|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Discrepancy at Chesapeake, Israel, Waterloo?
Waterloo only had 34 qualification matches... So I am not surprised it is a bit off.
|
|
#2
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Discrepancy at Chesapeake, Israel, Waterloo?
44 Qualification matches.
|
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Discrepancy at Chesapeake, Israel, Waterloo?
Quote:
Also, @ the data from minitab: Are you sure its not looking at it on too large of a scale? The data is clearly pretty linear up until the 3% jump. |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Discrepancy at Chesapeake, Israel, Waterloo?
Any statistician will tell you that statistics never conclude anything - they are merely interpreted to mean something. You can, generally, argue any point you like if you know how to twist them well enough.
However, in this case, I think it's pretty fair to say you've simply found the tails of the curve. Someone's got to have the highest and lowest scores, after all. |
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Discrepancy at Chesapeake, Israel, Waterloo?
I think it's just coincidence, it's not like one alliance color has more at every single regional. The discrepancies happen.
![]() -Vivek |
|
#6
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Discrepancy at Chesapeake, Israel, Waterloo?
It's not always coincidence. In the case of Chesapeake, the middle blue station appeared to have chronic problems with dead robots. As we all know, a dead robot is pretty tough to overcome, and is possibly responsible for the discrepancy we've seen at Chesapeake. I don't think it's possible at this point, but I'd like to see the stats on how many matches had a disabled robot at the Blue 2 station, and how many of those matches blue lost.
|
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Discrepancy at Chesapeake, Israel, Waterloo?
My team was at Chesapeake. We were mostly on the blue alliance. As you can see below.
|
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Discrepancy at Chesapeake, Israel, Waterloo?
You were on the blue alliance 4 times, and the red alliance 3 times. Yes, you were "mostly on the blue alliance," but you're not going to get any more even than 4 and 3 in a 7 match regional...
|
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Discrepancy at Chesapeake, Israel, Waterloo?
This is purely anecdotal, of course, but we also suffered issues on the blue side of the field on practice day at BMR. In one match our robot remained unconnected (No Comm) for the whole match. The FTA advised us that the WPA station may have fat-fingered the WPA key, but we verified this afterwards and the WPA key was correct. In the next match we ran fine, without changing anything on the robot. Even though we ran fine in that match, however, I stood behind the FMS computer and watched the statistics. Before the match started, our robot was connected, then dropped out for 20 seconds or so, then connected (and this repeated 3 times). Evidence that it dropped out included a rapid-flashing signal light on the robot and a rapidly-increasing Lost Packet Count on the FMS computer (in addition to Raul throwing his arms up in the air as the DS said No Comm). This issue did not occur while we were enabled in the match and as far as I know we had no further issues. In both of these cases I believe we were on the blue side of the field.
Another team at BMR (135 I believe) spent several practice matches dead as well, and they triple-checked everything on their end too. Not sure if they were red or blue though. There's definitely some gremlins lurking in the control system at this time. |
|
#10
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Discrepancy at Chesapeake, Israel, Waterloo?
Does anyone who has set up or torn down the field know if the drive station control boxes for each side are marked as "red" or "blue"? I believe the Chesapeake field came from Boston, which had experienced the same problem with the red middle station. One match at Boston was restarted at 4 time because of this. Is it possible that this station became middle blue at Chesapeake?
|
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Discrepancy at Chesapeake, Israel, Waterloo?
Quote:
|
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Discrepancy at Chesapeake, Israel, Waterloo?
I think that if a team puts a robot on the field that doesn't have its radio plugged in, it is their own fault, and it isn't the FTA's job to make sure they have it right.
As for the "but what about the alliance they bring down with them?" argument, that's an invalid argument. If that argument guided decisions, then teams with poor robots would never get to play, because they'd bring down their alliance. A team with an unplugged radio made a mistake, and their alliance partners made a mistake by not checking for the unplugged radio. The ease of checking for and fixing an unplugged radio and the dire consequences of failing to do so should make it absolutely inexcusable for a team or alliance to be so boneheaded as to put a robot on a field with their radio unplugged. Then there are the logistics issues if the FTA allowed them to plug it in once they detected an unplugged radio: -What if a team's radio is located in a relatively inaccessible location on the robot? -Would they delay the match by 2 minutes while the team digs out the radio and plugs it in? -Will they only allow teams with accessible radios to plug them in? -Who would decide what is an accessible radio versus an inaccessible radio? -What if they accidentily discover (or cause) another wiring bug like unplugged cables? Will they be allowed to put those back in? -If not, how would you enforce the "only plug in your radio and nothing else" rule? Last edited by Bongle : 25-03-2009 at 10:57. |
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Discrepancy at Chesapeake, Israel, Waterloo?
I was an FTAA at Chesapeake and can tell you the most of the problems with "dead" robots were operator error. The most common was robots going on the field with the cRio un-plugged from the radio. The FTA had made it clear that once the gates were up you could not correct things like that on the field. We even announced it in the pits to no avail.
Unfortunately I also mentor team 2199 who lost a very good chance at being regional champion due to the robot in Blue-2 de-linking after autonomous. The weird thing is that it exhibited the same behavior in the previous match but in Blue 3 lending credence to the argument that it was a robot problem. One thing I found that was fairly consistent was the flat black ethernet cable provided in the kit was problematic. teams that had swapped it out for real twisted pair ahd almost no problems with communication. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Discrepancy at Chesapeake, Israel, Waterloo?
Really? How many robots were not able to compete because of this?
|
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Discrepancy at Chesapeake, Israel, Waterloo?
Quote:
On another note do these stats include eliminations? If so then the data won't be accurate because in eliminations the higher seed is in red and in theory more likely to win. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Waterloo 2008, | bilal1219 | Regional Competitions | 77 | 24-03-2008 09:07 |
| FF Waterloo | Steve Howland | Fantasy FIRST | 80 | 26-03-2006 16:23 |
| Waterloo Regional | Robohawk-master | General Forum | 4 | 12-04-2004 16:55 |
| Competition Documents File Size Discrepancy | Greg Ross | General Forum | 4 | 09-01-2004 23:17 |
| Clarification for FIRST manual/blueprint discrepancy | Petey | Rules/Strategy | 1 | 13-01-2003 19:20 |