[FTC]: FTC Game Platform for 2009-2010

[Rick TYler]

Suggestions for changes to the robot/software platform for next year?

Here's one: go back to the Vex platform. www.vexrobotics.com and http://www.vexforum.com/wiki/index.php/VEXnet_Upgrade. The Vex platform certainly isn't perfect, but IFI has made huge strides in improving it every year.

Why does FIRST want to struggle making the LEGO/Pitsco platform full-featured and reliable when they already have a system like that available, that is more reliable and cheaper to boot? Just wondering...

If FIRST is locked into a partnership with LEGO, how about

1. Smaller, more reliable drive motors (the current motors are too powerful for the size of the field, and their failures are well known)
2. Tank treads
3. Rack and pinion gears
4. Chains and sprockets
5. Better shaft encoders
6. More reliable motor speed controllers
7. Longer axles
8. More chassis/stuctural material choices
9. Omniwheels
10. Some sort of linear sliding system

and

A reliable robot control system. I'm afraid Bluetooth will never be adequate to the task.

[dooey100]

Coming from a rookie team, I would be very dissapointed if FIRST switched back to VEX next year. Regardless of which platform is "better" the cost of having to buy another complete kit next year would be too much. The program will be expenxive either way, and I know that the only way I managed to convince my school to let us have a team was by showing them that the high cost only applied for the first year, and that there would be very little additional cost next year.

That said, our team coulld always implement our ideas, and although we sometimes had to make workarounds to accoplish what we wanted we never had to abandon an idea because we couldn't do it with the parts we had. Could it use some improvements? Definately. Was it so bad that it should be completely abandoned? Definately not.

[ttldomination]

I can very confidently say that FIRST will not switch back to VEX, and there are a number of reasons.

1. FIRST has realized that some teams have put in thousands of dollars into these kits, and now that they've made the switch, they have to roll with it.

2. FIRST has a partnership/contract with LEGO. This contract cannot simply be thrown out the window. FIRST will stick with the kit for a while, so there are no issues about that.

Furthermore, this year, the game rules specifically said not to use linear slide packs because they would be definitely useful. Rick, you asking for treads and more variety of gears is understandable, I want them too. But what if FIRST trying to lead us away from the comfort of VEX? What if FIRST wants us to stop relying on Tank Treads to get the job done or stop relying on part "x"?

I just think that this kit is really unique. Agreed that the bluetooth is sort of a pain, and I think that kit upgrades are sort of a given.

[Mushrooshi]

My teacher ordered 26 VEX kits.

Lol.

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by Mushrooshi

My teacher ordered 26 VEX kits.

Lol.

Let's see, would that be VRC teams 3033A to 3033Z for next season?
If they don't raise prices, you could register all 26 teams for $726.

[JesseK]

We're sticking with FTC more than likely, though we'll probably have to scale back the # of teams. The only major change we've talked about is swapping to RobotC from Labview so we can better integrate sensors. We gave Labview a good run, but we're not satisfied with the Lego brick's inability to process our autonomous routine in that language.

I second the omni wheels and linear slide system. Perhaps a secondary supplier could be introduced to give us the more complicated items.

[ttldomination]

Originally Posted by Mushrooshi

My teacher ordered 26 VEX kits.

Lol.

...That seems a little...extremely.

I mean even if you were doing VRC. You would only need like 2 kits to start out and then everything after that can be bought out individually....26 kits...

[Mushrooshi]

Originally Posted by ttldomination

...That seems a little...extremely.

I mean even if you were doing VRC. You would only need like 2 kits to start out and then everything after that can be bought out individually....26 kits...

Actually, I think that is for her school curriculum.

*weeps in corner wishing I had that much vex*

[Foster]

My teacher ordered 26 VEX kits.

Well you know what my grandfather used to say, "You can't be too handsome, too rich or have too many robot parts."

I agree with Rick, it's a good start on 26 teams. And it isn't much more than the FRC KoP

[ttldomination]

School Curriculum makes more sense. .

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by JesseK

We're sticking with FTC more than likely, though we'll probably have to scale back the # of teams. The only major change we've talked about is swapping to RobotC from Labview so we can better integrate sensors. We gave Labview a good run, but we're not satisfied with the Lego brick's inability to process our autonomous routine in that language.

I second the omni wheels and linear slide system. Perhaps a secondary supplier could be introduced to give us the more complicated items.

Could you elaborate on the problems you had with labview this year? We were able to use various senor applications with the brick last year without too much difficulty and after a bit of a jump start from the awesome gals from Twisted Bots we were running Auto like mad.

As for adding other specialized parts, I would be hesitant to add them to the kit. When you add complex parts to a kit like this, you become reliant on that part and set limitations on yourself. Take a look at the robots you saw this year. Did the kit limit the designs? I don't think so.

What I would add is more of the basic metal and gears at a reduced price. The cost of extra parts is the limiting factor for my team.

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

What I would add is more of the basic metal and gears at a reduced price. The cost of extra parts is the limiting factor for my team.

One of my biggest concerns is about the cost of the system. Compared to Vex it has much less parts variety, much higher cost, and the parts failure rate is higher. After three years I have a pretty good grasp on the costs. A really competitive Vex robot costs us $600-700. Our two-and-half team FTC program (we built two competitive bots and one minimally functioning robot out of three kits and a bunch of extra parts) would have cost about $3,600 if we hadn't had the returning team discount. Starting from scratch, competitive FTC robots are $1,200-1,500 each. That's way too expensive. Burning out or breaking a dozen 12-volt drive motors didn't help much, either. The Vex components, on the other hand, have been pretty reliable. After three years and a collection of about 60 Vex motors, we still haven't had to replace one, although we do have two dead Vex servos.

I'm not factoring in team registration costs, by the way. This is just hardware. An FTC program using Vex parts would be a much more affordable way to deliver a mid-sized robot STEM program, even with the $275 FIRST registration fee. IMO. YMMV.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

Could you elaborate on the problems you had with labview this year? We were able to use various senor applications with the brick last year without too much difficulty and after a bit of a jump start from the awesome gals from Twisted Bots we were running Auto like mad.

Quirky encoder feedback, where it seemed the encoder would stop responding. At UVA I heard of teams using some loop to get around this (like a heartbeat check), but why add that overhead when there seems to be an underlying problem? We had 5 sensors integrated into autonomous -- 2 encoders, 2 bump switches, and a sonic range finder. Yet the robot kept either bumping into the wall, or stopping too soon or too late. The reason we believe it's the brick and not the code is that the results would change in between tests even when the code did not change. We will program Atlanta's autonomous in RobotC sometime in the next couple of weeks, so we'll know if it's just our lack of knowledge or if it really is the brick's inability to process everything.

Originally Posted by Rick TYler

I'm not factoring in team registration costs, by the way. This is just hardware. An FTC program using Vex parts would be a much more affordable way to deliver a mid-sized robot STEM program, even with the $275 FIRST registration fee. IMO. YMMV.

Aye, but first you have to believe in how your school system implements a STEM program. Around here, usually classroom-based STEM programs are put in gifted programs. To me, closing robotics off to a select few 'gifted' students is not something I believe in, so everything we do is based upon the broader scope of students in the county. That's just around this area though.

[dooey100]

Originally Posted by Rick TYler

One of my biggest complaints is about the cost of the system. Compared to Vex it has much less parts variety, much higher cost, and the parts failure rate is higher. After three years I have a pretty good grasp on the costs. A really competitive Vex robot loaded with omni wheels, sliding rails and all those other "limiting" parts costs us $600-700. Our two-and-half team FTC program (we built two competitive bots and one minimally functioning robot out of three kits and a bunch of extra parts) would have cost about $3,600 if we hadn't had the returning team discount. Starting from scratch, competitive FTC robots are $1,200-1,500 each. That's way too expensive. Burning out or breaking a dozen 12-volt drive motors didn't help much, either. After three years and a collection of about 60 Vex motors, we still haven't had to replace one, although we do have two dead Vex servos.

I'm going to have to disagree with this one. We used the base kit plus about 150 dollars worth of parts and had a very competitive robot, seeding third and placing second at our tournament.

We burnt out exactly one motor, then we got smarter and didn't burn any more. The only part that I would say is absolutely necessary to buy in addition to the base kit is an extra motor controller.

[lynca]

Originally Posted by Rick TYler

If FIRST is locked into a partnership with LEGO, how about

1. Smaller, more reliable drive motors (the current motors are too powerful for the size of the field, and their failures are well known)
2. Tank treads
3. Rack and pinion gears
4. Chains and sprockets
5. Better shaft encoders
6. More reliable motor speed controllers
7. Longer axles
8. More chassis/stuctural material choices
9. Omniwheels
10. Some sort of linear sliding system

These requests sound familiar to VEX's product line ... I wonder if FIRST can at least make a partnership to get VEX mechanical parts involved in the FTC challenge.