Any Programmers Have The Same Feeling As Me?

[Bryan Herbst]

The others have explained it pretty well-

The reason is because many teams lack the coding prowess to do a lot of that by themselves.

However, in my experience, truly implementing the code they give you well is the more challenging part. Sure they give you the code that runs the encoders and camera, but doing something with that data (and doing it well) requires a lot of time, patients, and know-how.

For example, last year they gave everyone the two-color camera tracking code. Yet even with that, very few teams were able to effectively follow the trailers.

And once you get some of that working, ask yourself what else you can do. The next step could involve PID loops. Some teams have even included ultrasonic or IR sensors, GPS devices, and more. There is always more you can in your code (with some electronic assistance) to make your job more challenging.

[Greg McKaskle]

The default vision code is actually rather thin. It is built on top of NI IMAQ and then does some normalization and simple scaling.

The PID drive should work on a given set of robots that are built like the ones in the video, but weight, wheel, or even center of gravity changes will require the code to be retuned. Also keep in mind that the default code will simply point, no kicking, no pushing, no scoring.

So, the default code will score at most zero points. Depending on where you place the robot on the field, it could even cause penalties.

Hopefully it will provide inspiration.
Greg McKaskle

[nikRbokRz]

The code FIRST gives you is really not as useful as some teams would like. Unfortunately, especially for newer teams, it cannot be used without some sort of customization. Last year, our team tried to use the color recognition software, but we weren't able to implement it.

That being said, it is rather nice to have some sort of working template to refer to.

On a different note, I was wondering where the default code is available. Our team is going to be using Java, but we haven't been able to find any default code.

[StevenB]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

Well this year is my first year of doing robotics, and I was actually quite surprised... They did pretty much half the work for you, they made you a library and edge detection for you. Well I was hoping that we had to make it from scratch and they just provided the library for the very low level stuff, I noticed its really high level programming you need to do. I haven't really started, I just look through the libraries but I think it takes away from the experience... You can argue that its only 6 weeks and is by highschool students, but still...

I felt that way once - in 2005, when in my first year in FRC on a rookie team. I was pretty confident in my C programming skills, and when they talked about how much code was being prepackaged, I was a little disappointed.

Now, as someone who's been involved with the programming since 2005, trust me, it's harder than it looks. They've given us some "it should work out of the box" code nearly every year, and almost no one uses it. Almost no one does the great things the GDC hopes for. No matter what they package for us, programming the robot is still hard.

Does giving the teams large libraries take away from "the experience"? I don't think so. Think about it: suppose you're writing a simple GUI for some program. You don't look up how to write to the screen memory buffer, or write font handling code from scratch. You use a library that's already been written. That's the awesome thing about Java, Python, PHP, MATLAB, and LabVIEW (to name just a few). All of these languages have extensive built-in libraries to do all kinds of things. It makes us programmers more productive, and lets us spend our time working on the fun problems, rather than slogging through the swamp of low-level code.

Don't worry that you'll run out of interesting coding work to do. If you like playing around with low-level stuff, try adding some new sensors, such as an optical mouse. Or devise an automated system to assist the drivers in possessing balls. Or create an autonomous mode program that will make everyone's jaw drop. The options are truly limitless.

[DanDon]

While the ellipse-finding code works reasonably well, it does need to be retuned a bit.

Keep in mind that you also have no pan/tilt tracking code provided.....try writing a feed-forward servo tracking algorithm, should give you a bit of a challenge .

[bear24rw]

Originally Posted by DanDon

Keep in mind that you also have no pan/tilt tracking code provided.....try writing a feed-forward servo tracking algorithm, should give you a bit of a challenge .

Kevin Watsons code could easily be adapted for the servo tracking, (http://kevin.org see tracking.c from 2007). It basically just keeps adding the current error (position of target - center) to the servo values.

[DanDon]

Originally Posted by bear24rw

Kevin Watsons code could easily be adapted for the servo tracking, (http://kevin.org see tracking.c from 2007). It basically just keeps adding the current error (position of target - center) to the servo values.

A man of my own mind....they can still be optimized though....I remember making some extensive modifications to them in 2007, including running 2 CMUcams at the same time .

[bear24rw]

Originally Posted by DanDon

A man of my own mind....they can still be optimized though....I remember making some extensive modifications to them in 2007, including running 2 CMUcams at the same time .

Any chance of you posting those optimizations somewhere? I'm doing a side project involving tracking stuff with servos and would be interested in seeing what all you changed

[TheDominis]

If you think about it, the WPI library only provides low-level functions such as motor and servo control, interpretation of sensor data, an interface with the driver station, and vision (acquisition and interpretation via NI's vision library).

Programming, especially in this competition, isn't always about writing low-level code, but also the constructive use existing code. Finding a creative way to these mechanisms is easy, but the implementation can be infinitely harder.

[Dragon Princess]

I found that when you use the codes already given, you spend more time tailoring it to your robot then anything else, but you can also remember that you can choose not to use the given code and write yours from scratch, I'll tell you that it's some-what frustrating at time but it is entirely possible.

[Guopeter]

I was a programmer for two FRC seasons.

I know what you mean; at one point, I was hoping every team would have the programs built "from scratch", this way, my team would stand out (because of my "superior" programming). The GDC included these libraries and significantly elevated the level of competition.

Of course, some maturity comes with time. The way I look at it since then is that the "prepackaged" codes are there for you to "unpackage" and "re-package" with added components. Not only is this a great way for learning, but you always end up writing a better program that what was provided. Like what's mentioned above, the provided libraries challenge the programmer to be more creative. In this sense, good programmers can still make their team "to the next level" and feel very accomplished.

Although Labview has PID and Vision classes ready to go, I end up creating my own for both of them.

-Pie Man

[brianc217]

Where does FIRST give the target tracking code for LabVIEW? Are you just talking about the libraries or is there default code in the autonomous VI for vision?
I haven't looked at the new LabVIEW yet since we just finished installing it on our computers. Thanks.

[jmanela]

Originally Posted by brianc217

Where does FIRST give the target tracking code for LabVIEW? Are you just talking about the libraries or is there default code in the autonomous VI for vision?
I haven't looked at the new LabVIEW yet since we just finished installing it on our computers. Thanks.

to answer your question, in the new LV architechure (not sure about WR or Java) they impliment the vision tracking program for you (it's in the vision code). However, there is room for improvement based on your application.

The libraries are good so you can skip the housekeeping. To learn effectively, it is better to get right to the mashed potatoes and get into your logic.

[jerry w]

Originally Posted by brianc217

Where does FIRST give the target tracking code for LabVIEW? Are you just talking about the libraries or is there default code in the autonomous VI for vision?
I haven't looked at the new LabVIEW yet since we just finished installing it on our computers. Thanks.

I am embarrassed to say that we could not find the vision code. I knew FIRST had supplied it. I had a student search on-line for the labview library. Then two days ago I was teaching two new students how the FRC code worked. There in the default vision loop was the entire example code.
The code is very thorough and should be easy for even our laziest student to follow. (Don't worry Gavin, no one will know it is you.)

[Boydean]

I find it useful, while not intruding. I'm going to be using the out of the box camera tracking for our needs, with a little extra tweaking(aka, restructuring to make it process faster). But other then that, I had it tracking the target and centering just fine after about 15min of refining. I want to spend that time saved trying to do more complex things, like calculating the trajectory of the ball accurately.

I'm the kinda of person who doesn't like to reinvent the wheel. If someone has already done it, and gives it to me; I'll use it and go work on something else.