[moderated]: NASA/VCU field problems

[Covey41]

I agree Sanddrag, 1st week teams deserve to have as good event as everyone else, but until the way the game is developed is changed, the 1st week events will always have issues.

[pyroslev]

First week regionals are the lab rats. They test the new stuff on us and we can't help it. Everyone watches first weekend regionals and the last weekend ones as well.

So i agree, until a solid game exists we are at the mercy of luck.

[ChuckDickerson]

I think the problems with scoring this year are due in large part to the game design. The scoring system this year must be "real time" due to the nature of the game. The balls are scored and then recycled back onto the field. This makes it impossible for spectators and game participants to keep score during the game. Compare this years game to 2004. They both used balls but in 2004 it was pretty easy for everyone (spectators and people actually on the field playing the game) to see who was winning. In 2004 a bunch of balls fell on the field, were scored in the goals on the field, the goals were capped, and robots could hang from the bar. A lot more scoring options than last year and this year. Back in 2004 it wasn't such a problem receiving the loosing score for your RP because it was pretty easy to know during the game if you were trouncing your opposing alliance. It is my understanding that the whole point of receiving the lowest score for your RP is to keep teams from completely beating up on their opponents. You want to "win" by one point. If the FIRST GDC continue design games like last year and this year where the players on the field basically have no idea what the score is until after the match is over then what is the point of receiving the loosing score for your RP if you win? Why not just do like any other sport and give you what you earn. I personally prefer the way the 2004 game was scored. It is easier to watch from the stands and you don't need real time scoring systems. Just count the balls in the goals, multiply by the caps, and add the bots hanging.

[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.

[santosh]

Thankfully everything got sorted out. However, seeing match 10 about 3 or 4 times was fun. Quite a few people got extra time to fix their robots.

[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.

[Jason Morrella]

It is true, it hard to do a new field and game every year, and it does typically get better each week. While I do appreciate the efforts to defend us/FIRST in this regard, I do think the issue is fairly simple - and I will repeat what a few others have stated:

We charge teams/customers a price to participate in the program. The teams in week one pay the same amount as the teams in week 5. Every team, at every event, deserves to have the same quality experience. It is not good enough for us to be pleased that we get everything fixed by week 4 or 5 - it is our/FIRST's responsibility to have it working correctly (not perfect, but close to) in week 1 and every week after. In my view, there is really no other issue at play here. While we can list many valid ones, the reasons and excuses really don't matter - our customers deserve a working system every week, and it is our/FIRST's challange and job to make sure we can start to make that happen every year, at every event. (getting off soap box now).

I can say that everyone in FIRST is aware of the issue, and there are some very capable people who have joined FIRST recently who do seem committed to getting these issues addressed immediately and in the future. We do anticipate having the glitches from today fixed much quicker than in years past, and hopefully the events tomorrow will run very smooth.

The scoring system issues aside, I have been completely wowed by the teams and students I have observed in this first week. The quality of the robots is great, and more importantly the quality of the people, the gracious behavior, the sportsmanship and the atmosphere at the events is as impressive as ever and reminds us all why we are doing this. (based primarily on the 46 teams I've been able to observe in Portland, but also on reports I've heard from people at the other three events).

Keep up the great work teams, have a great time at your events tomorrow and in future weeks, and be proud of what you have accomlished.

[Wayne Doenges]

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.

I've been reading this post and I have some observations.
You say that this is the first time FIRST has been able to test the equipment. Do you mean to tell me that FIRST couldn't set up the field, start the timers and throw balls into the goals using real people? Wow, what a concept.
Also, I think if FIRST wanted to try out the robot controls, in real time, they could probably find a few teams, in the area, that would be willing to loan them there robot. Than they could install the current RI and play the game. They wouldn't need the robots to score, just run around to test the systems. The aforementioned rel people could again throw balls into the goals.
*dons fire suit and gets off soapbox*

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

Your robots, they all worked perfectly right? ...

But the teams had no RC, could only ponder - not program, and were not getting paid!!

[Ken Leung]

Originally Posted by Wayne Doenges

Also, I think if FIRST wanted to try out the robot controls, in real time, they could probably find a few teams, in the area, that would be willing to loan them there robot. Than they could install the current RI and play the game. They wouldn't need the robots to score, just run around to test the systems. The aforementioned rel people could again throw balls into the goals.
*dons fire suit and gets off soapbox*

Allow me to interrupt the soapboxes for a moment. I wonder what do folks think of this idea:

After the build period, what if FIRST ask a couple of FIRST teams around the area, instead of shipping their robots to a central storage area, ship them to FIRST place?

I am not quite sure it would be fair to ask the teams for their robots during the build period, because every team need every minute of the 6 weeks to finish their robots. Besides, can teams really have the option to say no without seeming selfish, when in fact they just needed time to work on their robots?

But, do you think it would be awefully unfair if FIRST ask a couple of teams to let borrow their robot for a few days after the build period, if FIRST can utilize them to get the scoring system and field electronics running flawlessly, and provided that the teams don't get to work on their robots other than showing up at FIRST place and help test the system?

We have in the previous years team mentors going to Manchester to help FIRST come up with game designs. With that precedent, would it be entirely out of line if FIRST ask for a little help with the Field and scoring system? Would you be willing to let a few local New Hampshire teams a chance to touch their robot, even if only for a brief moment, for the good of the community?

That's something to think about.

[Joe Johnson]

Well... ...that was a great discussion.

I think there were a lot of good points made.

I am especially happy to hear Jason's response that FIRST is aware that this is a problem and that we hope it will not be repeated in 2007.

My favorite radio show, This American Life, had a show a while ago that included some research on Married Couples and what behaviors indicated that the couple was going to break up or stick together.

One of the best indicators of a couple that was going to break up was when arguing people stopped listening and began summarizing themselves.

I think that this thread is in danger of starting to fall into that mode.

I don't want us to here to break up, So... ...I am going to close it for the rest of the day until after the competitions are over today.

At that point I will re-open the thread, but when I do, I ask everyone who posts on this thread to

1. listen our partners
2. be respectful (which hasn't been a problem in this thread, but it is just generally good advice ;-) and
3. try not to give in to Summarizing Myself Syndrome.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Joe J.

[Joe Johnson]

Opened as promised.

Please read my message above.

Joe J.

[Nuttyman54]

so toward the end of VCU it looked like the real-time scoring system was working, but the score and ranking displays weren't keeping up.

[TubaMorg]

As a mentor for a very small underfunded team, I can really sympathize with the teams that have only one shot at a single regional. Phrases like "for the most part scoring was good" and "only a couple of matches were scored incorrectly" are statistically relevent, but are poor consolation for the teams where things went wrong.

One post tried to compare teams' robot preparations (or lack thereof) with that of FIRST. Of course the comparison is completely invalid for many reasons:
1. Robots are designed and built (for the most part) by HS students in the span of 6 weeks.
2. Sponsors of these teams are aware of who/what they are sponsoring and generally sponsor the effort rather than the product.
3. Organizers of FIRST have been aware of the field design requirements for MUCH longer and are unconstrained by the rules that govern the robot build season.
4. FIRST is comprised in large part of adults (presumably mainly engineers).

Some other observations. Scoring problems seem to be a result of field design rather than any effects from robots. This is an important observation, because that means the field scoring system could/should have been tested prior to week 1 regionals. How? How could this possibly be done with all of the robots stored up in crates somewhere? Well an earlier post pointed it out: with human substitutes winging balls around trying their best to over load the system. Maybe I just don't understand the scope of the problem, though. Was the software unavailable for testing before week 1? Or was there just a general lack of desire to test the system before hand? I really must be severely underestimating the complexity of the problem, because aside from the scoring system (which seems to be the trickiest part of the problem) I'm not sure why the team scoring and ranking system is so hard? Is it networking issues? How is juggling <100 team data so hard? Can someone PLEASE explain where the "complex" comes in here? It just seems like all of the issues could/should have been tested and debugged sans robots before the first regional took place. My heart goes out to the single regional week 1 teams!