Go to Post FIRST has always been less than just a school activity for me and more of a way of everyday life. - Amanda Morrison [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > General Forum
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #121   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-01-2009, 13:57
vespa2t's Avatar
vespa2t vespa2t is offline
nerd+
AKA: Paul O.
FRC #2335 (Sargon)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: Prairie Village KS
Posts: 5
vespa2t is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nawaid Ladak View Post
I think i've come to a final conclusion about this game

I don't like it
No offense to anyone who feels this way, but this project/game is exactly what is in store for those of you who will be going into engineering / science. I have worked on many projects since school where the rules and constraints just seem 'dumb' and vague, but they are an obstacle that has to be challenged. This particular game has thrown many out of thier knowlege base comfort zone, which is human nature to not be comfortable with. Many things like this come down to the fact that whether we like the game or not is irrelevent, we still have to get to cranking on a solution.

Go engineering!
Reply With Quote
  #122   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-01-2009, 14:07
Daniel_LaFleur's Avatar
Daniel_LaFleur Daniel_LaFleur is offline
Mad Scientist
AKA: Me
FRC #2040 (DERT)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Peoria, IL
Posts: 1,976
Daniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via MSN to Daniel_LaFleur
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne C. View Post
If FIRST looks to have teams think out of the box why must our robots' dimensions be confined within one?

Respect diversity-
In engineering, this would be called a design requirement. Many times, in the real world, you get design requirements (from your customer) that make designing more difficult. This is where real engineering comes in.

Designing within a specific size requirement is pretty typical in the real world. Fixtures cannot take up all of your bench space, a customer wants to put your device inside his without changing his envelope, etc,etc,etc.

This "box" is just another challange.
__________________
___________________
"We are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. "
- Tennyson, Ulysses
Reply With Quote
  #123   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-01-2009, 14:14
GaryVoshol's Avatar
GaryVoshol GaryVoshol is offline
Cogito ergo arbitro
no team
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Royal Oak, MI
Posts: 5,757
GaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber View Post
I have a small concern with the fact that all the teams have to buy a specific product from a single company. Im not worried about supply, I am worried that companies could lobby for the GDC to design a game using one of their products. Do I think AndyMark would do that? I would hope not. I just wanted to raise the concern.
You mean like FLL and FTC?

Knowing Andy and Mark, I would presume that AndyMark made very little, if anything, from the KoP stuff. They may have even donated some of it.
__________________
(since 2004)
Reply With Quote
  #124   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-01-2009, 20:21
Andrew Schreiber Andrew Schreiber is offline
Joining the 900 Meme Team
FRC #0079
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Misplaced Michigander
Posts: 4,074
Andrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryVoshol View Post
You mean like FLL and FTC?

Knowing Andy and Mark, I would presume that AndyMark made very little, if anything, from the KoP stuff. They may have even donated some of it.
Yes, same issue with FLL and FTC, I'm not too involved in those events so I don't tend to think of it.

I agree, Andy and Mark probably wouldn't take advantage of the situation but other companies might.
__________________




.
Reply With Quote
  #125   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-01-2009, 23:47
pfreivald's Avatar
pfreivald pfreivald is offline
Registered User
AKA: Patrick Freivald
FRC #1551 (The Grapes of Wrath)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Naples, NY
Posts: 2,303
pfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?

The more I think about this game, the more I appreciate it for its complexity. The low-gravity simulation 'ice', the trailer you can't control, the strict size limit...

FIRST has, for what I believe is the first time, actually limited the ability of teams to engineer around a problem, and is forcing them to live with known problems to greater or lesser degrees. That makes it really rather more like a real engineering challenge than any previous game, IMO.

Put on your rose-colored glasses and look at this game for what it is: a brilliant engineering challenge.

Patrick
__________________
Patrick Freivald -- Mentor
Team 1551
"The Grapes of Wrath"
Bausch & Lomb, PTC Corporation, and Naples High School

I write books, too!
Reply With Quote
  #126   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-01-2009, 23:49
16MentalTempest's Avatar
16MentalTempest 16MentalTempest is offline
Amateur Animator
FRC #2046 (Bear Metal)
Team Role: Animator
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: Washington
Posts: 35
16MentalTempest will become famous soon enough16MentalTempest will become famous soon enough
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?

I think the game is going to be really fun, and I'm interested. However, I do not like the increased human interaction. Human players could potentially score more points than the robots. If your robot dies, the shooters can still score! Last year if your robot died, tough luck! Just about every team I talked to at Kickoff said 'Grab a basketball player and you're good.'

I doubt it'll be that easy, but I would prefer the competition to be more centered on the robots than the people.

I see the low-traction environment as a challenge, not something to get mad about like some folks. The restrictions on design, however frustrating, are part of the challenge.

'The songs you grow to like never stick at first'
-Fall Out Boy, Dead on Arrival
__________________
Regional Competition To-Do List:
1) Have fun
2) Be safe
3) Meet new people
4) Help other teams
5) Try to win

Reply With Quote
  #127   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-01-2009, 03:38
Moreau Moreau is offline
The doctor of dinkering
AKA: Clyde Overby
FRC #0665 (MAYHEM)
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Orlando
Posts: 4
Moreau is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?

I appreciate the view that some take of the low friction floor being a good design challenge (although I believe it's just a limitation, and in any real low-gravity rover would just keep speed down), the problem with thinking of it as any other engineering challenge is that its a fabricated rule. I may not be able to change the surface of the moon through complaining, but I can complain that someone making rules to simulate the surface of the moon is not creating a fun game in addition to a legitimate challenge. Although the likelihood of the latter complaint changing anything is probably smaller than the first's...

It's sort of like NASA telling its contractors that the conditions of the moon and that they want a rover for it, but since they don't want any unfair advantages the contractors must not design their robots to use anything to overcome the limitations of a slippery surface. No paddle/fins on the wheels, no treads. In fact, they tell the designers that since they found these cool wheels in the warehouse, they must use the super slick wheels. I completely understand the intent of the challenge, but since the challenge charades as a simulation of reality it feels ever more artificial and grating. Abstract games, such as tossing enormous balls around, don't have this problem because they don't take themselves more seriously than as games.

Oh dear... I suppose it's time to move away from the psychology of it all...


...

No, wait! I've got one more!

Like others have said, the 2008 game was great for observers since the game pieces were very large, and it was very clear when points were scored (on the other hand, penalties could be very finicky and difficult for the audience to see), so the audience really had something to watch. FRC is foremost a robotics competition, so the design challenge of the game should come first, but the quality of the game as a game is also important. If Dean's goal is to increase public interest in FRC, his objective should not have been to make the game more esoteric and less interesting. There aren't going to be any surprises (unless someone can actually spot that supercell going into a trailer, and I guarantee that one hail-mary throw will decide 70% of matches if it gets in), and the winners will be determined after a game through bean counting. Robots will lurch across the field slowly, turn slowly, jackknife slightly more quickly, impact each other, fail to score on each other, and slowly escape back to the carpet to run around collecting balls quickly.

In the same way that a chess game would be utterly boring and perplexing to anyone without knowledge of the rules, this game is only going to be interesting to those who appreciate the design limitations and obstacles of the game overall. And unless everyone in the audience has read the entire manual to know that the theoretical maximum acceleration of any robot on the field is X.X ft/s due to the coefficient of friction, and that the robots cannot extend past the bumpers, they are all going to wonder why everyone decided to make such crappy robots that can barely move and score.

It's not like this is going to be a terrible game. It will be fun for participants. I just think the GDC could have given us something more fun and interesting. They put so many limitations on everything this time around that there are going to be very, very few variations. Even in 2008, where I thought there would only be 2 types of robots at first (lifters and runners), since designs weren't limited except by starting configuration we got lifters, runners, shooters, hybrid lifter/shooters, and all the variations that come with the different drive trains (tank, car, swerve and all the derivatives). This year it's (although I may be wrong, I honestly don't know what else will work) dumpers with either tank or car steering. Shooters are going to be attempted, but will probably be impractical for most teams. Sure, the mechanisms might be different, but the effect is the same.

Creating challenging field elements is more interesting than forcing the robot to contribute to the challenge. Make the field have random height variations every few feet, so that robots with a suspension system would have an advantage over robots without, but robots without any suspension would still be able to drive decently and accomplish other goals independent of driving. Trying to level the playing field among elite and fresh teams is pointless and even counterproductive; I've always viewed the desire to limit "elite" teams a policy of envy (some limitations, however, are good to keep it all fair), especially since I look to their designs to see the limit of what is possible with the game. Sure, I might be envious that my team doesn't have the machining capacity to produce a 7 pound frame that can hold elephants while incorporating a suspension system and the ultimate manipulator of utter win, but the fact that some team did have the ability to do that and pulled it off is still impressive to me, and I enjoy seeing the most sophisticated design solutions to a problem. Besides, if some team does score the next amazing design partnership with Toyota or something, that means it's their turn to "abuse" the brainpower and construction capability that it entails.

Oh, and just to be more negative, the names are silly. Not that it is bad, but if you want FRC to be taken seriously, don't call everything by silly names such as payload specialist and moon rocks. It just screams "nerds playing space commander" to the average person. If you disagree, substitute football positions with the new FRC monikers. The quarterbacks are payload specialists? The coach is the mission commander? The field is the moonscape? NASA gets away with it because they are nerds in space, so they get to pull it off and everyone keeps a straight face. Oh, and perhaps because they popularized the terminology to begin with.

Bleh... once again, I make a post too long to be bothered with. But at least it's out there now...
__________________
Come visit my island sometime...
Reply With Quote
  #128   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-01-2009, 04:17
Doug Adams Doug Adams is offline
1477 Texas Torque Alumni
FRC #1477 (Texas Torque)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: SPRING, TX
Posts: 11
Doug Adams is on a distinguished road
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moreau View Post
It's sort of like NASA telling its contractors that the conditions of the moon and that they want a rover for it, but since they don't want any unfair advantages the contractors must not design their robots to use anything to overcome the limitations of a slippery surface. No paddle/fins on the wheels, no treads. In fact, they tell the designers that since they found these cool wheels in the warehouse, they must use the super slick wheels. I completely understand the intent of the challenge, but since the challenge charades as a simulation of reality it feels ever more artificial and grating. Abstract games, such as tossing enormous balls around, don't have this problem because they don't take themselves more seriously than as games.
The purpose of such a directive wouldn't be because of an unfair advantage. It's a fallback position. Of course you design your rover with appendages. But what if you get to the moon and your paddles/fins are damaged and don't work? Instead of declaring "mission over", you come up with solutions to work around or through such possibilities ahead of time. These backup scenarios would receive test time in the simulators just as the primary mission would.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #129   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-01-2009, 07:36
Hanna2325's Avatar
Hanna2325 Hanna2325 is offline
Programmer/Driver
AKA: Hannah
FRC #2177 (Robettes)
Team Role: Driver
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 85
Hanna2325 will become famous soon enoughHanna2325 will become famous soon enough
Send a message via AIM to Hanna2325
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?

I did at first...a lot, mostly because all the unreasonable restrictions. But, now as were getting down to work, I think its going to be really interesting. The one thing I still don't like is how much humans are involved. But, the rest i think is a good challenge
Reply With Quote
  #130   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-01-2009, 07:56
nHouse nHouse is offline
Registered User
AKA: Luker
FRC #0303 (Panther Robotics)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Bridgewater, New Jersey
Posts: 35
nHouse will become famous soon enough
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?

As with what Hanna said, I do not like how impactual human players might end up being in this years game but that i guess wont be seen until competition. Other then that I think the game is pretty good...
Reply With Quote
  #131   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-01-2009, 10:00
JaneYoung JaneYoung is offline
Onward through the fog.
no team
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Austin, TX USA
Posts: 5,996
JaneYoung has a reputation beyond reputeJaneYoung has a reputation beyond reputeJaneYoung has a reputation beyond reputeJaneYoung has a reputation beyond reputeJaneYoung has a reputation beyond reputeJaneYoung has a reputation beyond reputeJaneYoung has a reputation beyond reputeJaneYoung has a reputation beyond reputeJaneYoung has a reputation beyond reputeJaneYoung has a reputation beyond reputeJaneYoung has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?

I did a quick search for Human-Robot Interaction. Several links were made available, including one that I read regarding NASA and future work on the moon.

If you look at the entire game, what kind of game is it? Is it just a game of competition where teams win or lose, or does it provide more opportunities to explore areas like HRI?

We are often limited by our thinking and our own perceptions of what we think we see. Sometimes we do that without delving into the opportunities and information provided, to see how we can expand our thinking, perceptions, awareness, knowledge.

.02
__________________
Excellence is contagious. ~ Andy Baker, President, AndyMark, Inc. and Woodie Flowers Award 2003

Character cannot be developed in ease and quiet. Only through experience of trial and suffering can the soul be strengthened, ambition inspired, and success achieved.
~ Helen Keller
(1880-1968)

Last edited by JaneYoung : 09-01-2009 at 15:33. Reason: typos
Reply With Quote
  #132   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-01-2009, 10:02
pfreivald's Avatar
pfreivald pfreivald is offline
Registered User
AKA: Patrick Freivald
FRC #1551 (The Grapes of Wrath)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Naples, NY
Posts: 2,303
pfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna2325 View Post
I did at first...a lot, mostly because all the unreasonable restrictions. But, now as were getting down to work, I think its going to be really interesting. The one thing I still don't like is how much humans are involved. But, the rest i think is a good challenge
LOL. I've founded two FIRST teams, and every time students ask me about a rule I say "to make it hard!"

All of the restrictions fall into one of three categories:
1. Safety (protruding edges, proper shielding, etc.)
2. Fairness ($$ limit, powering, usage of parts, etc.)
3. Challenge (size, weight, wheels, etc.)

I'm surprised to see so many FIRSTers complaining about the challenge aspect of it.

I think one *could* make a legitimate complaint about the human player aspect, but honestly, I think a well-automated turret will be a better scorer than the humans. You're looking at a 10" thick erratically-moving donut into which you're throwing 9" balls -- doable, but it's going to be harder than people give it credit for.

Patrick
__________________
Patrick Freivald -- Mentor
Team 1551
"The Grapes of Wrath"
Bausch & Lomb, PTC Corporation, and Naples High School

I write books, too!
Reply With Quote
  #133   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-01-2009, 10:06
catsylve catsylve is offline
Registered User
FRC #3538
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Missouri
Posts: 69
catsylve has a reputation beyond reputecatsylve has a reputation beyond reputecatsylve has a reputation beyond reputecatsylve has a reputation beyond reputecatsylve has a reputation beyond reputecatsylve has a reputation beyond reputecatsylve has a reputation beyond reputecatsylve has a reputation beyond reputecatsylve has a reputation beyond reputecatsylve has a reputation beyond reputecatsylve has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?

As with any other game, I would expect that the impact of the human players will vary at the different levels of play. In the finals and at the championship in Atlanta, I would expect that the matches will be more exciting, with teams that have really thought through the problems and come up with some creative solutions. That will make the game interesting enough when everyone gets out there on the field and really puts the game to the test.

On another note, I would really like to give my seal of approval to the game. As a teacher, I will be using the things we do, including video footage of robots sliding, calculations of friction and driving techniques with my students when appropriate. To be able to relate the things that happen in the game to a general physics classroom is always very valuable to me.
__________________
2012 Woodie Flowers Finalist, St. Louis Regional
Reply With Quote
  #134   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-01-2009, 11:50
ezpkns's Avatar
ezpkns ezpkns is offline
Registered User
FRC #1565
Team Role: Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: canada
Posts: 54
ezpkns is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?

I like the general idea but still am sort of frustrated with the low traction floors
__________________

If you're not going to stand behind
our troops, feel free to stand in front of them.

Winners of the Waterloo Regional Gracious
Professionalism Award 2009
Reply With Quote
  #135   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-01-2009, 12:25
Andrew Schreiber Andrew Schreiber is offline
Joining the 900 Meme Team
FRC #0079
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Misplaced Michigander
Posts: 4,074
Andrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moreau View Post
Like others have said, the 2008 game was great for observers since the game pieces were very large, and it was very clear when points were scored (on the other hand, penalties could be very finicky and difficult for the audience to see), so the audience really had something to watch. FRC is foremost a robotics competition, so the design challenge of the game should come first, but the quality of the game as a game is also important. If Dean's goal is to increase public interest in FRC, his objective should not have been to make the game more esoteric and less interesting. There aren't going to be any surprises (unless someone can actually spot that supercell going into a trailer, and I guarantee that one hail-mary throw will decide 70% of matches if it gets in), and the winners will be determined after a game through bean counting. Robots will lurch across the field slowly, turn slowly, jackknife slightly more quickly, impact each other, fail to score on each other, and slowly escape back to the carpet to run around collecting balls quickly.
I would not claim that robots will lurch slowly across the field, from what I have seen a good driver can move on this stuff without any fancy programming or drive trains. It is not easy, and they will be whipping around a lot, but it is doable. And I have said it time and time again, a good robot can be dominated by a mediocre robot w/ a great driver. Look at 1114, technically their robot was not as complex or fancy as some robots, I would put it as a good robot (no offense meant of course) but I would say that their drivers are the best in the business. THAT is why they won. Drivers will determine if robot's are good, not the machines themselves.

Hail Mary throws are generally just that, high risk, high reward attempts. A team who does a Hail Mary pass in the last play of the Super Bowl because they are down by 5 points does it because they know they will lose. I think a piece like that keeps things exciting. Look back to 2004, hanging and the 2x balls were able to swing whole matches in the last second. I recall RUSH losing two events because our partner's hanging mechanism failed in the last 5 seconds of our matches. It made us constantly have to be on our feet instead of being able to get so far ahead that we could just stop caring.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pfreivald View Post
LOL. I've founded two FIRST teams, and every time students ask me about a rule I say "to make it hard!"

All of the restrictions fall into one of three categories:
1. Safety (protruding edges, proper shielding, etc.)
2. Fairness ($$ limit, powering, usage of parts, etc.)
3. Challenge (size, weight, wheels, etc.)

I'm surprised to see so many FIRSTers complaining about the challenge aspect of it.

I think one *could* make a legitimate complaint about the human player aspect, but honestly, I think a well-automated turret will be a better scorer than the humans. You're looking at a 10" thick erratically-moving donut into which you're throwing 9" balls -- doable, but it's going to be harder than people give it credit for.

Patrick
I personally enjoy making it so there is a human aspect to scoring. Look back to the last game where human players had a reasonable chance of scoring, 2006. Did they detract from the robots? Not at all, but they did make it more interesting.

Also, on your list, where does <G14> come in? That is the ONLY issue I still have with the game. Other than that I think it will be a lot of fun to watch and to play.
__________________




.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
i am really bored and fell like making things videoguy Chit-Chat 0 09-03-2007 19:22
What it's really like....... Tri_Lam Rules/Strategy 2 06-03-2007 23:02
What teams would you really like to meet at a FIRST event? ZPaul General Forum 107 23-07-2006 02:26
No really, what do you think the game will be like? Joe Matt General Forum 27 06-01-2004 10:12
Is it really just a game? ThePaleOne Chit-Chat 0 13-01-2003 01:09


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:21.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi