Overdrive <G22> poll: yea or nay?

[Lil' Lavery]

Through a misunderstanding about a signaling device, 116 thought of an interesting use of robocoaches for purposes such as directing your drive team. Initially a 116 member didn't realize that 1731's signaling device (4 massive colored flashlights) was being read by a CMU cam on the robot, and thought it was being used to signal the drive crew. We then realized that signaling devices such as that actually could be extraordinarily effective (more so than hand signals, which are visible, but hard to see) for signaling to your drive crew as well as your robot.
Additionally remember that you may still use your robocoach for actually signaling the robot during the tele-operated phase of the game as well. Depending on your programming, it may or may not make sense to have your robocoach help navigate the opposite corners of the field to avoid programming (or at least act as an anti-penalty check if you give him/her some sort of power to stop the robot).

[Phyrxes]

Having seen the pictures on here our Drive team checked out the field at VCU as soon as they were able and pronounced it "not as bad as the pictures." As the field lighting varies by arena this wasn't a big surprise.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

Gary,
Apologies for being unclear.
I meant that I would like to see the robocoach position continue to be looked at for its value. That was what I meant.

Jane, you weren't unclear. At Kettering we had to keep moving Red RoboCoaches from one side of the Blue Alliance Zone to the other side, so they would be in a Red RoboCoach Zone. (And vice-versa, there was no monopoly on color mismatches.) The RoboCoach had only gotten the instruction from their team, "Go down to the other end and signal us when ..." forgetting she had to be in the proper color zone.

Perhaps the zones should be marked out in colored gaffer tape, not white.

Another reminder - after Hybrid is over, the RoboCoach can move into the Alliance Zone (if on the same end of the field, of course).

[whytheheckme]

I'd be interested to see a poll / the response from drivers only. While lots of people here are spectating as to how easy it should be to follow G22, I'd be interested to see how many of those people have been down on the field at driver level while they were being incurred.

G22 is not easy to follow, by any means. And when I say not easy, I don't mean that it's something that drivers could get better at with more practice, it's something that if a team wants to play the game in an efficient manner, is almost a probability. It'd be interesting to break down the statistics as far as how many G22 penalties each team has received based on robot type (my guess would be that teams that don't handle the ball at all would have the fewest infractions.)

The game is difficult enough in trying to catch a round object larger than the length and width of your bot. Worrying about crossing over lines on the track completely changes the gameplay. It's almost as if G22 is now defining how the game is played (from a strategical sense,) instead of it being a rule that prevents reverse traffic.

Literally, most infractions are tips of robots crossing over lines. Perhaps the rule could be modified so that the penalty is given if the ENTIRE bot crosses the line backwards. This would make a lot more sense from the driver perspective.


And as an aside,

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

Perhaps the zones should be marked out in colored gaffer tape, not white.

At BAE, the tape on one side of the box WAS colored gaffers tape. Perhaps this isn't standard, but it really did help there.

Jacob

[lukevanoort]

Originally Posted by whytheheckme

I'd be interested to see a poll / the response from drivers only. While lots of people here are spectating as to how easy it should be to follow G22, I'd be interested to see how many of those people have been down on the field at driver level while they were being incurred.

Okay, as a driver at a regional last week, I'll give my opinion. I was driving a tank steered 6WD that is pretty maneuverable (not so much in high gear, but you can't have everything). I incurred three <G22> penalties; I don't remember the first one (all I remember is that I was really pissed at myself because it was really stupid on my part), and, as I recall, the second + third were when I over corrected slowing down to avoid ramming stuff at 13ft/s. That said, all of the times I got penalties, it could have been avoided by having a bit more practice or by driving a bit more carefully.

The optical trick is really freaky, but I didn't find it hugely annoying. It lessens the higher you look, so I often navigated by looking at the top of our gripper hoops. I don't think it is a huge issue.

However, I would be in favor of adding a 7-8" wide "grace zone" around the lines that can be violated for very short periods of time (less than 2 sec, unless another robot prevents the offending robot from exiting the "grace zone"). Such a change would allow drivers to correct quick mistakes, and give teams time to smack the e-stop during autonomous hybrid mode. It would also maintain the intent of the rule (prevent clockwise travel), and it would be hard to take advantage of.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

P.S. As far as viewing the robot ... have you ever considered putting your robocoach on the other side of the field and give hand signals?


JM(NS)HO

Yes. Planned on it from Day 1. Placing a coach in the far right position gives them a better angle to view passing lanes as your bot makes the lane change from your side of the field to the opposing side, where a lot of the congestion takes place.

Now getting our drive team to appropriately view and utilize our robocoach's hand signal feedback - we're still working on that one.

[smurfgirl]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

I think the rule is good but needs some modification. I look at the rules as being imposed constraints to allow team members to plan, design, and play under additional simulated physical constraints that real world problems will present in the future. However, there are great many areas of the field that for one reason or another, the drivers cannot see that they are in violation. How can a driver 30 feet away, looking through a two lexan panels with reflections and a multitude of vertical poles, tell that their bumper which is several inches off the floor and in bad light, has just crossed backwards over the lane marker by 1/4". (The parallax in this situation is tremendous) There is just no way that can occur. Make the rule that the whole (or the majority of) robot must cross backwards over a line to incur the penalty and then I think you have something. Even refs must be hard pressed to see that small a change accurately.

Al basically said it all. The huge number of penalties we see from <G22> are accidents because of the problem he described, or forgetting that 1/2" of your 42" wide ball holding mechanism re-crossed the line when you turned, though the base of the robot did not.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Bongle

So far, it looks like it is just a noisy minority that doesn't really like it, which makes sense.

I wouldn't trivialize that minority. It's about twenty percent right now. Hey, that number sounds familiar:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...777#post715777

You don't post a thread to say "I am satisfied with rule G22!!"

No?

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...094#post674094

[Greg Needel]

rules like g22 are important to any FIRST game because they require a level of skill from the drivers. While I hate seeing matches determined by a penalty it is rulings like this that keep the game from being a "crash and bash" event. In most cases that I have seen this rule violated it would only take the driver a second or less to avoid the penalty.

I think Drivers should remember the following:
make sure you want to cross the line before you do it.
Make sure there is enough room in the next quadrant.
Do not turn immediately following crossing the line.

If you do the following things I think that you will never get the penalty.

[Dave Flowerday]

Originally Posted by Bongle

So far, it looks like it is just a noisy minority that doesn't really like it, which makes sense. You don't post a thread to say "I am satisfied with rule G22!!"

The way I read the poll, 59% right now have voted for either "it's good but could be fixed" or "it's bad but could be fixed". Only 35% say that nothing is wrong. To me, this is a clear majority saying that there is at least some problem with the rule that could be better. In fact, I'd even say that the noisy minority is the group saying nothing is wrong (35%).

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Dave Flowerday

The way I read the poll, 59% right now have voted for either "it's good but could be fixed" or "it's bad but could be fixed". Only 35% say that nothing is wrong. To me, this is a clear majority saying that there is at least some problem with the rule that could be better. In fact, I'd even say that the noisy minority is the group saying nothing is wrong (35%).

On "good", the word is actually "improved", which has a somewhat different meaning from "fixed". (Improved=made better; fixed=it's broken and needs repair)
So 35% say nothing is wrong, about the same say the rule could be better (something minor--like hybrid code that only does one line but has time to do more), and the rest say the rule needs fixing (like a robot that was hit and lost the ability to drive). This aside from the people that don't care or say it's a bad rule and should be removed (Which combined are smaller than any one of the others).

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by Dave Flowerday

The way I read the poll, 59% right now have voted for either "it's good but could be fixed" or "it's bad but could be fixed". Only 35% say that nothing is wrong. To me, this is a clear majority saying that there is at least some problem with the rule that could be better. In fact, I'd even say that the noisy minority is the group saying nothing is wrong (35%).

Dave, every rule written could find people that want to see it modified. It is a rule and that means constraints. There are always people that want all constraints removed and those who want them lessened. As for me I would like to see the rule called as written:

<G22> Direction Of Traffic – ROBOTS must proceed around the TRACK in a counter-clockwise
direction. Once a ROBOT has CROSSED a LANE MARKER or FINISH LINE, it shall not
break the plane of the line by moving in the clockwise direction. A PENALTY will be
assigned for each infraction.

In the Arena section it states :
6.2.1 Boundaries and Markings
The TRACK is an octagonal carpeted 27 feet by 54 feet area, bounded by two Alliance Station
Walls and a Guardrail System. and
As the ROBOTS move in a counter-clockwise direction around the TRACK, the quadrant of the
TRACK immediately preceding the FINISH LINE for each ALLIANCE is known as the “HOME
STRETCH.”

This is my Q&A question:
As I have read in the Q&A in gives the indication that moving clockwise within a quadrant is allowed. Should the rule have stated that robots must move in a counter clockwise direction between quadrants but may move in any direct within the quadrant or is the rule correct that all traffic must be in a counter-clockwise direction?

I only got a see other question answer. As written there is nothing that states it is OK to drive backwards in a quadrant. I know that it states that you will be penalized for crossing back over a line but no other examples are given. I guess my point is, there are definite rules stating DO NOT cross back over the line that have been there since day 1. It may not be the best rule but it does state the rule, penalty and above all has not changed since day 1. Why is this such a big issue? When you get a ticket for going the wrong way on the street can you use the defence that I only went a bit the wrong way?

Last year we were upset that the rules continually were changing and now we are upset that they are not. No wonder FIRST has a problem figuring out what is best when we can't decide. Again I state my point, Rules should not be changed during competition season. Explanations are OK but don't change the rules.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by Steve W

Dave, every rule written could find people that want to see it modified. It is a rule and that means constraints. There are always people that want all constraints removed and those who want them lessened. As for me I would like to see the rule called as written:

<G22> Direction Of Traffic – ROBOTS must proceed around the TRACK in a counter-clockwise
direction. Once a ROBOT has CROSSED a LANE MARKER or FINISH LINE, it shall not
break the plane of the line by moving in the clockwise direction. A PENALTY will be
assigned for each infraction.

In the Arena section it states :
6.2.1 Boundaries and Markings
The TRACK is an octagonal carpeted 27 feet by 54 feet area, bounded by two Alliance Station
Walls and a Guardrail System. and
As the ROBOTS move in a counter-clockwise direction around the TRACK, the quadrant of the
TRACK immediately preceding the FINISH LINE for each ALLIANCE is known as the “HOME
STRETCH.”

This is my Q&A question:
As I have read in the Q&A in gives the indication that moving clockwise within a quadrant is allowed. Should the rule have stated that robots must move in a counter clockwise direction between quadrants but may move in any direct within the quadrant or is the rule correct that all traffic must be in a counter-clockwise direction?

I only got a see other question answer. As written there is nothing that states it is OK to drive backwards in a quadrant. I know that it states that you will be penalized for crossing back over a line but no other examples are given. I guess my point is, there are definite rules stating DO NOT cross back over the line that have been there since day 1. It may not be the best rule but it does state the rule, penalty and above all has not changed since day 1. Why is this such a big issue? When you get a ticket for going the wrong way on the street can you use the defence that I only went a bit the wrong way?

Last year we were upset that the rules continually were changing and now we are upset that they are not. No wonder FIRST has a problem figuring out what is best when we can't decide. Again I state my point, Rules should not be changed during competition season. Explanations are OK but don't change the rules.

I would add to this Steve, that the rules should be enforced AS WRITTEN, and not "as we meant", and of course, after the initial picking apart by the community in the first X days after kickoff

[Dave Flowerday]

Originally Posted by Steve W

It may not be the best rule but it does state the rule, penalty and above all has not changed since day 1. Why is this such a big issue? When you get a ticket for going the wrong way on the street can you use the defence that I only went a bit the wrong way?

Steve, it's a big issue because it's being called in something like 75%+ of matches. It's affecting the outcome of many of those matches. I get that it's been there since day 1. Everyone keeps saying that. So what. If it really, truly was such an easy rule for everyone to follow, then why is this penalty being assessed more than any other rule that I can think of in the history of FIRST? That's my point. Regardless of how easy it is for many of you to follow, LOTS of teams seem to be having problems with it - this fact cannot be denied, can it? I get that they should learn to fix it. Fine, whatever. In the meantime, it's creating a lousy situation for spectators, young teams, new mentors, and potential sponsors.

How many of you would keep watching an (American) football game if the refs threw a flag on 3 out of every 4 downs? There's been lots of sports analogies (even though the FIRST mantra is that we want to be better examples than many athletes), but I can't think of any sport where there are anywhere near as many penalties as we are seeing in this game.

[JesseK]

Pre-VCU, I would have said "Bad but can be fixed". Post-VCU after actually experiencing it, I'd say "Good but can be improved". I'd like some sort of indicator for when a violation has happened, much like what Al said and for the same reasons.

Thanks for the detailed poll Alan, and a bump.