Interesting Q/A's

[Nitroxextreme]

What I can't seem to understand is why this year is any different?

In the past teams were allowed to keep the RC and bring it with them to the first event. Last year we were forced to ship the RC out to IFI to get it repaired (under warranty ). If we were not allowed to bring it with us to the event we would have been forced to rely on shipping to get it there on time.

Being able to keep the RC gives teams the ability to be more realistic into the whole business plan idea. After a finished product is delivered the programmer will get time after the deadline to perfect the instructions(code).

[KenWittlief]

sounds like its time for someone to design an RC simultor, that runs on a PC, can simuate the function of the RC, and allow the user to define the inputs and outputs that are present on their robot?

That would allow SW to be tested with just the operators interface, and a PC.

[Tristan Lall]

This one bugs me a little, because of the reasonably elegant solution that the team has proposed, and the silly response that was received:

Originally Posted by FRC696

Consider we build a ball conveyor mechanism that is non-backdriveable and has no door . May we have additional leads coming out of the drive motor, so that when the match is over, the driver/operator can plug in a small 7.2V RC car battery to power the mechanism to quickly (<10 seconds) remove the balls? There would be no exposed wiring that would be cause for concern of a short. These additional leads on the motor would not be connected during the match. The RC car battery will always be kept charged and be kept with the driver and never installed on the robot.

Originally Posted by GDC

No. All motors/actuators on a FRC robot must be controlled through the Robot Controller.

Who hasn't connected a battery directly to a motor, to advance it, or to test it? The match is over, let the team do as they see fit—it's absolutely clear in the question that there is no possibility of the extra battery being used in a match, and it seems unlikely that the extra battery will hinder efforts to remove the robot from the field—indeed, it appears to do quite the opposite.

Of course, the best solution would be to design a system which doesn't need any extra power to release balls....

[psquared89]

While mildly off-topic for this thread, I'd like to highlight an alternative to the Robot Controller dilema. Our team uses a 400 Mhz co-processor to do all of our calculations, the only thing the IFI controller does is send out PWM values (so that we stay within the rules). This means that teams could work on and test software development with nothing more than a laptop.

If you're interested, you can find information about the project here on our website. The pages include a detailed description of what we're working on, downloadable trails, a tutorial for getting yourself started, and personal support information.

[Rombus]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

This one bugs me a little, because of the reasonably elegant solution that the team has proposed, and the silly response that was received:Who hasn't connected a battery directly to a motor, to advance it, or to test it? The match is over, let the team do as they see fit—it's absolutely clear in the question that there is no possibility of the extra battery being used in a match, and it seems unlikely that the extra battery will hinder efforts to remove the robot from the field—indeed, it appears to do quite the opposite.

Of course, the best solution would be to design a system which doesn't need any extra power to release balls....

The difference between connecting a battery for testing, and connecting a battery for competition, is just that, testing vs competition. Fact is, it becomes a safty issue. if a motor is connected though a RC, it can always be disabled via remote while on the playing field. If a battery is connected directly to a motor, it cant be turned off.

Dont get me wrong, i agree that it could be better if they were allowed, just pointing out the FIRST Perspective.

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by FRC1350

Can/will the referee stand anywhere to determine the number of balls in the 'bot prior to autonomous? In other words, is there a specific zone/area the judge will stand in or can/will he/she move around so as to get the best view?

Originally Posted by GDC

The referee will stand near (not sit, squat, lie prone, jump, hover, or float above) the robot while examining the robot to determine the contained ball count. Teams should not assume that the referess will go through any gyrations or assume special postures to enable them to determine the ball count. Note the Rule <G13> requires that contained balls "must be clearly visible from outside the ROBOT."

To whowever in the GDC wrote that, you made my day almost as much as Beatty's dance video.

[Peter Matteson]

Finally, definition of a shooter. I have a sneaking suspicion that this will affect many teams plans.

Question: Can you clarify this for us? What constitutes a shooter mechanism, or more specifically, where does a loading mechanism end and a shooting mechanism begin? Stated in rule S03, a shooting mechanism cannot exceed the initial footprint, but can a mechanism designed to get the balls from the floor to the shooter exceed the footprint? What if this system is not around ground level (within the bumber area)?

Answer: A shooter includes the mechanism that delivers the final dynamic impulse that ejects the ball from the robot, and any parts of the robot that contact the ball while and/or after this impluse is delivered. Depending on their exact design and construction, a subsystem that delivers balls into the final energy transfer mechanism may or may not be considered part of the shooter.

Ball delivery mechanisms that are not part of the shooter are not automatically limited to the operating volumes indicated in Rule <S03>. However, they still must satisfy all relevent 2006 FRC rules.


http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=455

[TheDrWho22]

They respond with that answer so many times on several different questions, but don't really answer other questions in that regard. My question is: Assuming the hopper has nothing to do with the shooting mechanism, can it be out of the starting dimensions? Simple yes or no answer would be appreciated.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by TheDrWho22

They respond with that answer so many times on several different questions, but don't really answer other questions in that regard. My question is: Assuming the hopper has nothing to do with the shooting mechanism, can it be out of the starting dimensions? Simple yes or no answer would be appreciated.

Yes. Their response does answer that question.

[MikeDubreuil]

Here's an interesting Q/A about back bots and disabled robots:

Question:
If a team's robot is disabled mid-match, are they required to maintain a back-bot?

Answer:
If one of the alliance robots is disabled during the match, then it is up to the two remaining alliance members to either bocome the backbot, or move the disabled robot into an appropriate position such that it can be the backbot.

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=431

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

[/i]Answer:
If one of the alliance robots is disabled during the match, then it is up to the two remaining alliance members to either bocome the backbot, or move the disabled robot into an appropriate position such that it can be the backbot.

move: drag the smoldering hunk by its cables! :^)

[BillCloyes]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

[url="http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=464"]...The match is over, let the team do as they see fit—it's absolutely clear in the question that there is no possibility of the extra battery being used in a match...

playing a bit of the devil's advocate but here goes...

If they really want to be technical (not that I would want to be the one on the field making this argument) but, the match is over, what FRC Game or Robot Rules really apply when not in a match (looking through lawyer-type glasses) I can see where safety would win in this case though, but it raises other questions...

FIRST keeps saying things to the affect of "...make the balls easily removable...don't take too long..."

Who defines "easily" or "too long"? are they defined?

Better question; what happens if "too long" is surpassed trying to unload robot after the match?

Deduct 5 pts?
DQ after the match?
Smacked with a pool noddle?

Don't get me wrong, the last thing I am asking for is more rules, but some reference for all the good-intentioned judges to use at all the various competition sites would be nice.

my 2 cents
-Bill

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by BillCloyes

Who defines "easily" or "too long"? are they defined?

No doubt the discretion of the field personnel - just as judgement is involved in deciding what is ramming, what is field damage, etc.

Better question; what happens if "too long" is surpassed trying to unload robot after the match?

Deduct 5 pts?
DQ after the match?
Smacked with a pool noddle?

I believe I saw the answer in the Q&A. If the balls cannot be easily removed the team will be asked to modify their device before they are allowed to compete again.

[Ricky Q.]

I personally am not agreeing with this decision

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=508

that counts roller reversing mechanisms designed to empty into the corner goals as "shooters."

To me, it makes no sense. Shooters should be defined as something designed to get something into the center hoop, not the corner goals.

[Mike Betts]

Ricky,

That's why I urged FIRST to make their case clear to everyone. A lot of teams are affected.

Don't take it personally... It's just a game...

Regards,

Mike