Einstein Field issues Handled correctly?

[superbotman]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

I think only the field and game elements are pristine, and the electronics have been used at other events.

I don't know for certain, but Einstein is a complete field and as far as I know they use that field in its entirety for those matches.

[Coach Tom]

Originally Posted by superbotman

I don't know for certain, but Einstein is a complete field and as far as I know they use that field in its entirety for those matches.

Was the same system used on Einstein last year (Logomotion)? If I remember correctly, during the last two matches of Logomotion a RED Alliance robot worked in autonomous and then did not work at all during driver control. Was this a robot problem?

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

I think only the field and game elements are pristine, and the electronics have been used at other events.

Bill has always implied that the emergency field in Kentucky (?) or Tennessee (?) was a total emergency field in case something ever happened to another one; otherwise it was just for Einstein. However, I would consider an electronics system that was in use for a few events to be more solid than an untested one... at least we know where and when it has and hasn't worked before.

I imagine/blindly put faith into the idea of it will be an awkward topic of discussion in a blog post from the director.

Also, while I will congratulate the teams that have one (and they do deserve it) I believe it's just as important, if not more, we solve the issues relative to the complex and mentally/emotionally taxing 4-year-old communication system.

[Kit Gerhart]

Originally Posted by efoote868

The field issues seemed to be just with the red alliance..

We were on the blue side and died for an extended period of time in one match on Einstein, and briefly in others. At least one of our partners died for a time, and had glitches. We had no such problems on the Curie field. Regarding who "should have won," we'll never know for sure, but if played on a properly working field, it is quite possible that the Canadians would have beaten us, and we never would have made it to the finals.

As far as solutions, this year is done, but for next year....

1) One of the division fields could be used as Einstein for the "superfinals." It would have been well-tested after running over 150 matches. To my knowledge, we had no field-related issues on the Curie field during 3 days of play. If i'm wrong on that, please correct me.

2) Teams could play most of their matches on their "home" field, but be rotated through the Einstein field as was done at Disney, and maybe since then. That way, the field would be well tested, and presumably fixed, if there were problems.

[Azores]

"Dear FRC Teams:

Thank you for your incredible enthusiasm and Gracious Professionalism throughout the year and at the Championship.

We apologize for the technical problems that affected the final matches at our Championship. We will examine all of the facts, report our findings and ultimately solve any and all identified issues.

Sincerely,
Jon Dudas
President, FIRST "

Just received this, posting it here in case anyone doesn't receive it.

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by Kit Gerhart

2) Teams could play most of their matches on their "home" field, but be rotated through the Einstein field as was done at Disney, and maybe since then. That way, the field would be well tested, and presumably fixed, if there were problems.

As much as everyone would like Einstein to be in "pristine" condition, I think this is a good solution moving forward. It doesn't change the format of play at the end, and it has a very good chance of working out field issues (and if the FMS needs to be updated/replaced, we'll have ample warning).

[artK]

For those complaining that Einstein's prettiness would be lost in test matching before finals, They could use used electronics and virgin game components. They are separable, Our team uses the game components without all the electronics (like score counters and displays from the walls of the station). It's not like you can tell whether electronics have been used before.

[Sean Raia]

I'm a bit worried that many people are writing this off as an "oh its cause they didn't test Einstein" issue. Really? Did you hear about 1717's issues in their division?

The problem here is deeper. These issues persist on many FRC fields and this needs to change.
Ultimately the firmware and hardware we are given by FIRST needs to be built tougher and respond more reliably.

Everyone contributes far too much money and time to be met with faulty reliability on FIRSTs end.

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by Sean Raia

I'm a bit worried that many people are writing this off as a "oh its cause they didn't test Einstein" issue. Really? Did you hear about 1717's issues?

The problem here is deeper. These issues persist on many FRC fields and this needs to change.
Ultimately the firmware and hardware we are given by FIRST needs to be built tougher and respond more reliably.

Everyone contributes far too much money and time to be met with faulty reliability on FIRSTs end.

You are correct. The issues on Einstein were just more visible. Issues have been ongoing all season at multiple venues.

I'm not entirely sure that all the problems are firmware and hardware provided by FIRST. In some cases teams did have some influence over the issues. Not that teams didn't expend absolutely every effort to work out their issues when they had the tools to find them.

However, I am entirely sure that FIRST needs to work on the troubleshooting process. Not merely for Einstein but competition wide. FIRST needs tools to solve these problems or no matter the brilliance of everyone involved the deadlines will be a disaster.

[sgreco]

Originally Posted by Sean Raia

I'm a bit worried that many people are writing this off as a "oh its cause they didn't test Einstein" issue. Really? Did you hear about 1717's issues?

The problem here is deeper. These issues persist on many FRC fields and this needs to change.
Ultimately the firmware and hardware we are given by FIRST needs to be built tougher and respond more reliably.

Everyone contributes far too much money and time to be met with faulty reliability on FIRSTs end.

This.

100% correct. These problems were occurring on other fields, at other competitions, and other years with this control system. Something needs to be done about the system, not the implementation. The system they have is the problem, not specifically how they went about handling Einstein (though that could have been improved too, it's not the root of the problem).

[steverk]

Originally Posted by Sean Raia

I'm a bit worried that many people are writing this off as an "oh its cause they didn't test Einstein" issue. Really? Did you hear about 1717's issues in their division?

The problem here is deeper. These issues persist on many FRC fields and this needs to change.
Ultimately the firmware and hardware we are given by FIRST needs to be built tougher and respond more reliably.

I agree! There were problems all season and I've heard reports of problems on all of the fields at CMP. However, the problems were worse on Einstein.

So what is different about Einstein that might explain things?

A few have been identified. More spectators means more texting, wifi, etc. The field was untested. The spectacle was greater with more lights, etc. The storm rolled in.

One wayt to troubleshoot is to take a list and add anything else that you can think of and then eliminate them one at a time. I'm sure each of us have our favorite theory of what was the cause.

Just to plug for mine, the problem appears to be intermittent, tends to affect teams with lots of comms back and forth to their staion, and tends to happen during elims when the fans are paying attention and using their cell phones and wifi tethering a lot. Therefore, I think it is radio interference from a combination of sources. If that is correct, then this is going to be very hard to pin down concretely, but realtively easy to fix. A different radio or frequency could fix the problem.

[thefro526]

I believe I may have a relatively Simple Solution to prevent such an issue from happening again* - well actually two ideas on the same train of thought.

What if we were to Give each Alliance an Introduction Match on Einstein? When an Alliance is sent to Einstein, they make it a point to introduce them either via Video or by having them walk onto the field. Why not give each alliance the field for 2 minutes and 15 seconds and tell them 'Show 'em what you've got.' This serves a variety of purposes:

-Each Alliance Has what's essentially an uninterrupted Practice Match on Einstein. They can check Camera Calibration, Code, Tweaks, Communications, etc. If each robot runs during this intro match, you've now ruled out a bunch of machine issues from causing a robot to sit dead.

-These intro matches are going to be AWESOME for spectators. Imagine 2056, 1114 and 4334 on the field, uninterrupted driving the score up. It would be an EPIC sight. This gives everyone watching a good chance to get a feel for who's going to be playing on Einstein.

Or, Why not play Division Finals On Einstein? Basically, we'd be turning Einstein into a Full Elims Bracket with the Division Finals now serving as the Einstein Quarters.

Originally Posted by Kit Gerhart

1) One of the division fields could be used as Einstein for the "superfinals." It would have been well-tested after running over 150 matches. To my knowledge, we had no field-related issues on the Curie field during 3 days of play. If i'm wrong on that, please correct me.

Kit, I believe you are correct. As far as I am aware, the only team that had multiple issues with their robot not running on the field was 971, and the issue was on their end IIRC.

78's Dying in Final 1 was due to the radio coming unplugged.

*The real solution to all of this is to make a 100% reliable field, but that's been covered enough here.

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by thefro526

I believe I may have a relatively Simple Solution to prevent such an issue from happening again* - well actually two ideas on the same train of thought.

What if we were to Give each Alliance an Introduction Match on Einstein? When an Alliance is sent to Einstein, they make it a point to introduce them either via Video or by having them walk onto the field. Why not give each alliance the field for 2 minutes and 15 seconds and tell them 'Show 'em what you've got.' This serves a variety of purposes:

-Each Alliance Has what's essentially an uninterrupted Practice Match on Einstein. They can check Camera Calibration, Code, Tweaks, Communications, etc. If each robot runs during this intro match, you've now ruled out a bunch of machine issues from causing a robot to sit dead.

-These intro matches are going to be AWESOME for spectators. Imagine 2056, 1114 and 4334 on the field, uninterrupted driving the score up. It would be an EPIC sight. This gives everyone watching a good chance to get a feel for who's going to be playing on Einstein.

Or, Why not play Division Finals On Einstein? Basically, we'd be turning Einstein into a Full Elims Bracket with the Division Finals now serving as the Einstein Quarters.



[/i]

I really like this idea. The full bracket would take some time, but the practice matches would be good pumping for the crowds and I would love to see all alliances and what they are capable of before the matches start.

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by thefro526

What if we were to Give each Alliance an Introduction Match on Einstein? Why not give each alliance the field for 2 minutes and 15 seconds and tell them 'Show 'em what you've got.' This serves a variety of purposes:

-Each Alliance Has what's essentially an uninterrupted Practice Match on Einstein. They can check Camera Calibration, Code, Tweaks, Communications, etc. If each robot runs during this intro match, you've now ruled out a bunch of machine issues from causing a robot to sit dead.
-These intro matches are going to be AWESOME for spectators. Imagine 2056, 1114 and 4334 on the field, uninterrupted driving the score up. It would be an EPIC sight. This gives everyone watching a good chance to get a feel for who's going to be playing on Einstein.

So like a complete exhibition match where teams can go in guns blazing? I would LOVE to watch that. Maybe even throw in a 2v2 of all of the #1 seeds. ACvs.GN

[Nuttyman54]

I would like to start off by congratulating 180, 25 and 16 on their win and performance, it was an absolutely awesome alliance to behold.

Regarding the handling of Einstein...I felt like there may have been a better way to handle it, but I don't have a solution for how to do it better, other than to give more time to the field crew by running awards consecutively, and possibly not to crown a champion. I do understand, however, that there were very limited options. I understand it's supposed to be a "show", but honestly, proceeding with a tournament which is obviously flawed is a pretty bad show. Ultimately, however, there was no good solution. Everyone lost on Einstein because it was impossible to play fair matches. I hold the utmost respect and trust for the veteran crew that was running Einstein, and I believe they did everything in their power to fix it, but at that point things were moving too fast and the problem was too far out of their hands to reasonably do anything else. The decision was made to move on, and I know everyone on the field at the time understood the implications of that decision.

The problem with admitting that there is a serious issue that cannot be resolved is that it throws doubt on the entire season. These problems have been happening since week 1, and to admit on Einstein that the issues were not, in fact, able to be fixed by teams means that everyone who experience this issue at some point during the season would feel cheated.

The problem with proceeding with play is that people will forever question the legitimacy. There is no doubt in my mind that all 4 of the alliances on Einstein had a legitimate shot at the championship, and they all exhibited phenomenal play throughout their divisions. While the outcome may have been the same, I think everyone including the teams on the field will agree that Einstein was decided by the system issues, not by the alliances' play, and that is a real shame.

Ultimately, the solution is for FIRST not to ignore the problems like this when they first start cropping up, and make a concentrated effort to diagnose and resolve them as soon as possible, instead of proceeding with the status quo that anything which can't be diagnosed from the field must be a robot problem. This was not an isolated incident, it was a widespread problem. Enough so that I predicted on Thursday (and several people can quote me as such) that every single finals matchup played would have a dead robot during at least part of it. I don't know if it came entirely true, but the fact that I was right for Archimedes, Curie (I heard Newton had a dead 68 as well, but I didn't personally witness it) and Einstein means that something is very very wrong. That doesn't even count other dead robots during quarters and semis like 330 and 1717.

I would never EVER wish for this to happen to a team, but at the very least, FIRST is now recognizing that they need to take a much closer look at the system. I expect this problem will not happen next year.

The last point I want to make is similar to what Kevin Sevcik said earlier. This may or may not be a "field" problem, and it may or may not be a "robot" problem, but it is very definitely and obviously something which many many top teams and engineers have not been able to diagnose and do not have the ability to fix. There is a problem with the control system and it is something the teams do not currently have any way to prevent from happening, because nobody can tell them how to fix it. This, to me, is inexcusable. I don't care if FMS says everything is working fine, if the best teams in FRC are having that many problems and NOBODY can tell them why, you can't just tell the teams "tough, it's not our end so it has to be yours". I mean no slight to the FTA's, they were just following protocol and doing their best job to diagnose things on the fly. I mean in the sense that FIRST has not publicly expressed any concern or attempt to resolve the problems. If they had been, I really wish they had been public about it.

I know NI has been looking at reports of these issues throughout the season and trying to root out the problem, but I haven't heard what their theories are and if there's any known solution. Likewise, I don't know if their investigation was prompted internally after seeing it at events, or by FIRST.

TL;DR, FIRST needed to be more transparent and proactive about addressing the issues throughout the season. It was apparent to many people that there was a serious problem, but by the time it surfaced on Einstein, there was no good solution.

Originally Posted by Kit Gerhart

1) One of the division fields could be used as Einstein for the "superfinals." It would have been well-tested after running over 150 matches. To my knowledge, we had no field-related issues on the Curie field during 3 days of play. If i'm wrong on that, please correct me.

Originally Posted by thefro526

Kit, I believe you are correct. As far as I am aware, the only team that had multiple issues with their robot not running on the field was 971, and the issue was on their end IIRC.

971 experience the same symptoms as exhibited on Einstein during several of our matches on Curie, and we were unable to diagnose the issue, just like everyone else. I'm not particularly familiar with the control system so I can't share many details, but we never determined the root cause of the problem. It may or may not be the same as what other teams experienced. Saying the issues was "on our end" is the same thing teams have been told all season. "Our end" doesn't mean "our fault" or that we had the ability to fix it. We worked in our quarterfinals matches, but we don't know why.

78 also died in F1, but I can't speak to the cause either.