[FTC]: FTC Game Platform for 2009-2010

[smartkid]

Guys, comon... I attempted a 3-point-arm with this new kit. This is something we've done MANY times with Vex.

With Vex we used to be able to build arms that were very slender, but robust, light and fast!

FTC, just no... You cannot build anything smaller than the U pieces that are about 1.5" x 1.5."' With Vex our build scale is .5" x .5." And soon they'll have the even smaller Vex mini parts out that should allow us to really build smaller details.

Vex is up to speed and continuing to accelerate, Lego's new FTC kit went ten feet from the starting line then blew up. The engineers are still attempting to figure out what happened and pick up the mess.

ON THE COST ISSUE: It is not fair to say that "oh our FTC team just paid x amount for FTC kit so we have to keep it." Bull crap, ALL of the established teams before this year had to spend a great deal on Vex parts which they should still have. Furthermore, what you paid (that everyone is complaining about) was discounted. The real kit costs $400 more.

FIRST destroyed FTC and I am very disappointed. But on a lighter note, my team (which has an FRC team, two FTC teams and a VRC team) will be going to Dallas to compete with good old Vex, internationally.

-Cody

[ttldomination]

1. I still stand by the fact that we were all too comfortable with VEX so FIRST presented a challenge.

2. FIRST may seem like a downer at times but they're not heartless. They HAVE seen how much we've put into it and they won't change the platform. Agreed teams have poured thousands of dollars into VEX, heck my team did too, but FIRST was confident that the parts wouldn't go to waste with VRC going strong.

3. I do not believe that the Tetrix kit "destroyed" FTC. I strongly believe that it simply redefined it.

4. For the teams using LabView, I was wondering where you guys got your support material. I went to the first tech challenge website but I found that to be little or no help at all...

[Abra Cadabra IV]

Originally Posted by ttldomination

1. I still stand by the fact that we were all too comfortable with VEX so FIRST presented a challenge.

2. FIRST may seem like a downer at times but they're not heartless. They HAVE seen how much we've put into it and they won't change the platform. Agreed teams have poured thousands of dollars into VEX, heck my team did too, but FIRST was confident that the parts wouldn't go to waste with VRC going strong.

3. I do not believe that the Tetrix kit "destroyed" FTC. I strongly believe that it simply redefined it.

4. For the teams using LabView, I was wondering where you guys got your support material. I went to the first tech challenge website but I found that to be little or no help at all...

I very much agree with all your points. Vex was making things too easy. I'm not saying that the new kit doesn't need better or more varied parts, I'm saying that there were too many easy solutions the old way. Case in point: tank tread conveyor belts. Designing a conveyor belt this year took lots more creativity and engineering than did last year, and I'm absolutely sure that FIRST did that on purpose.

Also something to keep in mind is that this is the kit's first year. FIRST is going to listen to our complaints and they're going to try to make things better. The contents and cost of the kits are not going to stay the same; the cost was one of the biggest complaints this year and I'm sure FIRST is going to try and reduce it rather than lose teams. It's a pity they couldn't get everything perfect on the first try, but who can?

I honestly wouldn't give up on FTC yet. Just give it some time.

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by Abra Cadabra IV

I very much agree with all your points. Vex was making things too easy. I'm not saying that the new kit doesn't need better or more varied parts, I'm saying that there were too many easy solutions the old way. Case in point: tank tread conveyor belts. Designing a conveyor belt this year took lots more creativity and engineering than did last year, and I'm absolutely sure that FIRST did that on purpose.

Carrying this argument to its logical conclusion, FRC is the worst of all because of its almost unlimited parts choices. You want tank treads? Just buy a set meant for a snow blower. You want a chain? Just buy one out of the McMaster catalog. Building an FRC robot is way too boring -- all the parts are out there just waiting to be bought.

I reject this argument. I prefer the kit to offer a selection of the sorts of parts available in the real mechanical and electrical worlds so that our students get to experience typical mechanisms scaled for the competition.

[Abra Cadabra IV]

...Yeah, maybe I didn't think that all the way through. I'm not sure if it's entirely fair to apply this argument to FRC (there's many other rules to take into account regarding parts there that don't exist in FTC, such as cost and weight) but I certainly see where my logic failed and I thank you for pointing that out before I made an even bigger idiot out of myself.

I do agree that the kits need more part variety. I really miss rack and pinion gears, linear sliders, and sprockets. If I ever implied that we didn't need those, I am really really really sorry.

I think what I said at the end still applies though - this is the kit's first season. I wouldn't expect FIRST to get everything perfect on the first try. This season may not have been the greatest, but it's too early to start saying that FTC has been ruined - we really need to see what happens next season before we can even start to say that.

[Gdeaver]

Both platforms could stand better motor- servo solutions. I would like to see an integrated motor and drive control solution. I believe the Dynamixel AX-12+ Actuator would be a good addition to both platforms. See this link for specs
http://www.crustcrawler.com/motors/A...ex.php?prod=63
Both controllers would have to be tweaked to allow the high speed serial link, but the benefit is that the motors can be packaged as a program object easily. At 44$ they are not cheap, but how much does a motor and a encoder cost and they still are not thermally protected and do not give torque feed back.

[ttldomination]

The FRC argument doesn't really apply because FIRST's main GOAL for FTC was to present a challenge where all teams have the same parts to choose from.

I'm not suggesting that rack and pinion gears and other commodities wouldn't be nice, but just that some of the other things that we are used to were getting a little redundant.

But it would still make sense and be mechanically nice to have some of the parts that the VEX kit has.

But, I think it's safe to say that everyone expects the FTC to grow from where it is now. .

[Mushrooshi]

I'd add cheaper plastic gears, maybe with a reinforced metal framework? Imagine... rickshaw wheels, but it is metal, not wooden, and has plastic filling the voids. Not to make the metal gears absolutely gone though. I'd rather have plastic drive gears and metal arm gears at the same time. Hell, making a decent drivetrain can cost the team in half their budget.

Piston sort of stuff would be interesting to see, and would add great potential. Perhaps hydrolic (sorry, can't spell it) pistons, for heavy stuff like arms, and maybe pneumatics, to toss stuff. It would be interesting.

Sets of chains and sprokets would be awesome aswell.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by Gdeaver

Both platforms could stand better motor- servo solutions. I would like to see an integrated motor and drive control solution. I believe the Dynamixel AX-12+ Actuator would be a good addition to both platforms. See this link for specs
http://www.crustcrawler.com/motors/A...ex.php?prod=63
Both controllers would have to be tweaked to allow the high speed serial link, but the benefit is that the motors can be packaged as a program object easily. At 44$ they are not cheap, but how much does a motor and a encoder cost and they still are not thermally protected and do not give torque feed back.

Good luck with getting that servo approved...that's 3x more powerful than FIRST allows in FRC:

http://www.trossenrobotics.com/dynam...-actuator.aspx
http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles...%20Rev%20K.pdf <R51-B>

However, that servo would be perfect for NURC... hmm.

[ttldomination]

I have no problem with chain and sprockets as long they are DURABLE. The ones in VEX kits were plastic and the chains would tear off if they came under too much pressure, which generally was around lifting an arm or something.

[alan4cast]

Originally Posted by smartkid

FTC, just no... You cannot build anything smaller than the U pieces that are about 1.5" x 1.5."'

Sorry, wrong! Our arm was based on a single angle piece. That one piece was used to support the entire structure of our puck grabbing assembly (three servos and two pieces of polycarbonate). That one piece is strong enough to lift the entire robot - it is 16mm on a side (.64").

Originally Posted by smartkid

ON THE COST ISSUE: ALL of the established teams before this year had to spend a great deal on Vex parts which they should still have.

And VEX also has their own competitions - in which all of those teams are welcome to compete.

- By the way, the people I've talked to all agree that the fact that you can still use the structural parts of the VEX equipment negates most of the "additional cost" issue. I will say that what our team found out (we are new, paid the full price for the kit - and then bought some VEX parts for certain things) was that the VEX parts were inferior in quality to the Tetrix parts. The Tetrix parts didn't need the same reinforcement as we saw in previous years because the stuff is simply better!

Originally Posted by smartkid

FIRST destroyed FTC and I am very disappointed.

FIRST changed FTC. Yes change can be painful, but in this case, change causes the requirements for innovation.

Alan

[Mushrooshi]

To be honest half of the robots at Atlanta were the exact same type of mechanism. I hope next year the challenge will allow no straight forward solution, so that we see millions of different kinds of robots.

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by Mushrooshi

To be honest half of the robots at Atlanta were the exact same type of mechanism. I hope next year the challenge will allow no straight forward solution, so that we see millions of different kinds of robots.

sorry, EVERY year there is a robot design that dominates FTC. That's what happens when folks have a chance to change the design after seeing competitions. I remember VEX conveyor belts dominating over the past two years.

[Abra Cadabra IV]

Originally Posted by Mushrooshi

To be honest half of the robots at Atlanta were the exact same type of mechanism. I hope next year the challenge will allow no straight forward solution, so that we see millions of different kinds of robots.

Yeah, that tends to happen a lot in FTC, but it was way worse than usual this year. My guess is that it's because of the limited parts of the new kit, and also because of the design of the game.

Face-Off only had one real way of scoring: the center area, the only part of which that gave really good points was the triangle. In contrast, last year's game had three different ways of scoring: high posts, low posts, and goals, all of which had roughly the same scoring potential (well, not the goals unless you were really good at defense). Combine that with the ease of getting pucks out of the rack and the limited parts the new kits had, and hey presto there goes design diversity.

A better game and greater part selection will go a long way toward fixing this.

[Mushrooshi]

What would also be good would be a game where there are obstacles that can for the most part disable the robot completely for the rest of the game. It was rare that a good robot would be doomed by the ramp, and in addition, the wavy obstacles and the rolley things stopped only a few robots, if any. All they did was pose a threat to autonomous, and even so, it was easy to avoid it.