transport and not extremely expensive because teams will want to practice under competition conditions.

[jdiwnab]

You know, there is such thing as fake snow that won't damage stuff. There is also styrofoam peanuts that could work, too. I don't discount Dave's VCU regional hint. Obvious, yes, but, who knows?

And reguarding the snow, I was out there in short sleaves and shorts. Mostly because I didn't want to carry a coat/long sleave shirt/long pants around. Much easier to be comfortable in the pits and chily outside.

[lukevanoort]

I too only wore shorts and a tee, but I did have an old leather jacket to deal with the wind that a rarely wore, since the zipper made a lot of noise bouncing around. I agree with rickertsen2 on the snow issue, even if its non hazerdous material aren't going to be used, since the huge mess. But, you know we could be thinking to literally, it might be associated with something totally random in his mind, like sheep dogs or something. For example caves remind me of King Vitamin cereal.

[billbo911]

Originally Posted by nukemknight

..... but maybe he could mean a blizzard: the driver's vision will be blocked but they will have someone else (like the human player at the corner of the field this year) to tell them where to go....

Let's consider a couple more combinations of hints.
When you mentioned the driver's vision being limited or blocked, I immediatly thought about the appearent push that seems to be in place to have the CMU Cameras back in place this year. If this is true, and picking up "batons" were included, then it would make sense that the game could actually allow the use of the camera to aid the drivers vision during a portion, if not all of the match to guide them to the game objects, like a baton.


During autonomous mode, limiting the robot to ONLY use the camera as a sensor is another possibility. After all, Dave's mentioning of rules that "restrict" the use of certain items really only points to a rule that restricts the use of certain item, not what that item was. Here is the quote:

Originally Posted by dlavery

..... For example, what about a rule that says "no threaded fasteners of any type are permitted on the robot."* If it were up to me, I would add a rule like that. Oh, wait, it is...

-dave

Notice the "like", Dave didn't say "No threaded fasteners", but he did say a rule "like" that.

[EricH]

More hint removal/analysis.

Removal: hovercraft. Building a FIRST robot to act like a hovercraft and still pass inspection would be very difficult.

Analysis: English Channel. Difficult to cross without special equipment (boat, hovercraft, tunnel. We've already ruled out boat & hovercraft, and tunnel is impractical.) Probably going to be different surfaces, one much more difficult than the rest and placed in the middle of the field.

Analysis: fox in the henhouse. What happens when a fox gets into the henhouse? The chickens (obviously not Thunderchickens) panic. Two explanations: either that's all of us at some point during the season (hint release and kickoff come to mind) or something on the field will scatter if a robot hits an area. Remember the ball dump in '04? I suspect that 1) the game object will be easy to scatter and 2) that the game object will scatter if and only if a robot (fox) hits a certain target area (henhouse), probably in auto mode. Of course, I could be all wrong, and the game object is some form of chicken...

Removal: Whack the Billfred. Logistical problems (again). Billfred obviously can't be in 8 places at once. Nuff' said.

[Birdman1011395]

So who's to say we're the fox?

And here's one question, do foxes carry off the chickens, or do they eat the chickens in the coop?

And the instant I type that something hits. Another name for a henhouse is a coop, kind of like Co-op, which is gamer slang for cooperative. A cooperative mode is not the traditional team multiplayer mode, but one where there is a single team "cooperating" towards a singular objective. Now could that mean that the game this year could be an indirect competition with the other alliance?

[Petey]

Originally Posted by phrontist

YESSSSSSSS!!!

Okay guys, start paging through his post history...

Let's see.

Originally Posted by dlavery

Guy: Tell me why we are doing this again?
Girl: Because Billfred dropped a hint about making a robot that can change lightbulbs. I figured that we should take the hint, since he is on the GDC and he should know.

Robot with fine motor skills?

Originally Posted by dlavery

Not at all. An amazing amount can be done with welding, brazing, housed joints, polymer-based adhesives, rivets, spring clips, e-rings, Dutchman pins, proper interference fits, pocket hole joinery, soldering, collaring, swaging, pinned tenon joints, etc. etc. etc. There are LOTS of ways to connect one item to another without using the bolt/washer/nut answer that almost everyone defaults to - and without resorting to cheap-looking tape.

I really like the idea of a rule that will really push teams about of their "comfort zone" and into an area where they have to think about ways to solve problems by other than the obvious solution.

-dave

[/me gets off hobby horse]

Lowered budget?

Originally Posted by dlavery

Very cool! Now we can get a transparent yttrium oxide ceramic dome to cover the CMUcam so it doesn't get trashed when our robot spins out of control again (everyone that went to IRI remembers our "death spiral dance"). But I wonder if it will fit within the robot parts budget...

-dave

Uh...raised budget?

Originally Posted by dlavery

So far, everyone is takling their personal pet peeve and trying to find a way to make the rule associated with a certain topic/application/mechanism less restrictive. That is fine, and everyone is certainly entitled to riding their own hobby horse. So I will hop on mine. I think that folks are headed in the wrong direction. I think that we should look for potential rules that can be made MORE restrictive, and scale back the "almost anything goes" philosophy that has become associated with the robot construction rules over the past several years. I believe that this philosophy has lead to a lot less true creativity and innovation in the robots, as teams have just gone out and bought solutions to design problems rather than creating solutions from a kit part that was never intended to do the job for which it would now be used. I would be all in favor of adding more restrictions back in to the robot construction rules to bring back some of the real creativity that every team displayed during the early years of FIRST.

For example, what about a rule that says "no threaded fasteners of any type are permitted on the robot."* If it were up to me, I would add a rule like that. Oh, wait, it is...

-dave

* you think I am joking, don't you? hehhehheh

....Lowered budget????

I'm worried about the water game after this little exchange, specifically because of Dave's selective editing:

Originally Posted by Veselin Kolev

There have always been problems with using mecanum for FIRST: firstly the programming and control is tricky, and making the wheel itself is rather anoying. I for one will hopefully be having a mecanum robot this year, so I guess I shouldn't be complaining. I chose to go this path... but anyway, this article is a very interesting one. I appreciate how they push the design of the mecanum wheel to its limit in efficiency. However, I think the most I would ever consider is putting pneumatic locks on the rollers to improve forward efficiency.

Thanks for posting this article.

Originally Posted by dlavery

Oh? Why?


-dave

Originally Posted by Adam Richards

Dave, don't be mean to people who haven't already read the technical specs for this year's water game. It's not our fault we aren't on the game design committee.

Originally Posted by dlavery

Admittedly, a bit tongue-in-cheek. But not entirely. There are multiple layers of real questions embedded in that simple little two-word interrogatory. Not all questions, and not all data, are obvious.

-dave

p.s. if you reacted quickly like some and think that the original question means "hey, don't use Mechanum wheels this year" then you haven't looked deep enough.

Originally Posted by dlavery

Hmmm. Funny you should mention that. Somebody once told me that Tammy Trimble used to be a majorette...

-dave

I went back through mid-August on these posts.

So it looks like we've either got
A) A drastically lowered budget with a restricted supply list that requires more creative ingenuity a-la Apollo 13
or
B)A raised budget that at least allows space age materials so we can do some sort of aquatic game.

And either A) or B) will invovle picking up sticks, which is very difficult to do, when you think about it. Fine motor skills on the robot.

Personally, I'm predicting A. I don't think the organization has got the cojones for aquatic robotic warfare yet.

--Petey