Einstein Field issues Handled correctly?

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by avanboekel

Okay, somethings wrong here. In the last 4+ hours since championships have been over, there have been 14 posts in the 'congrats 16, 26 and 180' thread. There have been hundreds complaining about the field issues. Whether you like it or not, they are the FIRST World Champions. It isnt their faults that there was a problem with the field. Their achievements are just as important as field issues. I suggest that everyone heads over to the thread to congratulate them.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...hreadid=106040

I agree. These communications problems are not new. They've persisted through out all levels of competition to this point.

As I've stated elsewhere when Team 11 had issues 3 times in Philly. I didn't feel that it dramatically effected our placement based on what we saw when we competed entirely free of issues at other events. By a turn of events we went to Championships anyway.

Sure there's room to argue the point. However, as long as the people are effected fairly randomly let's not forget that these folks built some really phenominal robots and we all played the same game.

Chance is always an element. Be it a bizarre unexpected balance, a sudden broken part or even a software failure. Sometimes the chance is a spectacular show and sometimes not.

As far as how FIRST handled this? Troubleshooting of this type has been limited to the events. Everything else, like this survey, is generally a collection of anecdotal evidence. I expressed my concerns about field communications before this year's first event (based on our off-season experience at Monty Madness last year...see the topic about alternate control systems) and I expressed my concerns about how the troubleshooting was pushed back generally at all events in the 2 recent years with this radio system in the other topic. I myself was spare parts at the MAR Mount Olive events and we had a few issues with this problem and despite much effort to track the only thing that helped them was driving with the camera off and hence mostly at a disadvantage. The situation was put on this path by FIRST and people close to FIRST. This was the risk at every event and every event had the same problem not just the Championship. I presume that FIRST had figured they had this problem well under control when they started Championship given the pattern of the behavior. Perhaps FIRST just felt it fair not to eliminate the problem now that it had already messed with all the events up to that point...but they did allow some replays which is inconsistent (perhaps the story changed under the hot lights). Things apparently did not work out. I saw the look on everyone's face. They don't need this topic to tell them this can not be allowed to happen again....we need quantifiable evidence not anecotes and we need it when the problems happen not after the fact when things are all apart or it's just speculative no matter who's speculating really. We as teams can't test on their competition fields; both because we don't have access to them all the time and because often the rules prohibit the effort during competition matches.

I'm sure it'll get fixed it's hard to ignore it's a priority under the circumstances.

[EricH]

What I would do with the Einstein field is to run it in a Week 0 event before putting it into storage. It won't be as pristine, but you get a chance to clean it up before the big show, and you know that it worked (or didn't) when you put it in the trailer. I'd rather have it working and slightly ugly than pretty and not working.

[arizonafoxx]

Originally Posted by EricH

What I would do with the Einstein field is to run it in a Week 0 event before putting it into storage. It won't be as pristine, but you get a chance to clean it up before the big show, and you know that it worked (or didn't) when you put it in the trailer. I'd rather have it working and slightly ugly than pretty and not working.

Another idea relating to this. Take the electronics from the most reliable field. AKA has the least comm failures throughout all the regionals. But take the carpet game pieces and field elements from the backup field. Then you have the best comms with the best looking field. The backup electronics could be used at MAR or another state district to get them ready for CMPs. Maybe not the best solution for the backup electronics but it better than them being tested at CMPs on Einstein.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by EricH

What I would do with the Einstein field is to run it in a Week 0 event before putting it into storage. It won't be as pristine, but you get a chance to clean it up before the big show, and you know that it worked (or didn't) when you put it in the trailer. I'd rather have it working and slightly ugly than pretty and not working.

We would all also love Einstein with maybe a few short speeches.

Also, I will state one more thing before I turn off for tonight.
I came into FRC as a freshman. You know what my first memory of a regional was? Not starting play until the afternoon in 09 because the field was bugging out. You know the thing a remember most vividly in 2010 outside of our ludicrous finalist bid and the case of the missing in-game piece? Standing in queue for 45 minutes in VA while we dealt with field issues. 2011? Watching a robot get pulled off because of communication issues the field was experiencing (the station where the team was located had problems all afternoon with a variety of robots). 2012? Almost losing in the semifinals because the robots would lose communication midmatch and we would reboot midgame to stand a chance.

I know chance is a factor in everything, but when I pick up a remote, I don't plan on blowing up my TV. The chance of that happening is severely mitigated by evolved technology.

[philso]

The radios use a spread spectrum technique for transmitting the data at the most fundamental level. Various techniques are used to enhance the data throughput from what is achieved in the 802.11a,b,g to get the 802.11n data rates.

One of the benefits of using spread-spectrum techniques is the very high noise immunity giving a highly reliable connection. More reliable than narrow band transmission techniques. Instead of transmitting a signal over a narrow bandwidth, the information is spread over a very wide bandwidth, at a relatively low amplitude. The receiver de-spreads the received signal, restoring the original narrow bandwidth and high amplitude. Narrow-band interference sources (radar, noisy electrical equipment) would be squashed in amplitude and spread over a wide bandwidth by the de-spreading process in the receiver and the majority of the noise energy can be filtered out very simply. That is one of the reasons why this technique was used by military radios for many years before the ISM band was made available for civilian use.

Due to how the spread-spectrum transmission technique works, it is difficult to believe that only one or two channels can be corrupted for a whole match by a narrow bandwith, short duration transmission like the weather radars or wideband weather phenomena such as lightning. They ought to affect all channels in a similar way, simultaneously or not at all. The only way I can think of to adversely affect a single channel would be to jam it using a spread-spectrum transmitter set to the appropriate channel. Either FIRST missed some signal source when setting up the fields or someone was intentionally jamming. If find the latter hard to believe.

The radios are a consumer grade item but their design would have been tested very thoroughly by the manufacturer and their other customers. I would imagine that the teams experiencing trouble would have been able to check for connection before each match or they would have raised a concern and not allowed the match to start.

This leads me to ask if the FMS software that manages the robots through the 802.11n link may have some bugs in it. I am sure that the developers of this software would have tested it to the best of their abilities. However, there can be issues and conditions that only show up with certain combinations of hardware and other software. The FMS software would have far fewer users and instances of use, overall, than even low-volume commercial software so obscure bugs can be very difficult to trouble shoot and would probably require tools not available to the FTA at a competition. Perhaps the developers should visit one of the upcoming off-season events and bring all their tools and toys. That is what our engineers at work do when a customer experiences unusual behaviour that the Field Service people cannot fix.

At Alamo, one of the robots in the alliance opposing ours was immobile for the whole match leading to the match being replayed. If my memory serves me correctly, it was announced that 148 had become indicated as a no-show so their channel was shut down, rendering them immobile for the duration of the match. I have no way of knowing if our (148's) experience is at all related to what was seen at the CMP but the symptoms look similar. By the way, one of the other teams did all the scoring and handily beat our alliance single-handed

[Chickenonastick]

Did the thunderstorms supposedly start around the same time as the beginning of Einstein?

[EricH]

One other thing that I'd like to say.

Einstein this year was a minor speedbump compared to another event a couple years back. Admittedly, said event had a number of factors besides the field issues complicating things.

I would not say that we've had nothing but problems since switching the control systems/wireless. However, I will say that field connection problems seem to have become more prevalent, and if this continues to be an issue, I expect that FRC HQ will be under significant participant pressure to change something with the system. Whether it's the FMS (which was mostly reliable the last couple of years), or a "Not my system" attitude held by both teams and field crew on occasion, or the routers on the robots, something needs to be made more reliable.

With the IFI system, they could tell right away whether it was the field or your robot, and if it was your robot they'd help you find and fix the problem. I haven't seen that type of full-system support the last few years--maybe because it's a multiple-manufacturer system. The system as it is is pretty good... but with this public of an issue, it could use some improvement.

[mcdura207]

Originally Posted by avanboekel

Okay, somethings wrong here. In the last 4+ hours since championships have been over, there have been 14 posts in the 'congrats 16, 26 and 180' thread. There have been hundreds complaining about the field issues. Whether you like it or not, they are the FIRST World Champions. It isnt their faults that there was a problem with the field. Their achievements are just as important as field issues. I suggest that everyone heads over to the thread to congratulate them.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...hreadid=106040

and you know if you compare the teams side by side with stats and hard evidence it is apparent who the real world champs should be.

[Tim Reddersen]

"This is where gracious professionalism comes into play." Quote from my son Daniel, one of the drive team members of 2194 Fondy Fire. I have no doubt that the FIRST organization will handle this well. I saw Dean Kamen squatting by the field, looking at things, with concern written all over his face. And I am very gratified to see that the posts here on Chief Delphi are so supportive. You are all awesome and we are still happy beyond words to have been the first Wisconsin team to make it to Einstein. Our most sincere thanks to our Alliance members 548 Robostang and 118 Robonauts.

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by Tim Reddersen

Our most sincere thanks to our Alliance members 548 Robostang and 118 Robonauts.

Congratulations from one of the Newton finalists!

I am in a minority that think the issues were handled correctly, and in accordance with current FIRST policies. After the first two matches, they did exactly the right thing (and somewhat outside precedent) with replaying them. The next matches, there were scattered problems, but in accordance with what is de-facto policy, they did not replay or cancel them. They did not move to Galileo because it was already torn down. They did not crown twelve teams Champions, because to do that would be to admit defeat completely and utterly. FIRST never does that. It appeared that the issues were fixed when 4334 began working.

Sidenote: We were one of the backup bots for the Newton Division, so our drivers were back behind Einstein if anyone has an questions about what was actually going on. We all know the saying about assumptions.

In the first finals match, it didn't appear from my position in the pit next to Einstein by the VIP section that there were any field issues. It is clear that there were in the second match, but we have to think about the enormous pressure here. Was the decision deferred to the head ref? Did Dean Kamen make the call himself? Everyone is talking about how rustled they looked, and I can attest, Woody looked somewhat put out when he was reading the awards. Dean looked nervous and taut while standing next to the field. There is a human element here, and the stress and pressure of deciding a world champion is enormous.

Regardless, if the FTAs could detect no problem with the field, then they made the correct call in not replaying the match. It follows all precedent. I covered the reasoning in not declaring all teams World Champions above. That isn't to say that the field issues on Einstein were disgraceful.

The issue was not with how the problems were handled. They were with the field/control system. It means that there are quite a few things that need to be greatly looked at, and fixed before next year:

• There have been many high profile cases of very high tier teams being unable to connect to the field (118 and 1676 among others). This needs to be fixed by next year, especially the fact that some fields were able to be connected to and others not.
• Einstein needs to be tested. It is supposed to be the best field in all the land, and if there are problems on it, it becomes a massive debacle (ie, this thread). Someone suggested running a practice match on it with divisional quarterfinalists first. This would diminish the 'virginity' of the field, as well as reduce the value of "being on einstein". I suggest that the GDC brings the 6 bots they build to test the game when they're making it and run the tests that way, being careful not to scuff anything. They can do it quietly whenever they please, maybe Wednesday night.
• The idea of Einstein needs to be reexamined. It seems somewhat stupid to put all your hopes on an untested field. Why not play the finals match on the field of whichever division won last year?

I think we need to thank all the Einstein teams for remaining Gracious and Professional, role models for the whole community.

[Katie_UPS]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

The idea of Einstein needs to be reexamined. It seems somewhat stupid to put all your hopes on an untested field. Why not play the finals match on the field of whichever division won last year?

My friend and I examined solutions on the 6 hour ride home:

-Putting the finals on an existing field poses the logistical problem of seats. The teams on Archimedes (if that were the chose field) would have the advantage over every other division when it comes to getting good seats for "Einstein". Also, how would FIRST block off seats for the Einstein teams? You can't block those out for all of Saturday if they're in the middle of a division's block of seats, and you can't really kick teams out of those seats in time for "Einstein".

-Moving fields during awards (after the issue was noted) is a logistical nightmare. The podium, cannons, judges seats, student rep seats, etc are all set up to be where they are, and you can't just move that in a quick and organized fashion. Not to mention stampedes of people trying to move seats.

Anything else we've said has been mentioned and scrutinized already.

[sgreco]

Originally Posted by Katie_UPS

-Moving fields during awards (after the issue was noted) is a logistical nightmare. The podium, cannons, judges seats, student rep seats, etc are all set up to be where they are, and you can't just move that in a quick and organized fashion.

I see your point, but nobody wanted to see what was going on anyway with robots not moving, and basically illegitimate eliminations on Einstein. They could have finished the awards while the teams move, then transfer to Galileo once they didn't need the podium anymore. At this point, who cares if every spectator was able to get a good seat? It's better to have legitimate elimination rounds then to have everybody disappointed watching illegitimate ones.

Also, I'm not sure how the screens worked, but it was probably reasonably easy to get a feed from another field displayed on the screen at Einstein. That way, not everyone has to move.

[Katie_UPS]

Originally Posted by sgreco

I see your point, but nobody wanted to see what was going on anyway with robots not moving, and basically illegitimate eliminations on Einstein. They could have finished the awards while the teams move, then transfer to Galileo once they didn't need the podium anymore. At this point, who cares if every spectator was able to get a good seat? It's better to have legitimate elimination rounds then to have everybody disappointed watching illegitimate ones.

Also, I'm not sure how the screens worked, but it was probably reasonably easy to get a feed from another field displayed on the screen at Einstein. That way, not everyone has to move.

I don't want to get in a back and forth, so this will be my last post (and we can PM if you'd like to continue conversation).

Finishing awards while teams move: drive teams? teams in the stands? That's pretty disrespectful to the teams winning awards and the speakers presenting them. No one feels too great about themselves when they're talking/being presented and the audience is too preoccupied with something else.

And teams not moving but the matches moving? You can't stop people from moving and I'm pretty certain 80% of the FIRSTers I know would want to move to actually see the robots.

I'm not saying I'm glad things turned out the way they did. I couldn't quite get excited about Einstein after the issues weren't fixed. I'm just saying that FIRST didn't have too many options and had legitimate reasons for not switching fields.

However, I wouldn't mind them presenting all the awards while field crews and FTAs switched all the FMS components of the fields (have one crew gut Einstein's FMS and another gut the most reliable field and then swap). I would gladly take a delay of any time span to fix the problem (and I'm sure you're thinking "well then we can just switch fields", but that's a hairier mess, in my opinion, than switching field elements).

[sgreco]

Originally Posted by Katie_UPS

I don't want to get in a back and forth, so this will be my last post (and we can PM if you'd like to continue conversation).

Finishing awards while teams move: drive teams? teams in the stands? That's pretty disrespectful to the teams winning awards and the speakers presenting them. No one feels too great about themselves when they're talking/being presented and the audience is too preoccupied with something else.

And teams not moving but the matches moving? You can't stop people from moving and I'm pretty certain 80% of the FIRSTers I know would want to move to actually see the robots.

I'm not saying I'm glad things turned out the way they did. I couldn't quite get excited about Einstein after the issues weren't fixed. I'm just saying that FIRST didn't have too many options and had legitimate reasons for not switching fields.

However, I wouldn't mind them presenting all the awards while field crews and FTAs switched all the FMS components of the fields (have one crew gut Einstein's FMS and another gut the most reliable field and then swap). I would gladly take a delay of any time span to fix the problem (and I'm sure you're thinking "well then we can just switch fields", but that's a hairier mess, in my opinion, than switching field elements).

This'll be my last post about it too. I meant just move the drive teams, robots, refs, field crew etc and keep the crowd where they are until awards are given out. Then when they're done with the podium and the presentation, let people move. It would present some logistical issues with everyone moving at once, but I feel it would have been better than having illegitimate matches played on Einstein. People have enough class that if you told them to wait before they move, they'll wait. Then you put it on the jumbo-tron in case not everyone got a seat at the new location.

[Gary Dillard]

I wasn’t sure which thread to post this in, but I figured this was the most appropriate. For those who don’t know, I was a mentor with SPAM from their rookie season until 2006 and I was on stage in Einstein with them this weekend. Three of the current mentors on the team were students on the team when I was there, they have returned after college as professionals, and are shining examples of the best that FIRST has to offer. I am not going to say that I speak directly for them or any of our alliance, but I’d like to share some of my thoughts and emotions.
First, I think our sentiment is best summed up by the way Karthik and I greeted each other on stage at the end of the event. I said “We’re having kind of a tempered celebration” and he replied “I understand”. We would have replayed matches all night if necessary; when we were told we were replaying match 1, no one even batted an eye. We didn’t want to win this way, but it is what it is. We consider ourselves World Champions; we felt like we had an unbeatable alliance, but I’m sure the other division winners felt the same way. Although our celebration was somewhat muted, our loss of elation pales in comparison to what I’m sure the other division winners are feeling about what happened. After we lost the championship finals in the third match in 2002, I replayed that match over and over again in my head –if we had only done this or that we might have won. What are the Robonauts or the Pink team going to imagine that they might have done differently? My heart goes out to you.
As far as the OP’s question, I’d like to mention part of what the head ref Dr. Aidan Brown told the alliance captains before the final four started (as relayed to me by our team captain, so I’m not quoting and I don’t remember the exact words). He said this is a competition, but it is also a show. (He also told them to have fun). I fully understand this, and the show must go on, so some decisions for the benefit of FIRST and the ceremony had to be made at the expense of the competition. I think it was a lose – lose situation, and this was the best they could do. This could have been prevented long before Einstein, but that is a discussion for other threads which we have all been following all season. I saw one FTA in tears afterwards, and I know everyone involved was doing all they could. 10 years ago when we were on Einstein, it wasn’t part of the closing ceremonies; we just played in front of whoever was still there in the afternoon, and we could have replayed without much fanfare, and then the closing ceremonies were in the evening. When they switched to the current format, I thought it was fabulous and wished we could have had that experience in ’02. I still feel that way, so I guess this is the compromise we have to accept. Thankfully, a lot of the corporate leaders were at the division eliminations matches up close and got to experience the thrill of the competition, and hopefully their support will continue so that we can advance the mission of FIRST.
There were some discussions amongst the teams on stage about ways to make a public demonstration, including the winners declining to accept the championship and having all 12 teams go up as finalists. This discussion took place after the semi-finals and before the finals, so we didn’t know yet that we would be the winners (in fact, we knew we would be the red alliance and we were worried). I went back and forth on it, weighing the need for a statement versus the ramifications to FIRST. Our alliance wasn’t unanimous in what to do, so we decided to just accept the results and proceed as normal.
As far as having the teams go to IRI and play it off (and I haven’t talked to anyone on SPAM about this, but it’s just my 2 cents), if you’d like to write the $10,000 check to SPAM for them to travel, and cover the mentor’s lost wages for another 2-3 days missed at work, maybe they’ll be able to get the paperwork through the school system in the month they have remaining to allow an out of state / after school is out trip to take place. I’ve only been able to make to IRI once, when my daughter wanted to visit Purdue as a possible college and we made the trip coincide with IRI. The rest of the time I have a real job and a family that I like to spend time with and work to do around the house to catch up on from the 2-3 months I neglect it during build and competition season. Not that the team wouldn’t love to attend IRI (for all I know they already had it in this year’s plan and budget), but it doesn’t just happen on the spur of the moment.
Finally, thank you for the respectful and courteous way that this discussion has taken place; pretty much everyone has caveated their comments with “not taking away anything from 16,25,180”, etc., and that means a lot. FIRST is a big family and we‘ll get through this together.