Programmers: I Have A Challenge For You

[theprgramerdude]

Knowing that fully autonomous will be a big project, I'm focusing on recruiting replacements for the seniors that are leaving this year, and training whomever I can in basic c++/Labview while I can, since part of the decision making engine (which is critical) will have to be based on next years game.

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by WJF2011

Understand this. This is a beatable robot. All robots can be defeated with strategy. - Alexander McGee

Please see team 71 in 2002:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4slvnvPHW8

That WAS a beatable robot. If your robot was quick enough to get to them and knock them off center before they locked on, they were defeatable.

Many people said the same thing about 469 on einstein this year - that they were a lock with 1114.

It requires a clear understanding of the game and a good grasp of strategy, but any robot is beatable.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

That WAS a beatable robot. If your robot was quick enough to get to them and knock them off center before they locked on, they were defeatable..

I've read in old threads that the "knocking them off center" problem was fixed for Championship.

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I've read in old threads that the "knocking them off center" problem was fixed for Championship.

I'm not sure what the fix was but it couldn't have been a cure-all, because SPAM did it to them during Einstein Match 2. I don't know how 2002 was scored though. Did Beatty and Rage win anyways, or did they force a third match that TBA doesn't have?

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by iCurtis

I'm not sure what the fix was but it couldn't have been a cure-all, because SPAM did it to them during Einstein Match 2. I don't know how 2002 was scored though. Did Beatty and Rage win anyways, or did they force a third match that TBA doesn't have?

Everything I have is heresy from reading old threads, but I heard the second match was a combination drive shaft failure and the gate latches not working. The third match was won without Beatty on the field for the win.

[CN-U-NEFCU?]

This would be extremely difficult not only due to the intense amount of code and possible errors that could present them selves, but also because it would be hard to keep track of the robots position on the field due to Field obstacles getting in the way of items such as encoders, can anyone say bump?

[theprgramerdude]

Naturally, absolute values cannot be used, just like in full scale/industrial robots and control systems (thinking of aircraft). It has to be able to adjust and calculate for errors, and use multiple position sensing methods.

[W1NG$]

This is one amazing goal. I do find it annoying that for a majority of the match the "robots" are not really robots. Just a big RC car in the hands of a highschooler. "A robot is an automatically guided machine, able to do tasks on its own." I will talk to our programming team about this, Fo Sho!
I think what FIRST is really trying to do though is make the competition viewer and fan friendly. No one wants to watch a low scoring match of slow moving robots. If this goal could be accomplished while still keeping the games entertaining then that would be great. I think having the game part autonomous and part teleop is the best way to go, though it would be nice if they made the autonomous longer and worth more points.

[oddjob]

Originally Posted by W1NG$

I think what FIRST is really trying to do though is make the competition viewer and fan friendly. No one wants to watch a low scoring match of slow moving robots.

... or a high scoring match. Who'd pay to watch robotically driven NASCAR or robot tennis? Not many. Even the Mars rovers are driven by commands sent from Earth, with some autonomy build in to the rover. (human said what?).

A fully autonomous FIRST competition would be a dud. It's technically brilliant, but has a very limited audience. Adding some automated tasks to human control does make sense though, such as camera assisted aiming and shooting mechanisms. In Formula 1 car racing the FIA is constantly having to evaluate how much of the car is to be driven by computer versus having the driver in control. They understand the fans want to see the drivers perform too, it's not just about who has the best engineers. The same applies to FIRST.

[DaveS_1511]

I agree with W1NG$, that autonomous should be encouraged but not be the whole match. Make autonomous a little longer relative to teleoperated or make autonomous scores count for more points.

For a more extreme idea, how about a detachable autonomous robot, so each team would have a teleoperated and an autonomous robot fielded at the same time - - - mayhem ensues!

[Enigma's puzzle]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Everything I have is heresy from reading old threads, but I heard the second match was a combination drive shaft failure and the gate latches not working. The third match was won without Beatty on the field for the win.

After talking to someone that drove against that robot the key to beating it was beating it to the middle goal and moving it off center or out of the middle of the field so it would then miss the other two goals. but you had to do this in autonomous. So the anti-Hammond autons were similar to the anti-Guerillas autons we saw this year.

[JamesBrown]

Originally Posted by Enigma's puzzle

but you had to do this in autonomous. So the anti-Hammond autons were similar to the anti-Guerillas autons we saw this year.

I was under the impression that autonomous mode didn't exist until 2003. (I could be mistaken)

[Doug G]

You are correct, no autonomous period until 2003. You could still write some auto code, but not many did, just for operational functions and systems.

I remember Team 60 was like Beatty at SVR that year. You could beat them, but you had to control the goals before they got to them. I distinctly remember one team that drove at ridiculus high speed as soon as the match started and rammed 60 so hard it broke one of their four drive transmissions. There were no bumpers back then. I still haven't heard a robot collision like that since.

Back on topic... I think pursuing this challenge within the constraints of FIRST is a bit silly and maybe not as inspiring as you may hope. Sure it may inspire you and a few hard core programmers, but what about the rest of the teams. I think a better challenge (or an alternate one) is to offer up a Championship Autonomous Trophy or something for the best auto mode next season. Don't let it be decided by points though, maybe teams submit their best auto mode video clip (from a regional/championship) to YouTube, have a panel decide on the top five and then the FIRST community vote on a winner. Maybe we find a sponsor for it like what AutoDesk does for CADders. This maybe more inviting for more programmers of various levels and hopefully inspire them to take on more challenging adventures like yours.

[kamocat]

Originally Posted by oddjob

... or a high scoring match. Who'd pay to watch robotically driven NASCAR or robot tennis? Not many. Even the Mars rovers are driven by commands sent from Earth, with some autonomy build in to the rover. (human said what?).

A fully autonomous FIRST competition would be a dud. It's technically brilliant, but has a very limited audience. Adding some automated tasks to human control does make sense though, such as camera assisted aiming and shooting mechanisms. In Formula 1 car racing the FIA is constantly having to evaluate how much of the car is to be driven by computer versus having the driver in control. They understand the fans want to see the drivers perform too, it's not just about who has the best engineers. The same applies to FIRST.

If the robots are fully autonomous, then the issue becomes how well they interact with human players. The actions of human players and robots can have zero overlap, in contrast to the direct competition present in 2009.
I feel there is a limited vision of the individuality of autonomous robots, and an assumption that fully autonomous robots will make every match the same. If the robots are very repeatable, then make the field environment less predictable. Perhaps Guinea Pigs in exercise balls that robots must collect?
RC cars are not the future of robotics. I don't understand how we can get students interested in new engineering fields if we don't expose them to it.

[angelawence11]

The thing with making something completely autonomous is that other robots that may be teleoperated are completely unpredictable. Itd make defense difficult... wouldnt it? i dunno. for any team who can do it, good luck!!!