[FTC]: FTC Software Requirements

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Dave Scheck

I think that this is exactly what's needed. The code I ended up writing for teams was nothing more than a pre-made drive block that fit the style that they wanted. I don't see why a collection of these shouldn't be distributed to each competition as a safety net. Even better, the default code that comes on the controller should be available in a templated format. That way the teams don't have to change anything at their transmitter.

1st - What Iwrote last spring shold certainly be streamlined and otherwise improved. It worked, but it left a lot to be desired.

A better version of it would be useful as a teaching aid (allow teams to use it but not distribute the source?); but let's not forget that the students are supposed to learn how to give their machines software instructions...

Who has the right brilliant suggestion that stikes the correct balance between supporting learners and not rewarding sloth?

Blake

[rswsmay]

This happened last season and will continue to be an issue especially with new teams constantly being introduced to the FTC. The scrimmage that was held at Georgia Tech on Nov. 18th had several similar issues. I spent about 2/3rds of the entire competition inspecting robots for the correct master code and template. Despite repeated announcements to teams that they NEEDED to have this done or else things may/will not run properly, many still fielded robots without the check being done. Since this was just a scrimmage, we did not have a hard and fast rule that teams MUST pass inspection prior to competing.

During the day, my role grew from just verifying correct code to:

• Uploading the master code
• Applying the competition template
• Rewriting entire operator programs
• In some cases writing brand new autonomous routines

Many teams that did write their own code did not bring a copy with them so their program was lost when the new master code was loaded. Now obviously for the purposes of a scrimmage and to benefit the majority of brand new teams that did not even know what a competition template was, I obviously went ABCD. (That’s short for above and beyond the call of duty for those wondering). But during a competition, I can pretty much vouch for most inspectors and say that their roles will be limited to purely pass/fail with regards to robot code.

My take is that a pre-competition scrimmage is invaluable to teams if inspections are done comparable to that performed at the competition. When we have our pre-competition scrimmage in February, we plan to perform inspections just like those teams will encounter at the competition. They will get a copy of the inspection check list with things to correct. We did this last year and it worked very well, although there were still one or two teams that did not correct the deficiencies and were gigged by the inspectors at the competition.

Finally, I agree that the default code in all 3 FTC acceptable programming languages would be a great benefit if available to embed in the competition template. Even an abbreviated version could prove to be a time saver to those teams that just want to plug and go. The EasyC version would probably be the most utilized.

[Dave Scheck]

Originally Posted by 1885.Blake

A better version of it would be useful as a teaching aid (allow teams to use it but not distribute the source?); but let's not forget that the students are supposed to learn how to give their machines software instructions...

I agree, but in the case of FTC, teams are required to purchase the programming kit as opposed to FRC where it the "programming kit" is nothing more than a compiler and a standard serial cable. In both competitions there are requirements on the firmware that needs to be on the controller as well as the libraries/templates used by the software. The difference is that with FTC default code is already on the controller, so there is no need for a team using the defaults to purchase the programming kit. FRC controllers come without code, so downloads are required, and a standard interface is used.

rswmay - My experiences definitely sound similar to yours. I have been saying that had my (and the other software inspector) not been involved in FRC/FTC and were just random people off the street that the day would have turned out very differently.

[Dave Flowerday]

Originally Posted by Dave Scheck

FRC controllers come without code, so downloads are required, and a standard interface is used.

If I'm not mistaken, the FRC robot controllers come equipped with a copy of the default code (same code available on IFI's site). The percentage of teams who choose not to use the default code in FRC is probably much higher than FTC though.

[charrisTTI]

Regarding re-entry into autonomous mode - low battery voltage can cause th e robot to re-enter autonomous mode.
1) Motors pull enough current to reduce the voltage below that required to run the processor.
2) Processor stops running
3) Motors turn off
4) Voltage goes up and processor reboots (into autonomous as if match were starting again)
5) Cycle repeats

[charrisTTI]

At the Virginia FTC Tournament our robots were initially failed at software inspection (we were ultimately allowed to compete, but only after a match was missed by one of our teams)
Our robots (teams 226 and 369) programmed with MPLAB were using the correct version of master code and software libraries for FTC competitions. The software had performed flawlessly on a regulation competition field at the Battlefield scrimmage two weeks earlier. After reviewing the documentation since returning home it is clear that our robots were being inspected according to the criteria specified on page 7 of “Appendix 2 – Programming Information” available from the FIRST web site. The information on page 7 applies only to robots programmed using EasyC. If you look at the table of contents; pages 3-7 apply to EasyC V 2, page 8 applies to EasyC Pro, and page 9 to MPLAB. The first repeat of the master code version, the message “Autonomous(20)”, the repeat of the master code version again, and the message “OperatorControl(254)” shown on page 7 are only displayed when running a robot programmed with EasyC. These were the messages which I was told were not correctly appearing when our robot was powered up. When using MPLAB these messages do not appear. In addition, Interrupt Jumper 6 must be INSTALLED to enable autonomous when using MPLAB. With EasyC installing Interrrupt Jumper 6 disables autonomous. The software inspection procedure needs to be fixed.