|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#16
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [YMTC]: field of view
So I asked for the record, my question was posed as follows:
Quote:
Last edited by Kevin Sevcik : 10-02-2007 at 00:37. |
|
#17
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: [YMTC]: field of view
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#18
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [YMTC]: field of view
Redateam gets hit with a 10-point penalty and is disabled for the remainder of the match. Following the match, the Head Referee approaches Redateam and states that they must remove their very large non-transparent ramps before they will be allowed back out on the field.
Redateam realizes without asking that they have been found guilty of violating Rule <S01>. By preventing Blueateam's drivers from being able to watch their robot, they have caused the Blueateam robot to be operated in an uncontrolled and unsafe manner on the field. Even though it was the Blue robot that was operated unsafely, Redateam was the originating cause for the situation and was therefore determined to be responsible. And since Redateam has demonstrated that they would use their non-transparent ramps to cause this situation and could do so again, the ramps must be removed before Redateam can rejoin the competition. Lucein, er, ah, uhm, I mean Redateam's Head Engineer, pulls much of his remaining hair out as he struggles to come up with a way to remove the ramps in the next four minutes so they won't miss their spot in the queue, without actually resorting to the Sawzall he has stored in the back of his truck... -dave |
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [YMTC]: field of view
Quote:
While simply stopping and waiting might negatively impact the blue team's opportunity to play the game, <S01> is a safety rule, not a gameplay rule. Last edited by Tristan Lall : 10-02-2007 at 01:04. |
|
#20
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [YMTC]: field of view
Quote:
|
|
#21
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [YMTC]: field of view
Quote:
Quote:
But maybe there's a better question: if operating a robot outside the driver's view is a priori unsafe, why were the 2002 and 2003 games designed to make this a common occurance? (Similar versions of <S01> existed then.) In 2002, robots frequently got lost behind one or more goals. In 2003, a robot passing under the bar was temporarily obscured by the ramp, from the point of view of a driver in the furthest alliance station—to say nothing of the 8 ft × 16 ft wall of opaque boxes in the centre of the field. What about the rack this year? How difficult is it to see through that thing, when it's almost full? If a robot is positioned with a full rack between it and its drivers, and they can't see the robot, did they just cause themselves to lose control, in violation of <S01>? I don't doubt that this behaviour is a bit unsportsmanlike, but it doesn't seem fair to use the strongest safety rule to enforce a penalty that seems targeted at a gameplay event that is not necessarily, and not gravely unsafe. Last edited by Tristan Lall : 10-02-2007 at 09:59. |
|
#22
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [YMTC]: field of view
If you're saying driver on the proper side of the road is just at much at fault as the driver on the wrong side of the road, and, therefore, no tickets (penalties) should be given.... Well then I'll be sure to avoid Toronto. <S01> discusses robots creating unsafe situations. Not field elements. Teams are, presumably, planning on having their vision partially obstructed by the rack. Teams are not planning on having their sight completely and utterly blocked by another robot that can run around the field blocking vision anywhere it likes. The point is that field elements, etc, are a known quantity. Robots tossing in additional unsafe situations are an unknown and to be avoided.
|
|
#23
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [YMTC]: field of view
Quote:
Quote:
Isn't the real issue here that it screws up the game for the team being blocked, and not that it's always a serious safety risk? And isn't that an issue to be dealt with on a gameplay basis, not on a safety basis? |
|
#24
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [YMTC]: field of view
Ahem.
From the FIRST Q&A System: Quote:
Lucien, er, ah, em, the Redateam coach, offers his neighbor from the North a handfull of thinning hair that has just been pulled from his head. He wanders off into the darkness, mumbling something sounding strangely like "it was never like this when we were playing golf..." -dave |
|
#25
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [YMTC]: field of view
Regarding the Redabot being disabled: Assuming the "wall" is up when all motors/electronics/pneumatics are at rest, when power is cut to Redabot, wouldn't Blueateam still be unable to see? While Redabot is unable to move, and making the Blueabots unable to move safely, Redateam has the rest of the match to score at will. What would be gained by disabling Redabot? Shouldn't it be removed from the field of play and the match restarted, and allowed back when and only when necessary changes are made?
|
|
#26
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [YMTC]: field of view
Just to be fair, that Q&A response was posted after all of the arguing above....
Fortunately for gameplay, they did make the distinction between causing a robot to become obscured, and using a device which causes the robot to become obscured, and specified that this applies to blocking the view of opposing drivers only. The trouble is, this really makes it much more of a gameplay ruling than a safety one—let's say that the red team are a pack of morons and they obscure the view of one of their alliance partners. It seems that that's just as unsafe as if an opponent did the same. Apart from the fact that red team 1's drivers are within yelling distance ("stop it, you morons"), red team 2 has the same conundrum: keep driving (by definition unsafely), or stop and wait for the obstruction to pass (which won't happen if red 1 gets disabled). And I realize that penalizing red 1 also penalizes red 2 and red 3—so that's not an ideal situation either. If only <S01> called for individual disqualifications.... In fact, if this were being enforced on the basis of gameplay, nobody would really care if doing the same stupid thing to your alliance is treated unequally. But for safety, shouldn't there be a solution that can be applied uniformly to whichever team is causing the hazard? As if I haven't belaboured the point enough already, let me just say it: why not describe this as a new gameplay rule, and include it in the next update? Last edited by Tristan Lall : 13-02-2007 at 08:55. Reason: Clarification. |
|
#27
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [YMTC]: field of view
I believe the reason for not making a new rule to cover this is because it's already covered under the spirit of the competition and the safety rule. And also the fact that teams have spent so much time and so many decibels complaining about too many rules in the past.
As Joe Johnson said "You pays your money and you gets your choice..." |
|
#28
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [YMTC]: field of view
Quote:
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| What is the field of view (FOV) of the default lens? | Jared Russell | Programming | 7 | 26-01-2006 21:54 |
| Camera's Field of View? | Greg Marra | Programming | 1 | 26-01-2006 13:17 |
| Multiple tetras in field of view | Mr. Lim | Programming | 0 | 14-02-2005 14:52 |
| YMTC: Redabot Splits the Field | Natchez | You Make The Call | 12 | 23-01-2005 22:29 |
| YMTC: Redateam uses remote kickoff field | Natchez | You Make The Call | 22 | 06-01-2005 21:05 |