pic: Game hint

[Turtlecoach]

IR remotes work in buildings and arenas with Halogen lighting. One aspect is the sensitivity angle. Think of what happens when you are too far to the left or right of your TV when you go to change channels... nothing happens until you get in front of it. Other thing to remember is the signal is modulated on a 38kHz(?) carrier. Lights won't put that frequency out. So, the receiver is looking forward and not up and is modulated so the lighting shouldn't be an issue.

[Turtlecoach]

Originally Posted by ydnar90

Problems I can see:

If the sensor is on the robot:
field has transmitter
-can't have IR reflective material for the walls (multiple interfering signals)
-fairly expensive if its on game pieces that get destroyed
player has transmitter
-players transmitting at the same time interfere with each other
-2 teams with the same signal for different things can mess with each other

If the sensor is on the field:
Robot has transmitter
-need to be fairly accurate with the transmitter
-2 robots transmitting at the same time = nothing happens (interfere)
player has transmitter
-isn't there an easier way than IR, like just 4 buttons?

If the sensor is at the player station:
field has transmitter
-why use IR for this?
robot has transmitter
-robot can transmit data through the radio, why use IR?

This is what happens when you have too much time on your hands and you get hints like this. Here is what I've come up with...sorry about the length.

If: IR receiver is a Field Piece:

1) Robots will have emitters.
2) Robots will be activating something on the field (up to 4 events or 16 if matrixed)
a. FIRST will have to define what each output will do in game instructions.
b. Robot will need to be close-coupled (think right next to each other) with Field element to prevent other robots from interfering with task
c. Robots might be toggling goals on & off or changing goal colors (red or blue alliance). 1st robot turns goal on, 2nd robot scores ball, block, ring, etc… Goal then shuts down. This would require coordination between alliance members to enable, score and shut down goals. Only requires on/off output from IR receiver.
d. Goals may have combination locks on them that need to be decoded to open goal for scoring. Four bits is 16 combinations.
3) Why would FIRST bother with instructions on how to program a Field Element and send a bunch of them out to teams? If it is a field element, they will do the programming of the receiver not the teams

If: IR receiver is Robot Element:

1) Field will be controlling robot(s) in some way.
a. If Field is working with only one robot at a time in one area, robot will have to be close coupled with Field element to prevent instructions going to wrong robot. .
b. If Field is working globally, (simultaneous instructions to all), emitters will need to cover all areas of field completely. This would, and is done more easily and securely with RF.
c. Field may be enabling or disabling some function in robots at different times in match. Again more easily done with RF.
d. IR receiver might be “listening” to the goal to determine where a scoring element (ball, block, hoop, etc…) needs to be deposited. Individual goals might have four bins, the IR transmitter at the gate would instruct the robot which of the four bins the element needs to be dropped into. How well the robot fulfills the instruction will determine how many points you score.
2) Robots will be interfacing with each other.
a. Robots will have emitters.
b. FIRST would need to define what each output will do in game instructions to insure compatibility issues, otherwise you would need to put the outputs in a matrix to route the individual outputs to the desired function
c. IR receiver module will be reprogrammed at regionals to make them all compatible with other robots or field emitters. Need to overwrite the TV remote programming.
d. Programming instructions for tv remote controls is to check operation on the robot before regionals.

Conclusions – Educated guesses

1) Robots will more then likely have IR emitters. If the receiver is a Field Element then the robots would need to have emitters. If the robots are going to need to collaborate with each other via IR, they will also need to have emitters. If the Field is going to control the robots via IR, then and only then will the robots not need emitters. And since it would be much easier to control all robots via RF instead of IR, I don’t think that is the case. Therefore, I believe that the robots will all have IR emitters.
2) If FIRST is putting out formal instructions on how to program the IR receiver with your TV remote, this part is going to wind up on the robot. If it is a field device, again why would they go through the effort to write these instructions?
3) Robots will be working together to perform a task
4) Robots will be interfacing with the Field in some way more closely then ever in the past



Then again……………..It’s most likely something else

[T3_1565]

Originally Posted by Turtlecoach

If the Field is going to control the robots via IR, then and only then will the robots not need emitters. And since it would be much easier to control all robots via RF instead of IR, I don’t think that is the case.

I disagree with this.

The field does not need to "control" the robot at all, but "inform" the robot about something (ie. the colour of the goal, what piece this goal accepts, etc..) which is not so easily done through RF.

I believe this seems more like what will happen because the IR signals are jammed very easily (try programming a remote to your board, push a programmed button, and then push a button on a different control from about 10 feet away). This means that if the emitters move around the field, things will be jammed all the time.

It seems more logically (to me anyways) that the emitters will be fixed, so they cannot jam on another and each robot will have to have their IR board programmed to the signals (much like callobrating the camera last year to see that particular light in that building), so more than one robot can interact with the signal at the same time.

Just MHO

If the signals are fixed, as you suggest, there will be interference until you are fairly close unless you have something like a tube around the sensor to limit where it gets input from. +/- 40 degrees is quite a range for a signal to be received from, especially with the ability of materials to bounce a signal back into the field. The big problem with IR as a whole is anyone in the stands with a 38khz remote can mess with any robots that are facing toward the stands. I do agree that if emitters are on the field they will be fixed, but that limits it to probably 4 sensors unless there are walls on the field to stop stray IR.

[T3_1565]

Originally Posted by ydnar90

If the signals are fixed, as you suggest, there will be interference until you are fairly close unless you have something like a tube around the sensor to limit where it gets input from. +/- 40 degrees is quite a range for a signal to be received from, especially with the ability of materials to bounce a signal back into the field. The big problem with IR as a whole is anyone in the stands with a 38khz remote can mess with any robots that are facing toward the stands. I do agree that if emitters are on the field they will be fixed, but that limits it to probably 4 sensors unless there are walls on the field to stop stray IR.

well how many inputs can you have on the board??? 4!

and as for interference, you don't get a good signal to the recieves after about 20 feet max. and really how far are you going to be from the goal to want to know what it is saying, chances are you'll have to be up close

Material bounce may be a problem though.... lol...

And as long as the IR doesn't control the robot but just gives it signals, and FIRST takes into account outside interference, I'm still seeing fixed field emitters as the way to go!

[Donut]

Since we're concerned about potential interference, I'd like to ask teams who used IR back in 2004... were there problems of the two IR emitters in 2004 reflecting off of objects and interfering with each other? Or if you used another IR sensor (such as the Sharp range finders), did the IR emitters on field interfere with their operation?

If there weren't problems then, I don't see any reason to think there will be this year. Our team took the line following approach that year seeing as I did autonomous and was just beginning programming back then, so we didn't see how the IR was out on the field.

[Turtlecoach]

Originally Posted by T3_1565

I disagree with this.

The field does not need to "control" the robot at all, but "inform" the robot about something (ie. the colour of the goal, what piece this goal accepts, etc..) which is not so easily done through RF.

I believe this seems more like what will happen because the IR signals are jammed very easily (try programming a remote to your board, push a programmed button, and then push a button on a different control from about 10 feet away). This means that if the emitters move around the field, things will be jammed all the time.

It seems more logically (to me anyways) that the emitters will be fixed, so they cannot jam on another and each robot will have to have their IR board programmed to the signals (much like callobrating the camera last year to see that particular light in that building), so more than one robot can interact with the signal at the same time.

Just MHO

I agree with your statement that the field will 'inform' rather then 'control'. I also think we all need to step back away from the jigsaw puzzle piece and try to get a little perspective to see where we are all heading, and figure out what the big picture really is.

Look back over the last few years and see where FRC has been. 2003 - Stack attack, 2004 - Raising the bar, 2005 - Triple Play, 2006 - Aim high & 2007 Rack & Roll. NASA is very involved with FIRST not just because they are great guys and want to see us have a good time. They have definite engineering goals in mind and need answers to problems. How many students attended Atlanta last year? 10K from 23 countries. If I had an engineering company and needed a brainstorming group, ten thousand @ $0 / hr is quite a deal. These hints are to get the brainstorming sessions started so when the season officially starts with the announcement, everyone is already cranked up. I know I am

Where are we going...Mars, in the short term. The games from 2003,2004 & 2005 are constuction exercises (think foundations & building members), 2006 & 2007 were sample collection and storage. 2006 had us picking up uniform samples off the field and delivering them to recepticles with predefined ramps. 2007 had us picking up not so uniform samples and placing them on a multi-tier rack. Don't forget the undefined ramps either. All of these are baby steps to figure out how to get autonomous robots to go out on undefined terain, pickup samples and bring them back to return vehicles. Spirit & Opportunity need to sit and wait for commands from mission control to move the next few feet. NASA wants things to move faster.

Where is the game going this year? The next baby step. I wouldn't be supprised if the game name this year is, "Load um Up". I think that the game will be some sort of collection of samples based with a twist. Samples will be different sizes and will need to go into Field defined bins. Emitters will be in a short tube, as others have mentioned, for selectivity and immunity to outside interference, mounted next to the bins. Robot rolls up, receives info or knowledge from goal as to where the sample needs to be deposited, and acts accordingly. Points for depositing samples, extra points for putting it where the goal tells you, bonus points if you can do it autonomously.

Again...most likely wrong, but people do things for reasons, and companies and goverment agencies even more so. If you look at where you have come from you can often tell where you are going. Never forget the big picture.

[tajmorton]

Has anyone managed to download the firmware off the PIC yet? We tried to build a programmer for it (http://www.techfreakz.org/oldstuff/picb.html), but couldn't find any software that worked with the PIC that's on the board. Anyone have any recommendations of software programmers that work with easy to build HW programmers for the PIC16LF87-I/SO.

- Taj

But where do the opposing robots fit in to this interpretation of past games? Also, the place where you put the "samples" in rack n roll was not in an exact position, there was quite a range of positions that the spider legs could be in and a fairly close fit for the tubes on the rack. Its an interesting interpretation, only time will tell how accurate any of these speculations are.

[Doug G]

Ok it's taken me like 5 days to catch up with this post, whew... Here's my thoughts...

1. It's not going on the Field. If it were on the field what are 1500 teams going to use to interface with it on their practice fields? It would still require another controller and such to hook up to this board so it could actually do something like release an object or control a servo. Perhaps they will give us another circuit setup in the KOP, but I think that is a stretch.

2. It will be a part that can go on the robot that will give your robot more information about the field. I like the ideas folks have mentioned about each corner having an emitter.

3. Perhaps this a clue that we'll finally have an autonomous period at the end of a game. If each corner is emitting a unique IR signal, then robot could determine which way to go home for a bonus score or something.

4. It will be as optional to use as the camera has been the last few years. While as cool as this is, there will be many teams at a lost on how to efficiently interface this in their robot or game strategy.

[Bill Moore]

Originally Posted by ydnar90

Problems I can see:

If the sensor is on the robot:
field has transmitter
-can't have IR reflective material for the walls (multiple interfering signals)
-fairly expensive if its on game pieces that get destroyed
player has transmitter
-players transmitting at the same time interfere with each other
-2 teams with the same signal for different things can mess with each other

If the sensor is on the field:
Robot has transmitter
-need to be fairly accurate with the transmitter
-2 robots transmitting at the same time = nothing happens (interfere)
player has transmitter
-isn't there an easier way than IR, like just 4 buttons?

If the sensor is at the player station:
field has transmitter
-why use IR for this?
robot has transmitter
-robot can transmit data through the radio, why use IR?

If there is an end game autonomous, is it possible that both the transmitter and receiver are on the robot? The robot then would change programs during autonomous as they encounter objects on the field that block their path toward the cold cathode.

[Anamn3sis]

For anyone who hasn't received their board yet, here is a Hi-Res gallery if you want to inspect it: http://www.flickr.com/photos/9051550...7603516542645/

[Mr_I]

Forgive me for not having read 40 pages of comments yet, but I just got the IR receiver today (drat snow days!)

Could it be that alliance robots will have the ability do communicate with each other?

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Mr_I

Forgive me for not having read 40 pages of comments yet, but I just got the IR receiver today (drat snow days!)

Could it be that alliance robots will have the ability do communicate with each other?

While it is possible, I doubt thats what they will be used for. Each reciever can only interpret 4 IR signals and they are easily jammed. This makes for very limited and dodgy communications.

If they are on the robot (my belief) then most likely there will be 4 phases to the game and the field will emit the IR signals defining what phase it is in.

[emusteve]

So here's a new thought...
FIRST sends us a sensor with a hunk of pretty rainbow ribbon cable. Does this mean we can go back to sane wiring practices like using ribbon cable to wire our sensors, rather than being restricted to using big hunky 24awg or larger stuff? After all, they've been giving us 30awg PWM splitters all these years.

Steve