|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Robocoach signals loophole?
Quote:
|
|
#32
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Robocoach signals loophole?
but what if your button setup was something like this...
button 0 : toggle bit 0 high or low button 1: toggle bit 1 high or low and so on, which would allow for 2^4 - 1 combinations of events. technically, i don't think that is actually encoding a message from the remote, nor is it dynamically changing the rule set. but still, i think it is probably illegal... and probably dumb idea considering that the robocoach would get confused very easily. Dave's advice from the kickoff of having the control do something extremely high level is really good advice... i think (keyword...) we are pursuing a completely autonomous robot that can be 'nudged' by the robocoach. |
|
#33
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Robocoach signals loophole?
Quote:
Nevermind, <R69> expressly prohibits that anyway. |
|
#34
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Robocoach signals loophole?
while it's very clear that you can only send 4 commands... what I don't think is clear, but is implied, is that these commands do not have to be single-step operations. For example, you can have the robot autonomously drive full-bore until you hit a button, which then slows your robot down to 3 f/s, then pops a piston up to knock a ball off, pulls the piston back down, and resumes speed.
In the past, we've put a on-board switch bank on our robot connected to digital i/o that would allow us to switch between different auton modes depending on what our alliance partners needed. You can also write separate hybrid mode routines that remap what the IR commands do, but those have to be chosen before the match, and you need to make sure that the correct command card is brought up to the field before the match starts. I'm not saying we're doing that, but we're tossing around the idea ![]() |
|
#35
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Robocoach signals loophole?
Glad I read this thread ... we were considering using the 4 commands for the first portion of the Hybrid mode, then changing states for the final seconds of the Hybrid mode so the 4 commands would perform something different.
After re-reading <R65> this appears to NOT be legal. Then, reading <R69> it's confirmed to be a No No. <R69> Reaction of the ROBOT to communications received from the SIGNALING DEVICE must meet all of the following criteria: • For a single MATCH, the ROBOT shall be limited to react to a maximum of four distinct commands - either through hardware or software limitations, or a combination of the two. • The ROBOT shall not dynamically change the recognized command set during a MATCH. |
|
#36
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Robocoach signals loophole?
I was thinking about having a control set up so that if no signals were being recived it would stop. Would this be legal?
example: button 1 - drive forward 2 - turn right 3 - turn left 4 - fire piston none being pressed - stop Does that stop count as a fifth command? |
|
#37
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Robocoach signals loophole?
Can you do the following using your RoboCoach:
Hybrid starts and by pressing signal 1, 2 or 3 you communicate to the robot which position your trackball is in. Meaning, you call up a routine that will start a series of preprogramed auton actions to remove the trackball from any of the three positions. Yes, I read the sections, I just do not understand them in plain terms. Thankyou for your help! Last edited by ALIBI : 07-01-2008 at 10:27. Reason: Spelling |
|
#38
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Robocoach signals loophole?
Note: this whole post is based on my potentially fallible interpretation of the rules
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I think a good rule of thumb for your button assignments would be "if you have to write the word 'if' on your 3x5 card, then you probably broke a rule". Another thing to think of is to imagine that all your internal state variables get reset upon each IR signal, so you can't respond to your current state. |
|
#39
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Robocoach signals loophole?
Quote:
|
|
#40
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Robocoach signals loophole?
Disclaimer: These are just my interpretations, the official QA forum is a better place for discussions like this.
But by flipping the bits, you're still doing a different action depending on your robot's state. Suppose button 1 flips bit 1. If bit 1 is 0, then button 1 sets bit 1 = 1. If bit 1 is 1, then button 1 sets bit 1 to 0. So there, you have two possible actions for button 1: "set bit 1 to 0" and "set bit 1 to 1". I think you may also conflict with this clause from R65: Quote:
Another way to look at it is to look at your button press sequence as a large message. Let's say you used buttons 1, 2, and 3 to modify bits, and button 4 as a 'end of command' button. Then your keypress sequence would essentially end up being button-button-button-<enter>, which seems clearly against the spirit of the rules. Just like dave said at the kickoff, you're not supposed to be able to drive the robot with the remote, you're supposed to give it high level commands and then it does some heavy autonomous work. You shouldn't need 8 commands since there really aren't that many things to do. Plus, you have to consider that driving the robot by IR will probably be impossible anyway. Other robots, 3-foot-wide balls, and parts of your own robot will obscure your IR board, making driving it accurately pretty much impossible. Last edited by Bongle : 07-01-2008 at 13:07. |
|
#41
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Robocoach signals loophole?
Isn't the camera still legal? since it is not a KOP item, wouldn't it be considered a COTS item? The camera can be used to track a light, but also a color or shape.
|
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Robocoach signals loophole?
This Q&A post clarifies a lot: http://forums.usfirst.org/showpost.p...95&postcount=6
So, to sum up my responses to all of the above questions:
|
|
#43
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Robocoach signals loophole?
Quote:
|
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Robocoach signals loophole?
It's perfectly legal to have an autonomous routine execute when you aren't pressing any buttons down. So, for example, your commands could be "Go forward/back/left/right while this button is pressed", and your default autonomous routine could be "stop".
See this forum post for details: http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread...ghlight=hybrid Quote:
SgtMillhouse648, the CMUCam itself is allowed, but the CMUCAM module given out in previous years is a custom part made specifically for those FIRST competitions. It may not be used. You'd have to get the unmodified CMUCam and mount it on your own. |
|
#45
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Robocoach signals loophole?
Would this be legal?
You have an IR command that signals the robot to execute command Y after it is finished executing command X, where X could be a routine from another signal or an automated routine. If the robot is not executing X, it will execute Y immediately, and if it is executing X, it will execute Y when it is finished with X. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Robotics Hand Signals | JulieB | Chit-Chat | 21 | 19-06-2005 00:11 |
| PWM Signals | stevex | Programming | 1 | 28-10-2004 18:03 |
| IR signals inverted | Atheist | Electrical | 10 | 08-02-2004 16:27 |
| Autonomous user-input loophole? | Jeff McCune | Programming | 20 | 14-02-2003 22:44 |
| Referee hand signals | archiver | 1999 | 1 | 23-06-2002 21:57 |