FRC...autonomous or driver-controlled competition?

[Greg Marra]

I would have liked to see more options for autonomous methods this year.

I know in the past FIRST has had lines on the field that properly equiped robots could follow; this would provide an alternative to encoder wheels. The camera provides another alternative.

It just seems that your options this year are pretty limited to capping the tetra you start with, knocking a hanging tetra, or capping the vision tetra. All that any of those do is score points you could have gotten in the regular round anyway (although the vision bonus tetras are nice).

It just seems to me that this autonomous mode seems pretty watered down compared to last year. I'd like to see completing an autonomous objective give your alliance a unique advantage that can't be gained in normal play. Something like capping a vision tetra means a second tetra is added to the auto-loading zones for the start of the game.

Autonomous mode should be about options, which unfortunantly adds complexity.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Greg Marra

It just seems that your options this year are pretty limited to capping the tetra you start with, knocking a hanging tetra, or capping the vision tetra. All that any of those do is score points you could have gotten in the regular round anyway (although the vision bonus tetras are nice).

You forgot grabbing tetras from the autoload stations and stacking them.

If you're very good (and very lucky), I think you can get 33 points in autonomous mode (plus another potential 10 at the end of the match for three-in-a-row across your home goals). I doubt anyone will come close to that, but 14 points (plus 10) doesn't seem out of line, and 20 (plus 10) isn't far-fetched. That's probably going to start you out with a good advantage.

That said, I see autonomous actions this year as being mostly prestige. I agree that they don't open up any options for playing the game differently.

[slickguy2007]

Okay I have a question for everyone and I figured I should probably use this thread first instead of starting a new one.... Anyways my question is can you run your autonomous program again during a match? If we have a way to play our autonomous program again using our controls, can we set up our robot again and play it back? I don't recall seeing any rules against this but probably (knowing my recent luck) I have probably missed it. Anyways thanxs for the help!!!


GO 1403!!!

[Andrew Blair]

Originally Posted by Greg Marra

I would have liked to see more options for autonomous methods this year.

I know in the past FIRST has had lines on the field that properly equiped robots could follow; this would provide an alternative to encoder wheels. The camera provides another alternative.

It just seems that your options this year are pretty limited to capping the tetra you start with, knocking a hanging tetra, or capping the vision tetra. All that any of those do is score points you could have gotten in the regular round anyway (although the vision bonus tetras are nice).

Autonomous mode should be about options, which unfortunantly adds complexity.

I agree with Greg. First autonomous should include more options to reach a common goal. These can be hidden to reduce complication, except for the personnel who have to regulate things such as IR sources. IR sources, lines, and color spots combined could allow for easier programming for rookie teams who can pick what they can program well, while keeping the interest of older teams who can use multiple sensors. Autonomous should be about variety and options. Thats how the real world works, right?

[Adam Y.]

I see a lot of posts here seeming to imply that students are not capable of designing (with mentor help), and programming a functional autonomous bot. I flatly disagree. Our robot doesn't do much during autonomous this year.. but that isn't because we couldn't get it to work. It was because we couldn't get it to work in the time we had: autonomous wasn't given enough of an emphasis.

In my opinion, it's just too much information if you try and design a autonomous robot. You are now trying to throw another subject on top of learning a computer language. Learning how to program and learning how to program a robot are two completely differnt areas.

Autonomous should be about variety and options. Thats how the real world works, right?

Well to be honest the real world doesn't cater to us like FIRST which would mean that there would be no infared or any disernable color blobs. Also, sensors are gaurenteed to have problems/fail. This situation actually happened last year with the infared reflecting all over the place. This question relates to the above quote. Is six weeks enough time to design and use the right sensors? I feel we would start approaching the informational limit for most high school students which I was taught to avoid as an engineer.

[Joe Ross]

Why is it that First Lego League robots are fully autonomous, and yet the students "graduate" to teleoperated robots?

(I think that point was brought up at kickoff).

[russell]

Good question... As a programmer I much prefer autonomous operation. In a few months I plan to write a white paper on an awesome project we are working on that would make it very simple and cheap to replace your RC with a PC running linux.

[KVermilion]

I think this would be a good idea, but working with a 5 week build season (stupid finals! ) it would require much more foresight and planning to get the robot cranked out with a week or more to actually get the programming down.

I'm actually quite surprised our robot has all the stuff we needed in the code, since the rc is very restrictive in space, and we had only a few days to pull it all together (but the sophomore(!) who took over the programming is in an advanced trig class and AP Phys' I was quite confident we/he could get it done in the time frame.)

Rombus, after our regional (Silicon Valley, March 24-26), contact me and I'll tip you off on our ace in the hole, you'll enjoy it.

[emusteve]

[quote=JudyVandy]

Originally Posted by emusteve

These are supposed to be STUDENT built machines, ...

Steve, are you sure??? Review some of the past speeches Dean has made. He wants to inspire, not necessarily educate or train. And he's said it at either a kickoff or a Championship competition...if I remember correctly. (Perhaps at both!)

Yes, I'm sure! If you want to just "WOW" kids and show them what can be done, take 'em on a field trip...Much more cost effective. If you want to give them the skills to do it themselves, THEN you belong here!

Our team is built on the philosophy that we're here to give the students an opportunity to learn learn skills and practices in an environment that they can't get anywhere else. Mentors, Parents, and Teacher work with STUDENTS who design an build the robot. The thing might work great, or fall flat on it's provervbial face. It's what is learned in the process, not the end result that is most important!

Student Designed, Student Built, Engineer Approved!

Ok, I'm off my soap box. Back to the Discussion at hand...

Steve

[Erics626]

emusteve is right. FIRST is a student based competition, and it should be about the students designing, building, and tweaking the robot. I know that are programmers are having trouble just getting the robot to work properly, not even considering autonomous. Most high schools and high schoolers just do not have the time or resources to create a fully autonomous robot. I am all for an autonomous period, and I am in awe when I see a program perfectly executed and perform the task it was given. FIRST should be about a balance between autonomous control and operator control. I don't think that FIRST should go to a fully autonomous control. I'm sure there are many other competitions that are available for an autonomous robot.

[emersont49]

Originally Posted by emusteve

Our team is built on the philosophy that we're here to give the students an opportunity to learn learn skills and practices in an environment that they can't get anywhere else. Mentors, Parents, and Teacher work with STUDENTS who design an build the robot. The thing might work great, or fall flat on it's provervbial face. It's what is learned in the process, not the end result that is most important!


Steve

I agree with you Steve. I took on the task of mentoring our programming team this year. Lots of code was written, re-written and scraped. In the end, we have a function that improves joystick control and switch feedback to keep from overextending our arm. Autonomous mode is simple extending our arm ( a three step move) and driving forward.

What is coolest about this is that all of the code was written by the students. They learned how to use the IFI manuals to select a joystick input or designate a digital input.

I for one, have had enough of activities were the parents do and the kids watch.

[Lead Tyrannosau]

Originally Posted by emusteve

Yes, I'm sure! If you want to just "WOW" kids and show them what can be done, take 'em on a field trip...Much more cost effective. If you want to give them the skills to do it themselves, THEN you belong here!

Our team is built on the philosophy that we're here to give the students an opportunity to learn learn skills and practices in an environment that they can't get anywhere else. Mentors, Parents, and Teacher work with STUDENTS who design an build the robot. The thing might work great, or fall flat on it's provervbial face. It's what is learned in the process, not the end result that is most important!

Student Designed, Student Built, Engineer Approved!

Ok, I'm off my soap box. Back to the Discussion at hand...

Steve

I couldn't agree more. We would rather have the students do the work and fail to get a robot together than have the mentors do all the work and win. We have a policy that no adult touches the robot during competitions except for things like helping to pick it up and move it around. All programming, modifications, and repairs must be done by the students. Of course, mentors are right at their side giving instruction. It works if the kids were involved during the design and build. Last year we made it to the finals in St. Louis and the Semi-finals at the Nationals as a youth-built Rookie Team.

[Dranyam]

to just give a short reply to the thread starter:

personally, i don't think any of our "robots" really qualify for the name "robot." its kind of a misnomer, considering i've never seen one of our so-called "robots" protecting the life of another robot, following the orders of a human, or protecting the life of a human.