[moderated]: NASA/VCU field problems

[Joe J.]

Reading through this I read someones argument that FIRST improves the bugs in the system as the Competition Season progresses, or that the system works great by the time we get to the Championships. All this is true but my thought is this: some teams may only go to one one regional and may not go to the Championships, now if a teams only competition is a week one regional that has problems that effect the outcomes of matches there goes their season. I don't think thats fair to teams in that situation.

I understand that week one regionals is often the first real test of these systems but the only thing week one regional teams should have to worry about is how they are going to set the bar for the rest of the season.

[Matt Krass]

Your robots, they all worked perfectly right? Those failures I saw on the webcast, those were my eyes and ears malfunctioning right? Because I don't think so.

I doubt every team came up with the several thousands required to fund their teams either, so they had some kind of sponsors.

Your sponsors didn't pay for a buggy robot. They didn't pay for their logo to be sideways all the time, so since it didn't work the very first time, you get one more, if it doesn't work in your second match, you'd better cough up the money for everything on it and refund the sponsors.

Give it a break people.

You're being ridiculous, honestly, it's not perfect, it couldn't be, it's brand new and this is the first chance to test it. Just as it's the first chance to test your robot in competition conditions. You think your robots are the only systems that behave differently in competition than the shop it was developed in? Seriously, enough with the ragging on FIRST.

You say they should have tested it earlier, how were they going to do that? Pre-ship scrimmages? How many of you had completely functioning robots by then? What makes you think a single day would have done that much anyways?

Why didn't you test your robots sooner? Didn't have time? Well neither did FIRST. When did you expect them to test this system? Did you expect them to build a bunch of robots and test it? Hundreds of times over while handling multiple other systems, some of them that are arena specific?

We don't build perfect robots the first try, they don't build perfect fields the first try, get over it. You paid $6000 to have an opportunity most people wouldn't get. Life isn't fair, and people aren't going to bend over backwards because something got fouled up, deal with it and move on. If your alliance partners had a nonfunctional robot would you demand they paid your regional fees? Would you demand extra points to offset it so the match is 'fair'?

I really hope not.

It's not perfect, it's not ideal, it's not something I would wish on any team, but it is reality and until somebody comes up with a better plan, we're stuck with it. And by better plan I mean something fully worked out with a solution to all the logistics problems that I bet most of you didn't think about it.

When somebody comes up with a better plan, I'm sure the GDC would love to hear it.

[Wetzel]

I'd like to start by apologizing to any teams that feel slighted by the problems we are having at VCU. I am one of the scorekeepers and have been trying my best to help get and keep the field running.

I'd like to give a bit of explanation. There are three separate systems that come together to control the field. The robot communication parts from IFI, the counting system from National Instruments, and the field control/match generator/ranking/everything else from Hatch Technologies.

The robot communication has been great. Some teams have had issues (and always do) and IFI has helped them to resolve them. The IFI guys are awesome.

The counting system was initially problematic. This was resolved on Thursday by hard work by our FTA and crew. Today we have been getting good counts from the NI system. There were both calibration and physical solutions developed.

The integration system from Hatch had some bugs and idiosyncrasies, but by the end of the day Thursday when we left at 9 I was confident in the system. We had been on the phone with a Hatch rep during the day reporting issues. Friday morning we got a patch to fix most of these. However, we got a bigger problem with the patch which we tried to work around but decided to revert to the previous build that we knew worked. That was the delay around match 9. By about 2, I was confident in the system again. We ran matches straight through lunch, and that got us within 15 minutes of schedule. The field reset crew was AWESOME and we ended on schedule.

As far as the rankings go, during the day, we thought it was wrong, but didn't have time during match play to examine it in depth. So we just didn't show them. When we did, we saw that the system was confused and were able to fix it after a quick call to Hatch. We were able to put the ranking display up before the pits closed and they will be up when teams come in at 8 Saturday morning.

I am confident in the scoring and ranking system right now. Can it be better? Definitely. Will it work as we have it? Yes.


Wetzel
VCU Scorekeeper 2005-2006

PS If I was brisk with you or just brushed you off it was because I was really busy trying to figure out what was going on or just busy running the matches. Come find me after the awards on Saturday and say hi.

[Joe Matt]

Is this your first time to VCU? Because this has become a regular occurance for the first day usualy to debug the system. While I understand your frustration, it's impossible for FIRST to test this system out before implementing it. They are doing a much better job than the past two years.

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by Joe Matt

They are doing a much better job than the past two years.

So as long as each year we do a little better than last year it is okay? That's like saying little we are so proud of little Timmy because he got a D in math this quarter when he got an F last quarter. That's like saying we seeded 47th last year so our goal is to seed 46th this year. That's like getting served spoiled milk that has been sitting out only one day instead of two. Regarless of the improvement, it is still not acceptable.

FIRST (and the rest of us) should strive not just for improvement, but for perfection.

EDIT: I forgot to note that FIRST is not entirelty to blame. There are also a couple 3rd party companies as I understand. But that just means that FIRST needs to get on them for not delivering a working product.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

So as long as each year we do a little better than last year it is okay? That's like saying little we are so proud of little Timmy because he got a D in math this quarter when he got an F last quarter. That's like saying we seeded 17th last year so our goal is to seed 16th this year. FIRST should strive not just for improvement, but for perfection.

Perfection would indeed be a good goal. And it would be awesome if FIRST could get a couple more fields out the weekend before ship for some shakedown scrimmages.

That said, does anyone keep track of field downtime across regionals and seasons? It would be interesting to see where the Aim High field falls in relation to the Triple Play or (perhaps more interesting still, given the different control setup that year) FIRST Frenzy field. Know what screws up on a field, and you learn either how to fix it in action or avoid it in the game design.