Can I Make Something Clear?

[davidthefat]

I have everyone's comments, I thank you for your input(s), first of all, yes, I do need to get my grades up, my mom just scolded my like 10 minutes ago after she saw the progress report... You know how Asian moms are. Like what Slavik said, irrlicht is just a 3d engine, so does nothing else for you, so obviously it would take tons of code. The main problem is my ego/pride, I know all of you can see it. My only goal here is to just let the robot do it's job, I really don't care if we win or lose, as long as it does it's job, I am happy. Sure many of my teammates might disagree if I officially declare it next year that I have been working on code for a fully autonomous robot, but is it really abour winning and losing? When it comes to focusing on winning, things get ugly FAST. I know it, Im in football, they are the biggest and meanest people on the field. LOL

[slavik262]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

My only goal here is to just let the robot do it's job, I really don't care if we win or lose, as long as it does it's job, I am happy. Sure many of my teammates might disagree if I officially declare it next year that I have been working on code for a fully autonomous robot, but is it really abour winning and losing?

No, it's not about winning or losing, but it should definitely be about what the team as a whole wants. I'm still at a loss for why you won't first target a simpler goal (90 % autonomous where the driver just tells the robot what to do like many have already said) before going after fully autonomous. The first Apollo mission wasn't designed to land people on the moon; they built up what they could do over 10 missions before Aldrin and Armstrong set foot on the moon's surface.

[pSYeNCe]

Originally Posted by Opinion567

creating a fully autonomous robot is STUPID. There is NO WAY you will ever program a first robot to be smarter than the average human
...
If however, you honestly think you will get a full auto bot to out perform a human then you are either very arrogant, or very stupid.

I had made up my mind that I wasn't going to answer any flame comments, but yours... I can't handle.

I read somewhere that within 50 years, a single desktop computer will have the same computational power of a human brain. Albeit, it will not have the same intelligence, but nonetheless the power will be there. You suggest that this will never happen, at least within our lifetimes. You are wrong.

Calling people names because you don't believe they can succeed is not the way that humanity innovates, the way we move forward. I think that someone who even tries this challenge, regardless of success or whether they use a library or not, regardless of whether they succeed or not, is going to be better off in the long run.

You claim someone who thinks their programming can outperform a human is either "arrogant" or "stupid". I would prefer to call them "hopeful" and "persevering".

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

I have everyone's comments, I thank you for your input(s), first of all, yes, I do need to get my grades up, my mom just scolded my like 10 minutes ago after she saw the progress report... You know how Asian moms are. Like what Slavik said, irrlicht is just a 3d engine, so does nothing else for you, so obviously it would take tons of code. The main problem is my ego/pride, I know all of you can see it. My only goal here is to just let the robot do it's job, I really don't care if we win or lose, as long as it does it's job, I am happy. Sure many of my teammates might disagree if I officially declare it next year that I have been working on code for a fully autonomous robot, but is it really abour winning and losing? When it comes to focusing on winning, things get ugly FAST. I know it, Im in football, they are the biggest and meanest people on the field. LOL

You do know you'll probably have to start all of that code over next Kickoff, no?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

You do know you'll probably have to start all of that code over next Kickoff, no?

Under the 2010 rules, it was legal if it was publicly available. So all he has to do is to post it on his team's website (or on CD or some other similar place) and it's legal, assuming that that rule stays the same for 2011.

[AmoryG]

Originally Posted by Opinion567

I'm sure I will get criticized for killing dreams and hampering progress. I'm sure that to some this is also not in the spirit of first. I hope someone else has said it and I just missed it, but

creating a fully autonomous robot is STUPID. There is NO WAY you will ever program a first robot to be smarter than the average human, and I would assume teams don't have their below average students driving. The game has too many variables to consider, and if you think you won't forget something or miss some scenario then you are very arrogant. Automating some tasks can be helpful. In autonomous try whatever you want. But in teleoperated with identical machines, I guarantee you that I beat any full auto bot 1 on 1 at least 95% of the time. (5% for the time to account for the time I get stung by a killer bee and pass out)

For educational purposes, I personally think you're wasting your time but its your time to waste., If however, you honestly think you will get a full auto bot to out perform a human then you are either very arrogant, or very stupid. (or the human is comatose)

Criticize me if you want but those are the facts, and I know for a fact that other people that have read this have thought the same thing.

So who's more arrogant, the guy that attempts the impossible or the guy that says it's impossible?

[davidthefat]

Originally Posted by EricH

Under the 2010 rules, it was legal if it was publicly available. So all he has to do is to post it on his team's website (or on CD or some other similar place) and it's legal, assuming that that rule stays the same for 2011.

Yes it will be available to the public, as long as they sign up for the site and get approved... that is IF they ever get approved to join

[biojae]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

Yes it will be available to the public, as long as they sign up for the site and get approved... that is IF they ever get approved to join

These are the rules in particular:

COTS – A “Commercial, Off-The-Shelf” COMPONENT or MECHANISM, in its unaltered, unmodified state. A COTS item must be a standard (i.e. not custom order) part commonly available from the VENDOR, available from a non-team source, and available to all teams for purchase.


<R25> Prior to the Kick-off: Before the formal start of the Robot Build Season, teams are encouraged to think as much as they please about their ROBOTS. They may develop prototypes, create proof-of-concept models, and conduct design exercises. Teams may gather all the raw stock materials and COTS COMPONENTS they want. But absolutely no final design, fabrication, or assembly of any elements intended for the final ROBOT is permitted prior to the Kick-off presentation.

Example: A TEAM developed an omni-directional drive system for the 2008 competition. Over the summer of 2009 they refined and improved the control software (written in C) to add more precision and capabilities. They decided to use a similar system for the 2010 competition. They copied large sections of unmodified code over into the control software of the new ROBOT (also written in C). This would be a violation of the schedule constraint, and would not be allowed.

Example: A different team develops a similar solution during the fall, and plans to use the developed software on their competition ROBOT. After completing the software, they post it in a generally accessible public forum and make the code available to all teams. Because they have made their software generally available, under the terms of Rule <R67> it is considered COTS software and they can use it on their ROBOT.

<R67> For the purposes of the FRC, generally available software modules obtained from open sources (e.g. professional publications, commonly used FRC community-accessible web resources, industry source code repositories, etc.) that are not specifically affiliated with individual FRC teams shall be considered COTS items, and may be used.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

Yes it will be available to the public, as long as they sign up for the site and get approved... that is IF they ever get approved to join

That would not fit the intent and wording of the rule.

[davidthefat]

Now that really blows... Really is that necessary? How can they confirm that I worked on the code during the off season?


edit: so that means that anyone can take my code as their's? Thats ridiculous... Even if I put my ownership in the comments, no one is going to see the source and say "Hey David wrote that" they will see the end result moving on the field... Not cool

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

Now that really blows... Really is that necessary? How can they confirm that I worked on the code during the off season?

You know what, I had an actual response written but... please stop talking now. You don't understand what this competition is about. You don't understand what these boards are for. Spend some time lurking on these boards. Maybe spend a couple hours reading the mission of FIRST. Watch some of Dean's speeches. Maybe you can answer your own question.

[davidthefat]

After thinking about it, I would HAVE to rewrite my code, the circumstances of the game changes and I have to change to meet that criteria...

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

After thinking about it, I would HAVE to rewrite my code, the circumstances of the game changes and I have to change to meet that criteria...

Just remember you have to start completely over, or share your code.

The way I see the intent of the rule is to stop people from working on robots before build begins (a pretty key part of FIRST), unless you're willing to share that work with the community. This incentivises gracious professionalism by sharing work. This is a Good Thing.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

After thinking about it, I would HAVE to rewrite my code, the circumstances of the game changes and I have to change to meet that criteria...

You are thinking inside the box.

Consider the following ...

Write a program that inputs objects. These objects do not need to be defined until the game is released, while the base code could be created and published (albit relitively useless without the objects) before the season. The objects could be things like a map of the play field, game objects, field objects (both stationary and mobile) etc.

From there you could create a SLAM system (sensors to map whats happening within the known map) and an algorithm for object avoidance/interception ... and thus a autonomous rudementary AI (decisionmaking).

[pSYeNCe]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

You are thinking inside the box.

Consider the following ...

Write a program that inputs objects. These objects do not need to be defined until the game is released, while the base code could be created and published (albit relitively useless without the objects) before the season. The objects could be things like a map of the play field, game objects, field objects (both stationary and mobile) etc.

This is a good idea. Sometimes in web design I'll just make a frame of the page until I get needed resources. It works quite well. You could set it up to reference some not-yet-existing image, and then just fill it in when the time comes.

The only thing is identifying characteristics of the object. That's the tough part that takes time to program, and you won't know that until you know the object.