[BB] 2010 Game Hint #1

[apalrd]

That's why they gave teams a lighted target in '06 and '07. '05 had a camera too, but it proved to be too sensitive to light to work since the target was not lit and the plastic reflected differently at different angles.

As for the new laptops and the cRio, yes they change things for some teams, but we could have a laptop Dashboard last year too. If the dashboard video has little lag, it would be possible for them to allow us to look through the robot's eyes or make it advantageous to do so.

Back to the render, it is possible the reflections/colored Lexan indicate that we will have skewed/otherwise not clear vision from the driver stations, and must look through the robot's camera or rely on the robot sensors more than before for decision making. What would be really interesting is if the GDC replaced the clear plastic on the Driver Stations with black plastic (so all decision making is based only on robot sensor feedback to the drivers) or colored it so blue/red game pieces looked the same to the drivers (so the robot must tell the difference).

Kickoff is coming soon, we will know how this relates to the game then and it will seem all too obvious to us what this is.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by GGCO

Come on. Remember those points last year that were designed to penalize teams that did really well?? This is just like it, but WAY worse - it's just going to encourage teams to deliberately lose or let their opponents score on them at the end of a match. (both of which occurred last year at Michigan district events)

That's a ridiculous assumption (and in my mind, completely uncalled for). You're criticizing something none of us know anything about because you think it might be like an unpopular rule from the previous year. You don't even know what Coopertition points are.

I've got to ask you where you've read that the definition of coopertition is "punishing the teams that do well" and "rewarding teams who score for their opponents", because I've heard a bunch of people claim "coopertition is scoring for your opponent!" when that goes against everything I've ever heard the word used for. Scoring on your opponent isn't coopertition at all, it was (in 2009) a move motivated entirely for each team's self interest (not getting a <g14>) and had nothing to do with coopertition.

Note: I've always understood coopertition to be fiercely competing on the field, and assisting and working together off the field, going hand in hand with gracious professionalism. If I'm completely off base, someone correct me please.

Speaking of GP, what is the difference of this and the GP award?

Maybe you should wait to find out what the award is before you very harshly criticize it...

[fuzzy1718]

[quote=zakthemac;890864]

They look as if they lock in with each other...[quote]


That is my thought exactly, like on the legs of a pop-up canopy or adjustable crutches. I think this is only one piece though, and the part that locks with it isnt shown... just a thought

dang it I messed up the quote... how does that work again?

[Akash Rastogi]

LOL,


as always, please try to read at least parts of the whole thread before you post something redundant.

Thanks,
The Management (no not really of course)

[jamie_1930]

Originally Posted by Jon Jack

I saw several teams try to calibrate during Thursday in Atlanta. I don't think the issue is teams not calibrating their cameras. The problem is the variance between venues, especially between regional venues and the Georgia Dome.

Plus how can you set your robot, turn it on and calibrate your camera in the couple of minutes you have on the field before a match?

You need to read the entire post or atleast understand it, what I said was that teams need to calibrate their cameras and if they do so and AT THE VENUE their currently competing at there should be less problems then would have occured if they had just stuck the camera on with the same settings they had back in the shop. The cameras require constant calibration you can't asume that what worked at RIT will work at Atlanta or what worked yesterday will work today

[Eugene Fang]

Originally Posted by jamie_1930

You need to read the entire post or atleast understand it, what I said was that teams need to calibrate their cameras and if they do so and AT THE VENUE their currently competing at there should be less problems then would have occured if they had just stuck the camera on with the same settings they had back in the shop. The cameras require constant calibration you can't asume that what worked at RIT will work at Atlanta or what worked yesterday will work today

Well one problem about the lighting in the Georgia Dome is the semi-translucent tarp that is the ceiling. In different times of day, the lighting inside changes.

And let's all go back to talking about the game hint please.

[jamie_1930]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

That's a ridiculous assumption (and in my mind, completely uncalled for). You're criticizing something none of us know anything about because you think it might be like an unpopular rule from the previous year. You don't even know what Coopertition points are.

I've got to ask you where you've read that the definition of coopertition is "punishing the teams that do well" and "rewarding teams who score for their opponents", because I've heard a bunch of people claim "coopertition is scoring for your opponent!" when that goes against everything I've ever heard the word used for. Scoring on your opponent isn't coopertition at all, it was (in 2009) a move motivated entirely for each team's self interest (not getting a <g14>) and had nothing to do with coopertition.

Note: I've always understood coopertition to be fiercely competing on the field, and assisting and working together off the field, going hand in hand with gracious professionalism. If I'm completely off base, someone correct me please.


Maybe you should wait to find out what the award is before you very harshly criticize it...

I believe this all stems from a misinterpretation of the award. In my opinion the award is meant to award teams that care more about a fair game, or that go out of their way to help an opponent with technical difficulties (similiar to veteran teams helping rookie teams make their bots functional). Although I agree with ggdoc, that last years "leveling" rule is complete bull, I don't think that the coopertiton award is there to award teams who back down from winning or lessen their abilities to allow other teams feel good about themselves.

[Akash Rastogi]

If you guys feel like talking about that award, go make another thread please. Keep this thread on track.

<sarcasm> HA. Get it? Track? HA... because of the game hint! Ha hahaha....HA. Bahahaha. Oh I'm too funny.
</sarcasm>


But no really, go make a new thread if you're going to go on a tangent please.

[Steven Sigley]

Here's my idea of the 2010 game based on the hint, my own crazy thoughts and some talk on here.



On the red alliance side there are 2 red robots and 1 blue robot.

On the blue alliance side there are 2 blue robots and 1 red robot.

Pipes on the top allow the individual robot to steal soccer balls and give them to it's teammates on the other side of the barrier.
Balls start on the side and back of the field. they CAN be removed from the goals by the individual robot.

At the end of the round tally up the balls in a teams goals to determine the winner.

[Tetraman]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

If you guys feel like talking about that award, go make another thread please. Keep this thread on track.

<sarcasm> HA. Get it? Track? HA... because of the game hint! Ha hahaha....HA. Bahahaha. Oh I'm too funny.
</sarcasm>


But no really, go make a new thread if you're going to go on a tangent please.

I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but the game hint threads always end up like this. No one goes though the rest of the discussed ideas, and the topic can change. And in my opinion, it doesn't matter all that much, it's the game hint thread - it's bound to be full of entropy reguardless if everyone stays on topic.

[Culvan Van Li]

Back to the hint at hand...

I was really hoping the game this year would be some variation of stacking milk crates. I'm beginning to doubt that will be it.

There is one thing I haven't seen mentioned, the pipe wall thickness looks really thin. I don't think this is a structural component at all.

It clearly goes between two other parts (with the spring loaded connectors) on the ends. I suspect those other parts will come all the way up to the middle larger pipe and that there won't be a lip. The fact that they recessed the screws holding the lexan leads me to believe that they intended for something to ride through this without catching on screwheads. It seems likely that this is a track for a round object to roll on, but the object would have to be light. Because this isn't structural, I'd be guessing that this part is for putting balls on the field or taking them off. If it is for taking them off then the extra 4 holes are probably for mounting a score counting mechanism. If it's for putting them into the field then it's probably going to have a mechanism to regulate timing or rate of ball input.

I doubt the GDC would give out a significant portion of the gamefield in a single clue. The 2007 clue was a spider foot. It was important, but it wasn't enough to make any solid guesses about the game. This clue seems to have a lot more information, so I'm guessing it's used less (than the spider feet) in the actual game.

Andy

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Culvan Van Li

I doubt the GDC would give out a significant portion of the gamefield in a single clue. The 2007 clue was a spider foot. It was important, but it wasn't enough to make any solid guesses about the game. This clue seems to have a lot more information, so I'm guessing it's used less (than the spider feet) in the actual game.

You could actually use the reflection of the blue around the leg to extrapolate that the game used inner tubes. Someone even made a render of it....

The pipe being consistent with what's on FIRST fields leads me to believe it's part of the field... but what if it isn't???

[keehun]

Originally Posted by Steven Sigley

Here's my idea of the 2010 game based on the hint, my own crazy thoughts and some talk on here.



On the red alliance side there are 2 red robots and 1 blue robot.

On the blue alliance side there are 2 blue robots and 1 red robot.

Pipes on the top allow the individual robot to steal soccer balls and give them to it's teammates on the other side of the barrier.
Balls start on the side and back of the field. they CAN be removed from the goals by the individual robot.

At the end of the round tally up the balls in a teams goals to determine the winner.

That's a really cool image. I haven't been in FIRST long enough to know GDC's personality, but nonetheless, I think it's a cool idea.

Just wondering if GDC would ever partition a field like that that's impassable? Though in the context of your game idea, it completely makes sense.

[gallo26]

Originally Posted by Steven Sigley

Here's my idea of the 2010 game based on the hint, my own crazy thoughts and some talk on here.



On the red alliance side there are 2 red robots and 1 blue robot.

On the blue alliance side there are 2 blue robots and 1 red robot.

Pipes on the top allow the individual robot to steal soccer balls and give them to it's teammates on the other side of the barrier.
Balls start on the side and back of the field. they CAN be removed from the goals by the individual robot.

At the end of the round tally up the balls in a teams goals to determine the winner.

I agree, that's a very nice picture you did there. It makes perfect sense really. Very cool. Good job!

It would be pretty neat if that field wasn't blocked off in the middle (I believe it is unless I misunderstood what you said) But there were 2 sliding panels on each of those two walls. They would have a program like 2008 that would randomize the walls. Only 3 would be visible (2 would slide next to each other like normal glass sliding doors) And block visibility and mobility of robots. Creating a maze.

Just some random thoughts. FIRST might go back to a randomizer. The control system has gotten smarter, and the camera can track more. So its possible that a random start would be some part of the 2010 game.

[Steven Sigley]

Originally Posted by gallo26

I agree, that's a very nice picture you did there. It makes perfect sense really. Very cool. Good job!

It would be pretty neat if that field wasn't blocked off in the middle (I believe it is unless I misunderstood what you said) But there were 2 sliding panels on each of those two walls. They would have a program like 2008 that would randomize the walls. Only 3 would be visible (2 would slide next to each other like normal glass sliding doors) And block visibility and mobility of robots. Creating a maze.

Just some random thoughts. FIRST might go back to a randomizer. The control system has gotten smarter, and the camera can track more. So its possible that a random start would be some part of the 2010 game.

Thanks I made it in Sketchup. Yeah sliding walls would be really cool too, you'd have to be sure the walls are solid though cause speeding robot vs. walls flexible enough to move could be bad. But if it was structurally sound then that would be awesome.