[Official 2008 Game Design] New Technology Discussions

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by rocketperson44

Please do not get overzealous with the new system. As great as its new capabilities are, there are still many teams out there who have little to no programming resources. Things like virtually required robot-robot communication would kill off these teams. The abilities can be used, but don't have super-advanced programming as a requirement for success, for those teams like mine that exist largely as an extension of a high school shop class.

Actually, please don't put any limits on your ideas or creativity at this point. Brainstorm, innovate, and contemplate whatever ideas you might like to consider. We are very aware that not all teams will be able to contend with the implicit expertise requirements contained in many of the ideas. But for now, we don't want to stifle the thought exercise. Reality filters will be put in place later in the process.

-dave



.

[Cory]

My suggestion:

For 2009, don't do anything that relies on functions of the new controller--since they probably won't work right, out of the box.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by Cory

My suggestion:

For 2009, don't do anything that relies on functions of the new controller--since they probably won't work right, out of the box.

Echoed after recalling the bugs of years past. Edit: On second thought, I'll qualify my echo: Don't do anything that relies on the new controller's functions and can't be rigged up easily to work through more primitive means.

That said, suppose that teams could park a robot in a loading zone that loaded red and blue balls from a feeder (think Half-Pipe Hustle) in random order. (The refs would have this knowledge for sanity's sake.) Slightly lower in the loading zone would be a rejection bin for balls of the other alliance's color; teams would receive some benefit from depositing the rejects correctly and leaving with their own load.

I did enjoy seeing a drive-forward autonomous mode be successful this year. From what I've seen, years where that is a viable option (see also: Aim High) have been pretty good years for autonomous. Whatever the game is, I'd be happy to see that be a choice (though not necessarily the best choice).

Lastly, if you want to talk incentive for autonomous: Suppose the winner of the autonomous period (by whatever definition you prefer) got a five- or ten-second period at the end of the match to themselves (read: where the other alliance was disabled). Every single season of the autonomous era, such a boost would be a very interesting change in how the endgame was played.

[Chris_Elston]

Game Sensors:
Another new sensor that seems to be pretty popular.

Laser ranger finders.

DARPA uses these all the time. SICK brand seems to be the most popular. However with the rules of the part cost, this sensor cost more than the current 2008 rules allowed. However that was 2008, and this is 2009. :-)

[jtdowney]

Originally Posted by Chris_Elston

Game Sensors:
DARPA uses these all the time. SICK brand seems to be the most popular. However with the rules of the part cost, this sensor cost more than the current 2008 rules allowed. However that was 2008, and this is 2009. :-)

Laser range finders are definitely a cool idea but don't have to cost a lot. I could see a rookie team doing something like http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~twd25/w...er_ranger.html and besting veterans right out of the gate.