pic: Game hint

[neutrino15]

I am guessing that there will be stations around the field that give data to the robot.. And the robot has to carry that data to another station..
Or maybe the IR stations would tell the robot which side of the field they need to score in? Which goals to use? That would be cool.. Imagine if each team was assigned a color during autonomous mode via IR blasters?! And the robot had to interpret this!!

::edit::
I really like this guess
Post 108
I would love to see the human player able to manipulate the field with a remote!
:::::::::

Maybe.. I just hope that the game doesn't require constant use of the IR sensor.. If they do, everyone in the audience will bring their TV remotes from their hotels!


On second thought, the clues are never 100% accurate.. So maybe it just has to do with HEAT.. IR senses heat (it is heat!).. So let's just assume the game has to do with heat.. Flamethrowers anyone!? Giant incinerators!??!? WEIGHTED COMPANION CUBES!!!!!

[ChrisH]

Originally Posted by galewind

In my opinion, the issue with IR in 2004 was that the transmitter needed to be built by hand from diodes, etc, and there wasn't enough incentive in the autonomous period to try to work with it. Don't forget, it was also the first year that teams had the PIC (vs the Basic Stamp), so they had to learn a new programming language as well.

Infrared as a technology could be well-done in FIRST, if it's well-supported and people have time to play with it. I think this just may be what FIRST is trying to do. If it's a DIFFERENT technology, then it very well could be FIRST's way of trying to provide us with some info ahead of time (once the site is active).

There were also a lot of "noise" issues. IR reflecting of of the field endwalls confused a lot of robots that did get sensors working. I seem to recall our robot tracking a brick wall once. Actually I think we were using an EduBot for a test bed at that point. An auto focusing video camera could interfere as well.

I think the use of coding is intended to help reduce inadvertent interference like that from the video cameras. But that still doesn't deal with reflections and an object does not have to be shinny to be a good IR reflector. The only way to prevent reflections from being an issue is to not give those photons anything to hit.

[AndyB]

My best guess is the possibility of the IR sensors receiving the value of the colored light (red, green, or blue). However, correct me if I'm wrong, but it is possible to look for all three colors with the CMU camera without too much of a problem...

Please everybody keep in mind that these are sensors, not transmitters... they receive. not get.

[Stuart]

yes the S1 element is 100%(or at least 99.999995%) an IR receiver, Ive built too many LIRC circuits to not recognize that thing. Im guessing this will be used as a way for the robot to communicate with the field(2way) or for the robots to communicate with each other(again 2way). again this is why I love this time of year eggnog, colorful lights in the house(both of the visible and non flavors), and hints about what Im going to be spending every spare second thinking about for the next 2 months.

[987HighRoller]

I think this will take the place of the radios.

[Boydean]

Wow...Im just now seeing this. From this point on the days are going to become very long.

[Leav]

Official word says that Israeli teams will only get this at the kickoff.....

This should help you on the speculating side I guess... It can't be that critical to send it out early if the ~40 teams here don't et it till the kickoff...

-Leav

[neutrino15]

Originally Posted by 987HighRoller

I think this will take the place of the radios.

I doubt it.. IR needs a line of sight connection.

Originally Posted by Stuart

Im guessing this will be used as a way for the robot to communicate with the field(2way) or for the robots to communicate with each other(again 2way).

Hmm.. It would be cool, but why couldn't you just yell at the driver next to you? If this was in autonomous, it would be cool.. The only trouble I see with 2 way communication is that either a) teams would interfere with one another and b) teams could jam each-other's signal. I say 1way communication with the field. (field transmitting)

[JohnBoucher]

Random active goals on the field?

[Richard McClellan]

Wow, what a crazy game hint. I'm the alternate contact and shipping contact for 2158, and I didn't get any official email from FIRST I think I'll be checking my mail all day on Monday though to see if I get anything in my mailbox

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by JBotAlan

-This isn't going on the robot. The speak of powering it from a bench supply or AA batteries proves that.

Remember, there's 300+ teams out there without a robot yet - if they're going to make this thing "learn", they have to connect it to an external power source.

Originally Posted by PhilBot

It's also interesting that the unit has to be set up to "Learn" the codes that it's meant to respond to.... Do they really trust all the teams to "teach" their board the correct codes ???? Sure ... that'll happen.

Did they really expect all the teams to program the CMU camera?

[skimoose]

Originally Posted by ChrisH

There were also a lot of "noise" issues. IR reflecting of of the field endwalls confused a lot of robots that did get sensors working. I seem to recall our robot tracking a brick wall once. Actually I think we were using an EduBot for a test bed at that point. An auto focusing video camera could interfere as well.

I think the use of coding is intended to help reduce inadvertent interference like that from the video cameras. But that still doesn't deal with reflections and an object does not have to be shinny to be a good IR reflector. The only way to prevent reflections from being an issue is to not give those photons anything to hit.

Oh Yeah! I remember 2004, my first year mentoring with FRC. The IR beacons weren't hard to build, the problem was reflected light. The beacon reflected off classroom walls, linolium tile, even the black curtains of the school's stage. The receiver had an auto gain adjustment circuit, but anytime the robot got within 10 feet the circuit was unable to compensate for the IR intensity and the robot was lost.

As far as this little baby's use for this year. First, the operating voltage range is 7-15 VDC. Its definitely an onboard robot device. 7.2 volts = backup battery supply just like CMU and servos, but can also operate at 12 volts just fine so it can be used off main battery source. Also, since FIRST is giving specific idle and in-use power consumption data, this is for your power budget folks! A benchtop power supply isn't going to worry about consumption much. My vote is onboard robot and connected to backup battery circuit, and you'd better watch power consumption especially if this is being used with a CMU and/or servo pan/tilt mechanisms.

The device can receive four different signals, and has an input acceptance angle of +/-30-40 degrees. This is important! Also, the further off axis the sensor is the weaker the signal will be. Will this employ a reliability threshold like the CMU does?

I suspect this could be used for navigation purposes, probably in autonomous. If a device like this were mounted on a pan/tilt a robot could sweep the sensor around and pick up four discrete signals from the playing field, and using servo feedback, could navigate with some reasonable reliability other than the reflection issues. Another possibility, might not be navigation due to the IR reflectivity noted above, but simply to allow the robot to decide on which field orientation it should face. Four input signals = two endzones + two sidelines. Perhaps robot orientation has something to due with scoring or where to score the most points?

Time to mull this over some more....

[colin340]

Originally Posted by neutrino15

I doubt it.. IR needs a line of sight connection.

i think first will take advantage of this some how
so you have to get right up to the goal ??

[colin340]

and doesn't this mean no more ir flash on cameras
if you ever staffed a fll comp you know what i mean

[Bongle]

Originally Posted by colin340

and doesn't this mean no more ir flash on cameras
if you ever staffed a fll comp you know what i mean

The thing receives a coded series of blinks from an IR emitter. It isn't a simple on/off detector like the 2004 sensors. For the same reason your TV doesn't change channels if you take a picture of it, this will not care if someone makes an IR emission it is not trained to recognize.