RACK & ROLL Reaction

[looneylin]

i personally LOVE it. soooo much strategy. it's amazing!

n the game is simple, but u can do a lot with it. so i think it's good.

[MikeDubreuil]

My reaction...
Not as good as my favorite year (2000), but I like it. Apparently FIRST threw out that whole philosophy that the game should be easily scored/explained to your grandmother.

[Qbranch]

At first (heheh) i'm like... whoa thats wierd... then i started to like it... now i love it.

Just got back from our first meeting of the season and we have our robot design completely roughed out, drive sys, manipulator, and end effector. (whoo hoo we did it without pneumatics gotta love the weight savings)

ALSO I would like to congratulate FIRST on a great challenge design, I think that it does an awesome job of providing an attainable goal to all levels of teams, from rookie to your single and double digit teams. And, all scoring and defensive opportunities are about balanced for their weight in the overall score outcome of the match. Good job game design!

Good luck everybody... i'm sure in a few day's time i'll be posting like mad... think i'll give my fingers a rest for the moment...

-Q

EDIT:
p.s. expect a very interesting scoring feature on our robot this year... and there might be two of them... hint hint...

[Kims Robot]

So I read through the whole thread and I keep seeing people going back on forth on "its torroid terror" or "its not torroid terror".

Now perhaps I'm not in the ranks of the great strategists of Wildstang or Simbotics, but I think part of the issue with this game is that the robots really could be exactly the same as old robots. For me, at this point, I like to be excited about designing something new, after we ship, I want to be excited about more detailed strategy. Yes I know there is more in it, but our first step is always to come up with the basic ways to do the game challenges...

You could take designs from a robot that could lift big balls, or from a torroid terror robot, and use it, exactly as it was. Therefor the challenge only lies in the strategy.... and the whole reason I love FIRST is for the engineering, not for the game (then I would have been a football coach)... as a systems engineer, we look at something a customer wants and if there is already something to do it, then we just buy it off the shelf (COTS). If there isnt, then we have to engineer something new. Its the smartest thing to do... if you know something works well, use it, don't reinvent the wheel.

That said, obviously FIRST is really about the students, so this will be a challenge for all my students. I look forward to seeing their ideas, but personally, this game doesn't excite me that much because I know I could just research old robots or use our torroid terror design, combined with our camera from 2005, and have a robot that easily scores.

I dunno... thats just my thoughts now. And my first thought was ARGH we have to buy new batteries again (just stocked up last year)! lol.

[Dominicano0519]

Originally Posted by Uberbots

umm... R109 in th robot section states that you can have a wireless camera on your robot as long as it is cleared by FIRST engineers at the competition... so you can see beyond the rack.

<R109> Any decorations that involve broadcasting a signal to/from the ROBOT, such as remote cameras, must be cleared with FIRST Engineering prior to the event and tested for communications interference at the venue. This is the one permissible exception to Rule

this rule is in the
8.3.11 Non-Functional Decoration Rules

i dont know if they will allow you to use the camera as a way to see beyond the rack, that seems kind of functional to me.

[Pavan Dave]

Originally Posted by Greg Perkins

Pavan,

I do not see how you are so quick to degrade FIRST if this past season was your rookie year. I wasn't around in '97, however, I've seen the games since 2000 and FIRST has yet to fully replicate the game 2 years in a row. YES, toroid terror had inner tubes and a center structure, but open your young eyes for a second and realize in '97 there was no camera, or fancy-schmancy sensors; not to mention the scoring system was COMPLETELY different. Yes, some teams may replicate other teams appendages, however I HIGHLY doubt FIRST made this game to be a copy-cat to toroid terror. I guess we'll see in 8 weeks at the regionals.

~Greg

Thanks for mentioning that. You may think I am quick to judge, and that is because I am, just because I think that they did not think hard enough on this one. Sure they may change certain rules and aspects but the point is different. To be honest this is how I first saw it.

In 97
* No Camera
* No Sensors
* Different Scoring

In 07
* Similar Structure
* Few obstacles for getting tube on the pipe.

Changes made were not enough to combat the simplicities with that technology has gifted us with. In my opinion I think the game would have been better if the Green Light was Different for each of the 4 Sides, and it changed every 15-30 seconds (after Autonomous). I also think that they could have stuck with the height rule from previous years so we would have to think outside the box and instead of changing our bot vertically maybe even let us change it horizontally for less weight. Also if the chains were a bit more sensitive and flimsy I would think of it as a greater challenge, but as it stands I think it is way too easy for rate technology has evolved in 10 years.

Pavan.

[WingsOTWorld]

Reaction you ask? My reaction... "Interesting....very very interesting...i would have preferred a water event...but heres to next year...and this year should be mighty fun."

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by fredliu168

the part where the robot must be off the ground makes team collaboration very useful. I'm going to be looking out for the triplets this year. (imagine 3 robots stacking on top of each other)

There are not going to be any Niagara FIRST triplets this year. They are still going to collaborate together, but they are not going to have identical robots. Karthik posted this here.

Originally Posted by Horman Havoc

Does anyone have a copy of the game video yet? maybe someone recorded it... or a link to where it is on the site?

http://robotics.arc.nasa.gov/events/2007_kickoff.php

Originally Posted by Pavan

I'm very sorry to say this but although many people will design many new robots. The winning teams will do research with previous games that had similar concepts etc. and maybe pick and choose wisely from old robots and than make their own of those ideas. I do not think that this game is challenging because of this reason. Last year for instance we had not had a game similar to this but this year this is basically a FIRST KICK OFF '9? Version 2.

This can happen for nearly any game. Last year teams around from 2000-2002 could look back at their ball gathering systems to use similar ideas for picking up Poof balls. 2005 unique only in manipulator design, otherwise teams could go back at look at previous arm and elevator designs. In 2004, hanging on the bar was new (unless you count the really short bar in 2000), but manipulating big balls could use the same designs as 2001.

Originally Posted by Jonathan Norris

I think this will be a higher scoring game with the opportunity to realistically score 8 tubes in one row for 256 points, I will bet that it will happen at least once.

I personally believe 256 point rows will occur about as frequently this year as having all goals capped in 2005 or having four hanging robots in 2004. It will happen, probably about once or twice per competition, but it sure should be exciting!

Originally Posted by IndySam

Don't count on high scores. I think defense is being underestimated. A simple KOP robot could cause a sophisticated robot a lot of trouble. A well build defensive robot could cause havoc for an entire alliance.

This year there are 24 places to score inner tubes. Last year, the majority of defense played was on teams trying to shoot into a single goal. It will be much harder to block all eight vertical columns at once, and with the huge rack in the center of the field it will prevent teams from barreling across the field to push you out of the way.

Originally Posted by Pavan

Honestly, it is not the fact that they changed a FEW concepts of the game. It is still the same game to a degree. No matter what you do you are still putting tubes on poles. The fact of the matter is that they had around seven months to develop a challenging UNIQUE game yet they chose to modify an old one. That is my "beef" with FIRST.

Is the 2004 game FIRST Frenzy just a reiteration of the 2001 Diabolical Dynamics game, where robots scored small balls into mobile goals, and could cap them with large 30" balls? No. Is the 2007 game Rack 'n Roll just a reiteration of the 1997 game where teams inner tubes onto a rack in the center of the field? No.

You will not see many unique games very often. Balls (of some type) are used on average ever other year. So at some point, you're bound to reuse some game elements like mobile goals, ramps, steps, hanging bars, playing field parts, etc. But does it really matter? 1997 was 10 years ago. If you were a freshman on a team in 1997, you would have graduated high school in 2000, graduated with a 4 yr. bachelor's degree in 2004, and by now you might be considering marriage, buying a house, and/or settling down into your life.

If you think about games on the term of a high school 'generation', 10 years is a long time, and there are not that many people in the program today who were involved with FIRST in 1997.

Originally Posted by M.O.R.T.

I'm willing to bet there's going to be a lot of tipping...more so than in previous years. If you have a 6 ft bot going to try to hang a Ringer from the top level of spider legs, and a little 4 ft bot trying to play defense...gravity will eventually take its course. Granted with no wedges and the bumper zone in effect it won't be ideal conditions for tipping (not that tipping is ever ideal) but still...expect tipping to occur.

Think about 2005, the year of nine-pound tetras atop huge arms and elevators as high as 12-14 feet above the ground. This year, you won't have to go much above 9 feet with a playing field object that weighs virtually nothing when compared to a tetra.

Just because games involve high objects does not necessarily mean there will be a lot of tipping. (Who would have thought that 2006, the year of no extensions above 5 feet, would be the year of massive tipping - even more so that 2004 or 2005?)

[KTorak]

Originally Posted by Uberbots

umm... R109 in th robot section states that you can have a wireless camera on your robot as long as it is cleared by FIRST engineers at the competition... so you can see beyond the rack.

Similar to how the scoring screen has been shown on a LCD/Plasma TV near the drivers station of the team who cannot see it, I think FIRST may do something like broadcast a feed of the opposite side of the field for your use. It would be very nice, but I can't say I see it happening...but this is FIRST...so you never know what they will do!

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by Pavan

Thanks for mentioning that. You may think I am quick to judge, and that is because I am, just because I think that they did not think hard enough on this one. Sure they may change certain rules and aspects but the point is different. To be honest this is how I first saw it.

In 97
* No Camera
* No Sensors
* Different Scoring

In 07
* Similar Structure
* Few obstacles for getting tube on the pipe.

Changes made were not enough to combat the simplicities with that technology has gifted us with. In my opinion I think the game would have been better if the Green Light was Different for each of the 4 Sides, and it changed every 15-30 seconds (after Autonomous). I also think that they could have stuck with the height rule from previous years so we would have to think outside the box and instead of changing our bot vertically maybe even let us change it horizontally for less weight. Also if the chains were a bit more sensitive and flimsy I would think of it as a greater challenge, but as it stands I think it is way too easy for rate technology has evolved in 10 years.

I'm no Car Nack but if 1/10 of the teams at any regional can place a keeper with 75% reliability, I'd eat my scouting notebook. You have a relatively small target which must be hit with a high degree of accuracy, on which you must really completely (or nearly completely) on your camera.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by T. Hoffman

Non-functional = No broadcasting video to drivers to give them a "functional" advantage of an improved view on the far side of the rack.

This rule has been around for several years. While teams can't broadcast video direct to their operator stations, if approved, teams have had wireless camera feeds shown on the big viewscreen during matches (48 did this a few times in 2004) or have recorded the feed in their pits for future use.

That view on the big screen can certainly help a driver

Originally Posted by Kims Robot

So I read through the whole thread and I keep seeing people going back on forth on "its torroid terror" or "its not torroid terror".

Now perhaps I'm not in the ranks of the great strategists of Wildstang or Simbotics, but I think part of the issue with this game is that the robots really could be exactly the same as old robots. For me, at this point, I like to be excited about designing something new, after we ship, I want to be excited about more detailed strategy. Yes I know there is more in it, but our first step is always to come up with the basic ways to do the game challenges...

You could take designs from a robot that could lift big balls, or from a torroid terror robot, and use it, exactly as it was. Therefor the challenge only lies in the strategy.... and the whole reason I love FIRST is for the engineering, not for the game (then I would have been a football coach)... as a systems engineer, we look at something a customer wants and if there is already something to do it, then we just buy it off the shelf (COTS). If there isnt, then we have to engineer something new. Its the smartest thing to do... if you know something works well, use it, don't reinvent the wheel.

That said, obviously FIRST is really about the students, so this will be a challenge for all my students. I look forward to seeing their ideas, but personally, this game doesn't excite me that much because I know I could just research old robots or use our torroid terror design, combined with our camera from 2005, and have a robot that easily scores.

Kim, I'm going to have to disagree. I've already mentioned how a majority of teams relied heavily on their human play in 97, and how that will dramatically alter robot manipulator designs, so I'll demonstrate how other features will change it this year. The primary physical differences are the spiders, specifically their ability to move. In 1997 the tower could freely rotate in place, but in 2007 the spiders have the ability for slight rotation, rocking, shaking, and elevation changes. At the top level, the effect is not terribly dramatic, but in the middle, and specifically in the lowest spider, it can be problematic. Additionally, the fact that the "Chute" is vertical is going to cause all sorts of issues with the acquisition of inner tubes (at least when acquiring them directly from the HP), something that I don't think ANY 1997 robot could have done. In 1997, teams could place tubes horizontally on the top of the tower (provided space remained), which allowed for manipulators that could only control tubes horizontally, but in this game, all the tubes must be manipulated vertically (or close to it).
There are also additional engineering challenges presented by the other aspects of the game. No game have essentially forced this much interaction between alliance partners since 2001. The bonus points will be a very interesting and dramatic ending to the matches this year, requiring a great deal of engineering though and cooperation and collaboration between alliance partners to figure out how to go about it. There are limitless options as to how a team may attempt to try and elevate robots.
If you're still not satisfied, you can always pioneer in the other aspects of the robot, namely the drive and control aspects. FIRST is providing us with more power and chances to pioneer in robot design than they ever have before. Two more pneumatic tanks, more motors, more KoP features, more sensors etc. will all allow for more development in the robot.
And finally, strategy is important in Systems Engineering. As a Systems Engineer, you would have to try and find the BEST solution to a problem, not just a solution. While adopting a 1997 design may be a solution, finding the best would be investigating the game strategy and coming up with an ideal design to fit the solution that 1511 (or any team) feels best fits the 2007 game.

[Elgin Clock]

Originally Posted by Pavan

In 07
* Few obstacles for getting tube on the pipe.
Pavan.

I think you will end up eating those words my friend.

The Spider Legs are going to be moving all over the place and a lot of us have already discovered there is an easy way and a hard way to load the whole rack up just by putting some on and trying to take some off and putting them on in the same places.

I won't give away that secret just yet, but I'm sure you will learn if and when you build a rack assembly and have at least 4 tubes.

Bottom line, it's not as easy as you think and will be hard in operator controlled periods and then even harder by a huge factor in autonomous.
(And this is a non-watered down opinion from a member of a team who sucessfully capped a vision tetra on a STATIONARY goal in autonomous mode in 2005.)

You think that was hard to attempt and ultimately accomplish??
Try working with something that is going to be constantly changing direction and wiggling all over the place!!

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Ken Leung

Two words: Wildstang 2001

and 2003.

[Pavan Dave]

Originally Posted by Elgin Clock

I think you will end up eating those words my friend.

Trust me, you will see within a week from this post what I am talking about. I will already link you to a picture of a past bot which only needs a few Modifications before it is ready for this game (after they build a new one).

**************************** DISCLAIMER******************************

NO I am not accusing them of cheating. I am saying that their robot could be used if they re-made it and modified it to the rules. I am talking from the design point of view that if you design a similar robot that it is less effort. I am not implying anything, but rather proving my point that within 10 hours of the animation video that 10+ teams from the past have pulled out their old robots to try this, (them being one of them), and could possibly with some tweaks make a new one for competition this year.

NO CHEATING IMPLIED.

************************************************** *****************

If this team wishes that I take down this picture, than I will. Until than I am just proving my point with picture evidence that ROBOT DESIGN for this competition was completed without much effort rather a stroll down memory lane.



Pavan.

For some reason I am unable to communicate today so I apologize if anyone finds this post disturbing or offensive.

[MissInformation]

Originally Posted by Pavan

Trust me, you will see within a week from this post what I am talking about. I will already link you to a picture of a past bot which only needs a few Modifications before it is ready for this game (IF AND ONLY IF after they build a new one).



Pavan.

You are practically accusing team 254 of cheating, and I don't know if you mean to or not but it's not very nice to even imply it. Especially since you are representing your team on CD, whether your know it or not.