New FTC Platform

[BHS_STopping]

Originally Posted by Daviddavid

I'm not sure which posts sound like they are hateful, hopefully you don't mean mine, if so, I'm sorry.
I am very frustrated with FIRST, I think they are handling the FTC program very poorly, and I don't think they've been open or honest with the teams and schools. I am a little angry and very frustrated, but it's clear many people feel that way. To some people like me, it's this simple - there are only two good reasons to switch a platform: if the current one isn't good and people want it replaced or if you find something as good or better that is cheaper. Neither is the happening here, so that's why so many are upset. The current Vex platform is very good (FIRST has told teams that for 3 years or so now and encouraged schools to buy it) and the new platform is not going to be cheaper. So there is no good reason - at least not one that is good for teams and schools.
About the Legos, I can't speak for Sam, but I can only speak for me and the friends on my FTC team the past couple years - many of us did FLL and liked it, but we don't want to play with NXT or Legos anymore. To me NXT and Lego are toys and Vex is not, regardless what FIRST wants to try to convince me of.

Again, if you meant my posts when you said people are hating on FIRST, please know it's frustration. If you didn't mean my posts, then good, I still believe everything I've said.

I believe that some teams, in the past, have been equally frustrated with the reliability of the Vex system which, unfortunately, has given our team some grief with the last two competition robots that we have built. The problem with the Vex system is that it is difficult to repair something short of replacing it - it's nearly impossible to fix a motor or a broken transmitter, and is also quite difficult to diagnose a problem if it ever occurs.

Again, our team has had to deal with these issues in competition, and has had to pay some unfortunate costs. Last year in Atlanta, our robot suffered from intermittent control issues due to unknown circumstances. This year, we (FTC 546) also faced a similar issue, in that our robot only operated about half the time it was on the field. We still do not know the source of either of the problems, but we feel that it is simply the nature of the Vex system which led to these issues.

Personally, I like the idea of shifting to a new, hopefully more reliable system. I think that Vex is a great system for learning and classroom use, but it lacks the robustness to be used heavily in a stressful competition setting. The lack of reliability from the Vex system fulfills your criteria for making the switch. Even though the new system may not necessarily be cheaper, I would gladly pay a little bit more money to ensure that the system will work will in competition.

That said, I still hold true to the belief that Vex is a great system which allows students to flex their creativity without having to go great lengths to build a high quality machine. However, the rigors of competition have, time and time again, proved a bit much for the system, which is why I support the platform switch for FTC. I just hope that everyone is still able to enjoy participating in the program, despite the changes for next year.

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by BHS_STopping

I believe that some teams, in the past, have been equally frustrated with the reliability of the Vex system which, unfortunately, has given our team some grief with the last two competition robots that we have built. The problem with the Vex system is that it is difficult to repair something short of replacing it - it's nearly impossible to fix a motor or a broken transmitter, and is also quite difficult to diagnose a problem if it ever occurs.

Again, our team has had to deal with these issues in competition, and has had to pay some unfortunate costs. Last year in Atlanta, our robot suffered from intermittent control issues due to unknown circumstances. This year, we (FTC 546) also faced a similar issue, in that our robot only operated about half the time it was on the field. We still do not know the source of either of the problems, but we feel that it is simply the nature of the Vex system which led to these issues.

Personally, I like the idea of shifting to a new, hopefully more reliable system. I think that Vex is a great system for learning and classroom use, but it lacks the robustness to be used heavily in a stressful competition setting. The lack of reliability from the Vex system fulfills your criteria for making the switch. Even though the new system may not necessarily be cheaper, I would gladly pay a little bit more money to ensure that the system will work will in competition.

That said, I still hold true to the belief that Vex is a great system which allows students to flex their creativity without having to go great lengths to build a high quality machine. However, the rigors of competition have, time and time again, proved a bit much for the system, which is why I support the platform switch for FTC. I just hope that everyone is still able to enjoy participating in the program, despite the changes for next year.

The problems which you attribute to the Vex system - such as having a motor or a transmitter that are hard to replace if broken, or diagnosing problems - aren't just a problem with Vex, they exist in any and all robotic kits or systems.



// The following is not directed towards anyone, and I apologize in advance if it is read as such.

Over the past few years, I've lost track of how many posts I've read where people complain that we need metal gears, metal chain, bigger motors, etc., and they are all quick to point to Vex as the problem. It would be a much more beneficial solution if they accepted their own fallibility, and re-investigated their own mechanism before pointing the blame on something else.

And if someone puts all their hopes that the new kit will magically solve all the issues and problems, and that flowers and rainbows will sprout from the earth and peace and prosperity will come to all, they are quite mistaken. Nothing is perfect, whether it's LEGO Mindstorms, Vex, the new FTC kit, the FRC KoP, etc., and issues will arise no matter what system exists.

There's a fine line between which problems are inherent to the kit/technology used, and which ones can be solved by a little more creative thinking.

[gblake]

I'm going to say right off the bat that this post is probably going read harshly. The reason for that is my extremely strong dislike for false dichotomies.

The problem with the Vex system is that it is difficult to repair something short of replacing it - it's nearly impossible to fix a motor or a broken transmitter, and is also quite difficult to diagnose a problem if it ever occurs.

Good luck repairing ANY motor or ANY transmitter in any robotics kit. When I think of an electric motor, I very, very rarely envision anything consumers can/should repair. The same goes for transmitters. The Vex motors do come with replacement (internal) gears, and they have their clutches that help to (but don't 100% guarantee to) protect them from excessive stresses created when a designer makes a mistake.

Again, our team has had to deal with these issues in competition, and has had to pay some unfortunate costs. Last year in Atlanta, our robot suffered from intermittent control issues due to unknown circumstances. This year, we (FTC 546) also faced a similar issue, in that our robot only operated about half the time it was on the field. We still do not know the source of either of the problems, but we feel that it is simply the nature of the Vex system which led to these issues.

Hmmm, I wonder if the Vex systems need a better comm system - Ooops, I almost forgot, they are getting one.

The microcontroller could use an upgrade too. Maybe one is in the works.

Personally, I like the idea of shifting to a new, hopefully more reliable system. ... However, the rigors of competition have, time and time again, proved a bit much for the system, which is why I support the platform switch for FTC. I just hope that everyone is still able to enjoy participating in the program, despite the changes for next year.

OK, I too like the idea of hoping the new system will be more reliable and then trading a devil I know for one I don't. Oops, I'm sorry I got that backwards. What would have been wrong with unveiling a proposed system this year and evaluating it in the hands of users and in competition environments for a season before switching????

In the local tournaments I help put on, we almost NEVER have any problems with the RF communication between the transmitters and the robot's microcontrollers. Maybe we don't need to blame the Vex system??? Maybe we need to figure out where the noise sources are and blame the venues?

How about if we understand those noise sources, control them, and develop a system that is immune to them. I too hope the new system is less susceptible to interference.

Blake

[TheOtherGuy]

Originally Posted by gblake

What would have been wrong with unveiling a proposed system this year and evaluating it in the hands of users and in competition environments for a season before switching????

We don't know the inside information regarding the split between FIRST and IFI. If they decided to split 6 months ago, then they seem to be on the right track at this time.

Originally Posted by gblake

In the local tournaments I help put on, we almost NEVER have any problems with the RF communication between the transmitters and the robot's microcontrollers. Maybe we don't need to blame the Vex system??? Maybe we need to figure out where the noise sources are and blame the venues?

You can't blame the venues for interference problems; it just doesn't work. There are way, way too many venues to check for consistency, and when you are trying to create a fair game, you can't depend on anything (especially the venue). This is a matter that the system needs to resolve.

[Bongle]

Originally Posted by gblake

OK, I too like the idea of hoping the new system will be more reliable and then trading a devil I know for one I don't. Oops, I'm sorry I got that backwards. What would have been wrong with unveiling a proposed system this year and evaluating it in the hands of users and in competition environments for a season before switching????

Although not on an extremely large scale, this appears to be what they are doing with the pilot teams that are going to be playing at championships.

FIRST is in a bad situation. Assuming the IFI breakup had to happen, then they seem to be doing their best to get a new program set up. Keep in mind that FTC-Vex was almost entirely based on IFI components. They are going to have to do the same thing with FRC in the next year, the difference being that in FRC, you usually can't use past components anyway, so people will be less bothered. A more negative way to say it is: FRC participants are USED to buying the same stuff every year, while this comes as a big shock to FTC participants (particularly since the FTC system is advertised as low-cost).

[BHS_STopping]

Originally Posted by artdutra04

The problems which you attribute to the Vex system - such as having a motor or a transmitter that are hard to replace if broken, or diagnosing problems - aren't just a problem with Vex, they exist in any and all robotic kits or systems.



// The following is not directed towards anyone, and I apologize in advance if it is read as such.

Over the past few years, I've lost track of how many posts I've read where people complain that we need metal gears, metal chain, bigger motors, etc., and they are all quick to point to Vex as the problem. It would be a much more beneficial solution if they accepted their own fallibility, and re-investigated their own mechanism before pointing the blame on something else.

And if someone puts all their hopes that the new kit will magically solve all the issues and problems, and that flowers and rainbows will sprout from the earth and peace and prosperity will come to all, they are quite mistaken. Nothing is perfect, whether it's LEGO Mindstorms, Vex, the new FTC kit, the FRC KoP, etc., and issues will arise no matter what system exists.

There's a fine line between which problems are inherent to the kit/technology used, and which ones can be solved by a little more creative thinking.

First off, I have to agree with you in the respect that people are often quick to place blame on things other than themselves when it comes to problems like these. Many of us (including me, at some points) have felt this way before, to a certain extent. I hold the utmost respect for teams that have succeeded in competition, and in no way regret my experiences in FTC, failure or success.

I would just like to explain where I'm coming from, as I have a pretty good memory of our team's past events. In Atlanta last year, our team completely rebuilt our competition robot from the ground up. (Picture here.) When we tested it at home, it worked very well, both tethered and untethered. Even at Atlanta in the pits, the robot performed just fine when tethered in the pits. However, once it was placed on the competition field, we began to experience problems. The robot would start and stop, drive erratically, or just stop moving a few seconds after the match had started. This happened for the majority of our matches in Atlanta, with a few successes.

We desperately tried to find the problem, but to no avail. Every time we tested it tethered in the pits, everything worked just as it did at home. We must have switched between 5 or 6 batteries, and none of them seemed to have any effect on the robot's performance. But every time we went on the field, problems frequently occurred. We switched cables, transmitters, receivers, and even our microcontroller, but the problems continued to persist. Our tournament ended (at least, for me) with some feelings of self-inadequacy for being unable to find a solution to an agonizingly crippling problem.

This year, FTC 546 experienced a similar issue in its competition at Arizona. I'm not sure if you're familiar with our robot, but you can see it here. The problems that we experienced here were also intermittent control issues, where our robot would stop about 15 seconds into a match without responding to any signal from the transmitter. Again, the robot worked great at home and also very well when tethered in the pits. However, we vainly tried the same things that we did at Atlanta, but were once again unsuccessful.

Today, our team still has some ideas on what the cause of these problems were. We believe that it might be a faulty transmitter, but we are unable to test that hypothesis, seeing as how we don't have an official competition field.

Now, my problem with the Vex system isn't the reliability of its components, but the difficultly in diagnosing a problem. In Atlanta, we had a FIRST official look at our robot (not tethered to the field, but with competition crystals), and it worked just fine! He was, like us, unable to provide a concrete diagnosis or propose a solution which we hadn't already tried. Even today, almost one year to the day it happened, our team still does not know if our failure was due to a faulty design or a broken electronic component. Even with as much creative thinking as we could muster, there was little that we could do.

My only hope is that next year's platform will not only be a bit more reliable, but much less difficult to diagnose the types of problems that our team has experienced. If it has taken us over a year and two competitions to learn what our problem was, then I wholeheartedly believe that there has to be a better solution. You may take our experiences as you wish, but please understand that we aren't just a group of inexperienced students who are trying to shift blame. Our team holds no blame against anyone or anything. We understand that life isn't always fair. We understand that there will be difficulties, and we understand that we just need to roll with the punches and take what life gives us. I can only hope that our team is able to overcome these obstacles and be able to succeed in the future, and that FIRST is able to give us and thousands of other students the very opportunity to do that.

[gblake]

We don't know the inside information regarding the split between FIRST and IFI. If they decided to split 6 months ago, then they seem to be on the right track at this time.

FIRST is in a bad situation. Assuming the IFI breakup had to happen, then they seem to be doing their best to get a new program set up. Keep in mind that FTC-Vex was almost entirely based on IFI components. They are going to have to do the same thing with FRC in the next year, the difference being that in FRC, you usually can't use past components anyway, so people will be less bothered. A more negative way to say it is: FRC participants are USED to buying the same stuff every year, while this comes as a big shock to FTC participants (particularly since the FTC system is advertised as low-cost).

Whether IFI and Vex split (or were ever joined) is completely irrelevant (but is a great red herring). Anyone can buy Vex kits and use them in a robotics program. That includes the current and future FIRST FTC program(s). Buy enough and I'll bet you will get a generous discount off of the list price.

You can't blame the venues for interference problems; it just doesn't work. There are way, way too many venues to check for consistency, and when you are trying to create a fair game, you can't depend on anything (especially the venue). This is a matter that the system needs to resolve.

I know you can't "blame" a venue, but you can investigate and identify sources of interference and can monitor them during tournaments.

The real point is that the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater if you say that RF communication problems are a reason to switch to a new kit

Both Vex kits and the new kit will have new RF communication systems by the start of the next season. If anyone has some RF measurements in the appropriate bands, etc. at the various venues where each will be used next season, they can make predictions about how each might suffer or shine in those venues. Until then, I presume that they both will work well. If both work well, then RF communication problems are not a reason to switch to a new kit (but they are another red herring).

Blake

[lukevanoort]

I wouldn't be so quick to blame problems with Vex robots on intrinsic qualities of the Vex system when problems with your application of the system are either more likely or equally likely causes.

[TheOtherGuy]

Originally Posted by gblake

Whether IFI and Vex split (or were ever joined) is completely irrelevant (but is a great red herring). Anyone can buy Vex kits and use them in a robotics program. That includes the current and future FIRST FTC program(s). Buy enough and I'll bet you will get a generous discount off of the list price.

I didn't say IFI and VeX, I said IFI and FIRST (no red herring). VeX is part of IFI. I stated that if FIRST suddenly realized they needed a new kit for next year this year, there would be no way for us to test this new kit until now, which is happening.

I'd also like to bring up the point that the expensive part of the vEx kits (the hardware) will be reusable next year (source). Also, the batteries (another expensive component) can be used (though will last 2/3rds as long as the new batteries).

[gblake]

I didn't say IFI and VeX, I said IFI and FIRST (no red herring). VeX is part of IFI. I stated that if FIRST suddenly realized they needed a new kit for next year this year, there would be no way for us to test this new kit until now, which is happening.

Sorry - I meant to say that any split between IFI and FIRST is irrelevant. What does a split between them have to do with whether or not the FTC rules say that I must buy and use a Vex kit?

Suppose some other non profit wants to run a robotics program using Vex kits - Must they "join" with IFI? And then later on if they "split" must they stop using Vex products? I think not, they and their participants can simply buy and use the kits. - Definite Red Herring.

I don't think that FIRST suddenly realized that they needed a new kit. I think that fairly long ago FIRST took a decision to switch kits; perhaps as part of a bigger decision.

I'd also like to bring up the point that the expensive part of the vEx kits (the hardware) will be reusable next year

While it must be possible, I wouldn't count on getting a lot of mileage out of that option. In the blog pictures and videos, the new parts don't look like they are going to mate up very well with the Vex parts.

Blake

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by gblake

I don't think that FIRST suddenly realized that they needed a new kit. I think that fairly long ago FIRST took a decision to switch kits; perhaps as part of a bigger decision.
Blake

I think you are correct in that. When i started in FVC it was defined as an "interim" program. I don't know if FIRST knew at that point they were going to be moving away from VEX. With the introduction of the new FRC controller I'd have to think that something big, and not in their plans, happened. I have no information to back this statement up, just a hunch.

[Rich Kressly]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

I think you are correct in that. When i started in FVC it was defined as an "interim" program.

Not quite. It was then, and still is now, the "intermediate" program.

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

Not quite. It was then, and still is now, the "intermediate" program.

From the FIRST Website:

FIRST piloted the competition for two years under the name 'FIRST Vex Challenge' until it was approved as an official program for the 2007 season.

That doesn't sound like a permanent program, therefore the term "Interim" i used.

[Bongle]

Originally Posted by gblake

Sorry - I meant to say that any split between IFI and FIRST is irrelevant. What does a split between them have to do with whether or not the FTC rules say that I must buy and use a Vex kit?

Suppose some other non profit wants to run a robotics program using Vex kits - Must they "join" with IFI? And then later on if they "split" must they stop using Vex products? I think not, they and their participants can simply buy and use the kits. - Definite Red Herring.

IFI's involvement goes far beyond happening to be the supplier of the kits that FTC uses, doesn't it?. I thought there are IFI staff at each regional, making sure that all the custom stuff they supply (field elements like radios mainly) work smoothly. I know this is the case for FRC and I thought it was the case for FTC as well. If FIRST wanted that kind of support, they'd have to enter into some sort of contract with IFI, and apparently that's not in the cards.

So my impression is that without an official FIRST-IFI contract you could certainly have a competition with IFI things, but it wouldn't be as well supported. If something like the field breaks, nobody knows how to fix it (because nobody there would be paid to know such things, it all either volunteers or FIRST management).

While it must be possible, I wouldn't count on getting a lot of mileage out of that option. In the blog pictures and videos, the new parts don't look like they are going to mate up very well with the Vex parts.

Speculation since I haven't seen close-ups of the new sensor connection apparatus: but old sensors may be usable if they can take the higher voltage the new kit runs at and the new kit has similar connectors. Two big ifs, but old sensor usage hasn't been ruled out yet.

[Rich Kressly]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

From the FIRST Website:
That doesn't sound like a permanent program, therefore the term "Interim" i used.

Ohhh....sorry ... you were talking about the term "pilot."

2005 Championship there was a "pilot event"
2005-2006 Was a "pilot season" with "pilot regional events"
2006-2007 FIRST still considered it a pilot, but opened up the number of events and brought "affiliate partners" on board for the first time
2007-2008 (this year) a board approved "full program."