Programmers: I Have A Challenge For You

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by gvarndell

What would be an example of a typical VI?

Any one you see in FRC.

And how does the executable object code for it come to exist?

It gets compiled, just like turning source code into object code for any compiled language.



I implied the existence of a "nontypical" vi which does have a text representation. That would be a reference to the LabVIEW code which gets compiled into VHDL for further compilation into an image for the FPGA. The VHDL is text.

[TJ Cawley]

Originally Posted by Egg 3141592654

I would like this to happen, but here are my 2 issues with this idea. Firstly, how do you track game objects and the areas to score? The program would need to have a serious if statement, or a periodic task to override the game piece searching code from the scoring area track code. We tried something like this recently with epic failure, aka we made a $5,000 doughnut preforming machine. Secondly, the robot would have to be as cunning as a human player to avoid silly penalties, like getting hit while kicking a ball making it go out of bounds.

Those are my little considerations in making our robot completely autonomous next year. I guess it also depends on what the game is next year as well because something like this puts drivers like me out of work. Good luck to those teams attempting this, I'm starting now so this way I'll only be 4 weeks late instead of the usual 5.

it isn't easy but teams that managed to get their cameras working or other motion/vision devices working (we had encoders, the camera was for our drivers) could possibly do it. yes it is a LOT of coding and strategizing early, but why not when it might bring success? there's always a safe-mode people can create so of/when the robot gets out of hand you can take over and correct it, then let the controls go again.

[gvarndell]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

It gets compiled, just like turning source code into object code for any compiled language.

I hope this isn't headed to a chicken and egg thing but, compiled from what?

I implied the existence of a "nontypical" vi which does have a text representation.

So a graphical element that represents the addition of 2 input integers and produces an integer sum at the output, is that a typical VI?
Or is that not a VI at all?

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by TJ Cawley

there's always a safe-mode people can create so of/when the robot gets out of hand you can take over and correct it, then let the controls go again.

Similar to why you don't want an empty cockpit when a plane is in autopilot.

Putting a banner up in your driver station would be an interesting PR technique during practice rounds...

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by EricVanWyk

EXACTLY.

Autonomous has been pretty boring for two years because there is no point value to it. Give it value, and it will become interesting.

Autonomy's value in this game rivals 2008, in my opinion. I like the subtle emphasis on it this year. I think it's not exciting simply because automatic robots are inherently less exciting.

[EricH]

There is a value. Look at L.A. Final Match 1.

Total points (final): 24.
Hanging points: 6.
24-6=18 points on the floor.

Of those 18 points, 9 were scored autonomously.

15 seconds saw the same number of points scored in the goals that the following 2 minutes saw. The difference? No defense.

Remember, defending a robot during automode carries massive penalties this year. So massive, you REALLY don't want to do it.

But being able to score autonomously can give plenty of points as a cushion, which you want going into teleoperated mode.

[Bill_B]

Originally Posted by EricVanWyk

Autonomous has been pretty boring for two years because there is no point value to it. Give it value, and it will become interesting.

The FTC matches have a double scoring for their autonomous mode. They take a long pause between auto and teleop modes to record the scores. The same scored objects are thereby scored twice. This can be quite a payoff for an effective auto program.

[davidthefat]

I delivered the message to my teacher today, he thinks its a fantastic idea. He is even happy that I was even thinking about next year's robot, because he told me that previous years, people just forget about robotics after the regionals. He said I can use the tech shop to make my test robots

[ideasrule]

Just to give an idea of how hard a good autonomous robot is, there's no computer in the world that comes close to matching the flexible and creative thinking of the human brain, nor is there a computer with the lifetime of experience that human robot drivers have. Making a robot smarter than a human isn't like CADing a robot framework; it's like designing a fusion reactor in 6 weeks, especially since decades of research by professional scientists haven't been able to do it.

If anybody plays real-time strategy games, the AI in them took a whole team of well-funded programmers years to write and debug. Even so, it can't compete with even moderately experienced gamers on an equal footing, and is very easy to exploit.

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Autonomy's value in this game rivals 2008, in my opinion. I like the subtle emphasis on it this year. I think it's not exciting simply because automatic robots are inherently less exciting.

I noticed your rookie year was 06, and I'm surprised you would say autonomous is boring, I thought the autonomous shooters were really exciting. Also look at 04, autonomous was really exciting then too.

[davidthefat]

Originally Posted by ideasrule

Just to give an idea of how hard a good autonomous robot is, there's no computer in the world that comes close to matching the flexible and creative thinking of the human brain, nor is there a computer with the lifetime of experience that human robot drivers have. Making a robot smarter than a human isn't like CADing a robot framework; it's like designing a fusion reactor in 6 weeks, especially since decades of research by professional scientists haven't been able to do it.

If anybody plays real-time strategy games, the AI in them took a whole team of well-funded programmers years to write and debug. Even so, it can't compete with even moderately experienced gamers on an equal footing, and is very easy to exploit.

You do make a good point, but where in the world does it ever say we are having a similar game next year? For all I know, it can be football, which is all pre layed out plays and stuff...

[Rion Atkinson]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

You do make a good point, but where in the world does it ever say we are having a similar game next year? For all I know, it can be football, which is all pre layed out plays and stuff...

Oh... I can promise you... It will not be similar in any way to this year... Darn the GDC....

[theprgramerdude]

Originally Posted by slavik262

To echo and summarize a lot of really smart people, there's a lot of problems with a fully autonomous robot. I'm listing them in order of importance (in my eyes) from greatest to least.

1. Time/People - As people have said, it took teams of grad students working around the clock to accomplish a simpler challenge (DARPA) than what you're aiming to achieve. Even if you start working now, you'll still need to tailor the AI to the game next year. You can't do that much in six weeks without a time machine. You're highly underestimating the complexity of everything the robot has to do.
2. Hardware - Autonomous robots have extremely beefy processors, usually custom-designed for the task. You have a 400 MHz PowerPC processor, which is not just controlling your robot's movement, but is also busy doing other things like communicating with the field. Consider how much power you would need to run autonomously. Think of what you would have to do:
   • Gather inputs from a large amount of sensors.
   • Formulate a "world view" of what is going on. Where is your robot? Where are the other robots? Where are the game pieces? What is your current strategy? What step in the plan for that current strategy are you in? How much time is left in the match? There's a lot of questions. You'll need to use complex algorithms to analyze your data (including slow image analysis if you're using the data) and even more complex algorithms to take that analysis and turn it into some useful strategy.
   • Act on that strategy. Use even more complex algorithms to determine if your strategy is working. Decide when to switch strategies or dynamically adapt to the strategies being employed against you by the other alliance.
   There's just not enough processor to do it all in real-time.
3. Your drivers will want to drive the robot. Arguments about "what FIRST is" aside, telling your drive team that your code can perform as well as they can is an insult to any human being. It may be a great off-season project, but don't you want to achieve your best during competitions? I'm not claiming that it's "all about winning" - but the competition makes it fun for a lot of people, and I can promise you that because of all the above reasons, an autonomous program developed by a few high school students with a year (maximum) of development time, running on FRC hardware, and within the context of an FRC game will not perform nearly as well as even the worst driver. You're removing almost any chance your team will do well if you run fully autonomous, provided the other alliance's robots so much as move. Is the rest of your team willing to accept this just so they can say that their robot is autonomous?

I'm sorry for raining on your parade, but it can't be done - at least not well. Ambition is a wonderful thing - never give up your dreams. But technological marvels aren't created with just a can-do attitude. It takes years of research, hard work, development, and custom hardware to finish the job. The people who think this is possible need to stop and be a bit more realistic.

Try something on a much smaller scale. An automated scoring algorithm would be great, and is a totally reachable goal. Work your way up, and see what you can do. There's a huge difference between playing a match "mostly autonomously" and fully autonomously in that the "mostly autonomous" option allows human drivers to position the robot, aware of the field and match conditions, before letting it go to work.

Seeing as your #2 covered my reasons for more power thoroughly, I thought we might as well discuss ways to get more power now, with another 8 months ahead to plan.
So, does anyone believe there is a way to feasibly add a inverter/converter widget from the PD board to a PC PSU, which then runs a small PC/GPGPU with Linux, which can interface with the Crio for image analysis and strategy planning? (I'm not an electrical engineer) The main problem I'd see is that the voltage drop with the battery under load might have more severe effects on a PC than on the Crio.

The

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by lineskier

I noticed your rookie year was 06, and I'm surprised you would say autonomous is boring, I thought the autonomous shooters were really exciting. Also look at 04, autonomous was really exciting then too.

I was in FTC until 2008, so the rookie year part of my postbit isn't entirely accurate.

Autonomy's value is really a lot like 2008, strategically. The points are free, undefended points. On top of that, though, "clearing" a zone allows a team to maximize its resources. A starved offensive zone is a death sentence in Breakaway. If both teams clear a zone, then the advantage is negated and the battle is fought at midfield This is a lot like 2008's hybrid, in that a large hybrid advantage is unsurmountable, so having a comprehensive hybrid is essential if only to negate the other alliance's hybrid.

My #1 priority for alliance selection at CT is strength of back autonomous mode. It's that important to winning, in my opinion.

[Rick Wagner]

Notwithstanding the difficulty of totally autonomous play, well documented here by many, I think that this is the direction FIRST competition is headed in, eventually. Remember that before '03 there was no autonomy at all. FLL is fully autonomous. These kids are now graduating to FRC teams.