Start/Stop as one IR function?

[efoote868]

I think this might be a rule they cannot police, kind of like the re-use of code from year to year, or just fix during your fix it windows, or even like the maximum ball shooter speed in 2006.

Just use GP in determining your decision, and if you think its allowed, then go for it, otherwise don't. But have an alternative in mind if they specifically tell you "no."

[Andy L]

Originally Posted by efoote868

I think this might be a rule they cannot police, kind of like the re-use of code from year to year, or just fix during your fix it windows, or even like the maximum ball shooter speed in 2006.

Just use GP in determining your decision, and if you think its allowed, then go for it, otherwise don't. But have an alternative in mind if they specifically tell you "no."

they should ask you during inspection to test robocoach functions. I read this somewhere in the Q&A

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Andy L

they should ask you during inspection to test robocoach functions. I read this somewhere in the Q&A

After searching the Q&A for "inspect", "inspects", "inspector", "inspectors", "inspection" and "inspections" I can find no such requirement. Do you have a better reference than "I read this somewhere"?

[Andy L]

I'm not sure where I saw it but I am 100% sure I read somewhere that if asked you would have to show the inspector or a ref or a judge your hybrid controls and which button does what

a few rules about this subject:

<R65> Emphasis mine

communicate no more than four messages, states or conditions to the ROBOT (please refer to Rule <R69> and Rule <G01> for additional information) during any single
MATCH.

no more than 4 states I would say that having a button that changes states would count as two of your four messages

<R65> Emphasis mine

be able to switch between no more than four states or conditions (i.e. send no more than four messages)

pretty much the same thing just said again later in the rule


Team update #3 Emphasis mine

For example, consider a programmed sequence of actions such as “start driving forward,” “stop in place,” “turn left,” “raise arm,” “open gripper,” “close gripper,” etc. Each time Button #8 is pressed, the Robot advances one step through the sequence of actions. This would not be allowed.

Start and Stop would be steps and advancing steps is not allowed

Also keep in mind (can't find the quote in the rules for some reason) you must have a 3x5 notecard with all functions of your robocoach remote written on it.

I hope I helped

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Andy L

I'm not sure where I saw it but I am 100% sure I read somewhere that if asked you would have to show the inspector or a ref or a judge your hybrid controls and which button does what

Do you mean this rule?

<G49> ROBOCOACH Signaling – If the ROBOCOACH will be providing signals to the ROBOT,
then prior to the start of each MATCH the ROBOCOACH must place a Signaling Card in the
ROBOCOACH STATION. The Signaling Card shall be a 3-inch by 5-inch card listing the
one to four actions that can be commanded by the ROBOCOACH.

All you're doing is telling what you might do. You don't have to demonstrate it.

[Andy L]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

Do you mean this rule?
All you're doing is telling what you might do. You don't have to demonstrate it.

I'm not sure where I read it but I specifically remember reading you will have to show your hybrid functions if asked. But it could have been somewhere in Team Update #3 maybe I was thinking of because I talked about if we were to go up to someone like an inspector and keep pressing the button it would always do the same thing. Sorry for the misunderstanding. My main point is that Start/Stop button IS illegal

Originally Posted by Team Update #3

The litmus test would be “does sending the same message from the Signaling
Device result in the same action on the Robot every time the message is sent?” If the answer is “no” then it is probably not allowed.

[Browzilla]

I'm not sure about the legality of this, but what if my function were say, x=x+1. And then in the autonomous code was looped

if x is even, stop
else go

That way the button always preforms the same function, adding one, but you can achieve the desired result.

Yes? No?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Browzilla

I'm not sure about the legality of this, but what if my function were say, x=x+1. And then in the autonomous code was looped

if x is even, stop
else go

That way the button always preforms the same function, adding one, but you can achieve the desired result.

Yes? No?

I don't think that would pass. You're toggling states.

[popo308]

Originally Posted by EricH

I don't think that would pass. You're toggling states.

I would have to agree.... technically to task's are being achieved by one button

[Browzilla]

I suppose that's what I get for trying to think this late.

Yeah, I suppose you're right.