pic: Game hint

[Bill Moore]

Originally Posted by Turtlecoach

This has been an impressive thread with all the speculation as to how this IR board will be used. Here is my two cents. Think about what FIRST has always done...they want the teams to develop solutions to problems. NASA eventually wants to put up bases on the Moon & Mars. You need robots working together to make that happen. I bet that the KOP will contain an IR transmitter that will mount on the robot along with this receiver. Robots on the field are going to have to work together to accomplish a task such as a coordinated lift. Four outputs - UP, DOWN, FORWARD, BACK come to mind. The instructions for setting up with a TV remote are so you can test the bot before competition. The white plug would be for regional programming when you bring the robot up for inspection so everyone has the same "learned" program. The LED's on the board would be for diagnostics when checking the bot out during the build and confirming the programming at the regionals. Most likely wrong, but its a thought.

Earlier this fall, as FIRST was releasing information, I was surprised at the number of times they addressed "collaboration". Taking your NASA idea to a more present engineering achievement, consider the International Space Station. This is an Engineering task that must be coordinated between teams of engineers very distant from each other, yet the separate components must match up in space, or their efforts will be wasted.

BIG WHAT IF . . .

What if FIRST provided a docking ring and collar system in the KOP, and teams had to build both a drive system and an actuator assembly that could be separated by using this docking system.

Then at competitions, teams would not only play together, but would have to use the drive from one team with the actuator from another. You could have 2 robots vs 2 robots matches and increase each alliance to 4 teams (8 teams per match). Teams would only play with half their robot, and they could mix and match among the alliance to get the best fit of robots.

It would be very difficult, but by encouraging collaboration, it would mimic a current engineering task.

[Tottanka]

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

Earlier this fall, as FIRST was releasing information, I was surprised at the number of times they addressed "collaboration". Taking your NASA idea to a more present engineering achievement, consider the International Space Station. This is an Engineering task that must be coordinated between teams of engineers very distant from each other, yet the separate components must match up in space, or their efforts will be wasted.

BIG WHAT IF . . .

What if FIRST provided a docking ring and collar system in the KOP, and teams had to build both a drive system and an actuator assembly that could be separated by using this docking system.

Then at competitions, teams would not only play together, but would have to use the drive from one team with the actuator from another. You could have 2 robots vs 2 robots matches and increase each alliance to 4 teams (8 teams per match). Teams would only play with half their robot, and they could mix and match among the alliance to get the best fit of robots.

It would be very difficult, but by encouraging collaboration, it would mimic a current engineering task.

I dont think that first will like the idea of some teams using other teams drive systems/operational systems.
It might just take the whole game out of the driver-skills.

[Turtlecoach]

I'm thinking more along the lines of one bot synching operations with another. Here is the scenerio - Two aliance bots approach object to move together, 1st bot would be in Master mode, 2nd bot would be in Slave mode. Both bots go to pick up / move object and Master bot sends a sync signal to Slave bot via IR so both lift mechanisms operate simultaneously. This way you can get coordinated lifts, provided of course that the lift mechanisms operate at the same rate. In a similar manner both bots could be synched to move at the same time or operate two seperate field targets at the same instant to open gates, doors, etc... This would be slick and make the collaboration hints valid. Remember what FIRST was trying to teach in 2007. What will your opponent / alliance member build and how can you accomodate / defend against it.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Tottanka

It might just take the whole game out of the driver-skills.

Looking at it a little differently, cup 1/2 full - it could present different challenges and opportunities to the drive teams and to the build. The excitement of the '07 game was the collaborations of the robots and of the drive teams working together.

[jerry w]

i am not impressed.!
you have all missed the most obvious clues with this board. you keep trying to fasten it to the robot.

clues
1. the power available from a robot controller is +7.2 and +5 volts.
the power for a field component is usually a 12 volt battery.
this board runs on 5 volts but requires between 7 and 15 volts!!

2. the ribbion cable is not configured anywhere like a digital connection on the controller.

3. the learning of a remote allows the newton field to use differrent codes from the curie field.
if each team had to learn an alliance partner code it would take too much time between matches.

4. there are 4 outputs from the board. there are 4 corners on the field. 2 red remotes and 2 blue remotes would allow teams to trigger 4 release mecanisms.

we have cmu-cam to collect data. now we will have IR remotes on the robot to send data to the field.!!
please put this board on the field where it belongs.

jerry w

[Pavan Dave]

Originally Posted by whytheheckme

OOOH!!!!

Maybe my dream of a more field oriented positioning system is coming true!!!

Maybe, on the field, there are IR emitters all over the place, each giving off a different code. You can use the IR receiver to pick up these codes, and tell where your robot is.

YES

Jacob

This is actually very possible IMO. I am actually planning on creating this type of thing, similar to STANGPS except different technology different sensors etc and cheaper and possibly redistributing it as a white paper. Hopefully FIRST is doing this for us but I believe that if real development in this "Field Mapping" type project is to occur than it will be team led since FIRST wants US to develop that type of stuff.

[billbo911]

Originally Posted by jerry w

i am not impressed.!
you have all missed the most obvious clues with this board. you keep trying to fasten it to the robot.

clues
1. the power available from a robot controller is +7.2 and +5 volts.
the power for a field component is usually a 12 volt battery.
this board runs on 5 volts but requires between 7 and 15 volts!!

So I guess the 12vdc battery on the robots is just there for counter balance?

Originally Posted by jerry w

2. the ribbon cable is not configured anywhere like a digital connection on the controller.

If you noticed by looking at the picture of the board, the connector on one end of the cable connects to the board at the matching plug. The other end of the cable is not terminated, allowing us to come up with our own connections designs to the RC.

Originally Posted by jerry w

3. the learning of a remote allows the newton field to use different codes from the curie field.
if each team had to learn an alliance partner code it would take too much time between matches.

4. there are 4 outputs from the board. there are 4 corners on the field. 2 red remotes and 2 blue remotes would allow teams to trigger 4 release mechanisms.

we have cmu-cam to collect data. now we will have IR remotes on the robot to send data to the field.!!
please put this board on the field where it belongs.

jerry w

The rest of these speculations are distinctly possible.
I really would love to see more ideas on this thread about this boards possible uses, as long as they make sense based on what we know already.

[T3_1565]

Originally Posted by billbo911

So I guess the 12vdc battery on the robots is just there for counter balance?

Uhhh the 12vdc battery connects to the RC board, which converts any digital output to 5vdc. I don't think the camera would run very well with 12vdc running through it!!

EDIT: Although this is the case I still think it will go on the bot.... but I also can see it being a field element... although I'm leaning more to it going on the bot

[billbo911]

Originally Posted by T3_1565

Uhhh the 12vdc battery connects to the RC board, which converts any digital output to 5vdc. I don't think the camera would run very well with 12vdc running through it!!

Well, the battery connects to a breaker, then to a distribution block and then to the RC. The distribution block make 12 vdc available to various devices: Victors, Relays, RC, Gear Tooth Sensors, IR Receiver Boards....

My point is, this device can quite easily be used on the robot, as well as being part of the field.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

I am very interested in the white jack labeled 'J2'. I've mapped where the pins go.

J2	PIC 	Description
1	4	RA5/MCLR/VPP
2	14	VDD
3	5	VSS
4	13	RB7/PGD/T1OSI
5	12	RB6/PGC/T1OSO/T1CKI
6	X	X

Points of interest:
A) None of the possible i/o lines go to any header on the black jack. So we can assume that any IO coming from these has nothing to do with what the spec sheet we were given says.
B)Pins 2 and 3 are power.
C)Pin 1 could be input or a programming power.
D)The other used can be i/o, in circuit debugging, or programming.

I've never seen a chip flashed with such a gigantic connector (Usually there are just small contact pads, no?), and I do not think there would be need for debugging on a finished board.
So if I am correct in assuming that this jack is not meant for programing the chip, the white jack must be there to talk to something else, and will give off different signals than what the spec says so far.

Maybe we will see some kind of daughter board? Maybe this will hook up onto a field element?

[billbo911]

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

I am very interested in the white jack labeled 'J2'. I've mapped where the pins go.

J2	PIC 	Description
1	4	RA5/MCLR/VPP
2	14	VDD
3	5	VSS
4	13	RB7/PGD/T1OSI
5	12	RB6/PGC/T1OSO/T1CKI
6	X	X

Now that is what I'm looking for. Thanks Tom!!!

[T3_1565]

Originally Posted by billbo911

My point is, this device can quite easily be used on the robot, as well as being part of the field.

Oh that's fine, I agree it can go ethier way. I hope someone can find a way to connect it to thier bot sometime soon! (Although I can see why people won't because we don't want to damage the hint lol)

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by billbo911

So I guess the 12vdc battery on the robots is just there for counter balance?

If you noticed by looking at the picture of the board, the connector on one end of the cable connects to the board at the matching plug. The other end of the cable is not terminated, allowing us to come up with our own connections designs to the RC.

The rest of these speculations are distinctly possible.
I really would love to see more ideas on this thread about this boards possible uses, as long as they make sense based on what we know already.

I'm no electronics expert, but I think running this off of the 12V battery will all the crazy loads on it would be bad (but then again.... the RC is off the 12V...). Is this true?

Other than that fact which I don't quite understand, I think he is pretty dead on with his clues.... I'd agree with him more than any other guess so far.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

OK. I'll speculate as to what I believe this will be used for.

Many of us are assuming that there will be an autonomous mode because there has been an autonomous mode for the last few years. This year, I believe that instead of an autonomous mode there will be a timeframe (say 45 of the 135 seconds in a match) in which the drivers line of sight to the robot will be blocked (some sort of removable/droppable screen) and that the driver will only be able to navigate via a IR sensor grid, with 1 emitter in each corner of the field.

Since the viewing angle is only 60 degrees (+/- 30 degrees) there would be no overlap, and since the signal strength is proportional to how 'on axis' you are it would be fairly easy to navigate to a spot on the field.

Thoughts?


.

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

Since the viewing angle is only 60 degrees (+/- 30 degrees) there would be no overlap, and since the signal strength is proportional to how 'on axis' you are it would be fairly easy to navigate to a spot on the field.

Thoughts?


.

I thought of this too, but I'm pretty sure that the signal strength they're referring to is the input signal, not the output. I'm not an electrical guy, but from reading the document I gathered that the board only gives a digital output: either "I see my code" (+5v High) or "I don't see my code" (0v Low)

From the information that the RC would be getting (assuming this goes on the robot), there is no way to use the incoming signal strength to navigate.


Even if the board were giving out analog data corresponding to the signal strength, you'd have to have additional data from other sources to tell you whether your signal corresponded to the + or the - side of the angle off center.

I do believe the board will be used for navigation, but not in the sense that you are describing. (Though I very much wish it was)