Auto mode woes.

[Lil' Lavery]

When used effectively, autonomous has the potential to be more important than it ever has been in 2007. It also more challenging.
A KEEPER IS NOT WORTH 2 POINTS. IT DOUBLES THE SCORE OF THE ROW(s)
Thus, a keeper is worth, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 32....128, 132 points depending on the configuration it is in. Tell me any other game where scoring in autonomous could earn you 132 points. In addition, they also mitigate the damage that spoilers can deal to a row. Imagine you have a row of 7. A spoiler to the middle turns it into two rows of 8, or 16 points. A keeper in the middle guarantees at least 20 points after the spoiler. Now imagine the amazing scenario of having the middle 3 spots of that row filled by keepers, you'd be guaranteed at least 34 points after the spoiler (more than a ramp). The same bonus for multiple keepers can be applied to the scoring bonuses. Two keepers QUADRUPLES the value of the row. Three would be almost crippling if the other alliance can't make an amazing comeback.
As for the "double ringer value" suggestion. Think of what happens when 2 or 3 keepers are scored. 3 keepers in a row of 8 would make it worth a row of 11, or 2048 points. That's a tad bit too much (as if 512 wasn't).
Boiled down to the simplest form, autonomous represents 15 seconds of additional time. That's 12.5% of the time spent during operator control, and the length of the end game period. To suggest that 12.5% additional scoring time is useless and not worth the reward is ludicrous. Especially given the exponential scoring system, autonomous is very important. The importance is magnified when multiple keepers can be scored.
At GLR, 1114 won or tied (the tie resulted from a electrical failure resulting in a penalty) their first 10 matches. They scored a keeper in their first 10 matches. They failed to score a keeper in their 11th and 12th match. They lost their 11th and 12th match. Coincidence? Maybe, but it certainly played a role.

[Salik Syed]

I think we need to build a game where autonomous control is more of a necessitiy. Instead of simply having "autonomous mode" at the first 15 seconds of the game, why not make it so that, for instance, the field is divided into thirds, and the center of the field is only autonomous control? I think these types of challenges would result in much more interesting game play than simply having 15 seconds at the start of the match.

Secondly I agree with the idea that in essence most of the actual game is just playing with fancy remote control-cars ... that is not necessarily a bad thing, but not "robotics" in the modern sense. It would be awesome if first made the game simpler and simpler -- but required more robot intelligence. Take robot soccer -- extremely simple, but insane amounts of robot intelligence required! Not saying first should do that, but maybe simplify the game so that more focus can go to intelligent robots, instead of just mechanics.

[Vogel648]

I actually had this very arguement about whether "remote controlled car period" was robotics with one of the team's programmers last year. He ended up looking it up in the dictionary and reading off the definition... well the part that seemed to support him at least. We called his bluff and it turns out "remote controlled car period" is actually robotics.

-Vogel

[Salik Syed]

Well there are like 20 different definitions of "robotics". Secondly the dictionary is not really an authority on what robotics is. Most research regarding "robotics" that goes on is nothing like remote control cars. The age of robots being things that just move around mechanically are over.

[Doug G]

I think the sad reality is for some teams, "RC" car period of the game is just that, while for others, there's significant programing/feedback/sensors going on during that period. But can you tell just by watching them drive around on the field - not really - it just looks like RC cars.

Back to thread...

2003 was tops!! Almost any team could write an auto mode program to drive a U-Turn and it was suspenseful as too which side got to the bin stack first.
2006 was probably the next coolest Auto mode. Definitely scoring could be had for almost any team (score in the low goal!)
2004 - Only provided an advantage for a select set of teams.
2005 - Again pretty boring.
2007 - Again only a real advantage to some select teams. For the rest its 15 seconds of just sitting there.

[ay2b]

In 2004, we had an autonomous mode which would drive out, grab the multiplier ball, then knock over the bonus ball trigger.

In 2005, we had an autonomous mode which would score one tetra on the top of the close middle goal, then grab the hanging tetra and score it on top of the corner goal.

In 2006, we had an autonomous mode that did very little.

In 2007, we had an autonomous mode that did nothing.

In all cases we felt it was worth doing an autonomous mode, but other factors limited us. Prior to '06, you were allowed to do some amount of software development outside of the fix-it windows. For '06 and '07, you were not allowed to do any. In '04 and '05, we spent significant amounts of time working on software on our practice robot, which helped the drivers during the teleoperated period, and which ran during the autonomous mode. In '06 and '07, we focused the limited amount of software time available during the fix-it windows on functionality which covered 87.5% of the game time, rather than on functionality which only covered 12.5% of the game time, though really much of what we worked on would help out for the whole game (tracking the light, ensuring our ball launcher wheels maintained a constant speed, holding the arm steady at a fixed height, running a complex arm sequence to deploy ramps, driving in a straight line, etc).

From my personal perspective, both the '06 and '07 autonomous modes have been disappointing, not so much because of how they impact the game, but because of how little time we've been able to spend working on them, due to the reduced software development time and our mechanical aspects not being completed early enough to make up the difference.



Many people have pointed out that teams should be able to do most of their software development even without a mechanically completed robot, so that they know how to use the sensors, etc. While this is partially true, it is misleading. Teams can learn how to use sensors, but things like tuning PID gains can only be done once the mechanics are complete. Changing the weight of an arm, the size of a wheel, or the motor used all require retuning that code, which takes time.

For my team, I would like to see more time allocated to software. Maybe this means bring back software development outside of fix-it windows; maybe it means actually getting the robot done more than a day before ship. I would also like to see the game designed such that it is completely obvious to everyone that good autonomous operation is required. Maybe this means a larger autonomous bonus(*); maybe this means a significantly longer autonomous period (like half the game?).

(*)I know some argue that this year has the largest autonomous bonus yet, but I counter that it is not obviously so, as demonstrated by discussions here on CD.

--AJY

[ay2b]

Originally Posted by Salik Syed

Well there are like 20 different definitions of "robotics". Secondly the dictionary is not really an authority on what robotics is. Most research regarding "robotics" that goes on is nothing like remote control cars. The age of robots being things that just move around mechanically are over.

To me, "robotics" is the intersection where mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, and computer science all meet. Even during the "RC" portion of the competition, you still have all three disciplines in the mix.

--AJY

[David Brinza]

Here's an example of the fun you can have targeting the green light (courtesy of Team 968, last year):

Aim for the Green Light!

I like the "Oops" comment at the end...