Next Year's Game?

[EricVanWyk]

Originally Posted by squirrel

One big thing this year was that many teams wanted to make a narrow robot, with a wide harvester at the front, and the bumpers made that impossible.

This bothered me as well. I wish they had put the low end of the bumper range an inch or two above the moon rock. This way you could have a fully bumpered bot, but potentially have rock entrance for the full 360.

[Rob]

Originally Posted by EricVanWyk

I wish they had put the low end of the bumper range an inch or two above the moon rock. This way you could have a fully bumpered bot, but potentially have rock entrance for the full 360.

This is fantastic thinking. Not only would robots have had the potential to be more creative, the protection offered by the bumper zone might actually be more effective if it were higher up. This would help prevent robots from tilting towards each other and "butting heads" from fast collisions.

[ehochstein]

I would just like to quote from Bills Blog

I’ve been so busy this past week at Championship reviewing our options for the future with the board of directors, brainstorming with the Game Design Committee (perhaps a water game?), meeting with our major donors, and ensuring everything happening on the fields and in the pits ran smoothly, that I didn’t have any time left over to let you know what I was up to.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Wiifi

I would just like to quote from Bills Blog

I would just like to remind you that the water game is the oldest rumor in FRC, and there is actually another competition for that. Not only is the water game the oldest rumor, it's the oldest one shown to not be practical.

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by EricH

Not only is the water game the oldest rumor, it's the oldest one shown to not be practical for FIRST.

fixed



(still time to sign up for NURC)

[Tyler Hicks]

A really cool game would be a rough terrain field, and a "capture the flag" type objective. that wold be AMAZING!

seriously, drop the water game idea, its getting REALLY old.

[KGood]

Originally Posted by EricH

I would just like to remind you that the water game is the oldest rumor in FRC, and there is actually another competition for that. Not only is the water game the oldest rumor, it's the oldest one shown to not be practical.

We're actually thinking about competing in that during the summer, because registration + kit is only $600, but it's going to be really tough.

[M.Wong]

Two things that I hope will be implemented in any game, together or alone.

1) Water (sucks for electrical! )
2) Randomization of field components such as walls, etc. (on a larger scale than what was instituted in '08)

I am entirely sure that #2 will be completely possible in the future with the possibilities of gps and other advanced sensors combined with the CRio.

[hurtzmyhead]

yea i would definatly like more of a challenge for the programmers next year.

[SuperJake]

Originally Posted by M.Wong

I am entirely sure that #2 will be completely possible in the future with the possibilities of gps and other advanced sensors combined with the CRio.

While the controller may be capable of doing it, the competition would need to move outside to get a good GPS link. Even then, the GPS accuracy with all of that EM and RF interference created by the robots and field equipment would be horrendous.

In a previous game, there were two beacons on the side of the field that you could lock onto with the intention of giving yourself an absolute position on the field for navigation. I don't think anyone used it at that time.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by M.Wong

Two things that I hope will be implemented in any game, together or alone.

1) Water (sucks for electrical! )
2) Randomization of field components such as walls, etc. (on a larger scale than what was instituted in '08)

I am entirely sure that #2 will be completely possible in the future with the possibilities of gps and other advanced sensors combined with the CRio.

#2 would be awesome and I would love to do it. Only problem is, most GPS receivers are not accurate enough for use on an FRC field. Oh and there is also that pesky thing about being indoors. (Don't suggest out door competitions, us northerners might be able to take the cold but I think that the CRio might have problems )

Jake, the beacons were not so much for absolute positioning, they were more for "Are we there yet" positioning. It is also impossible to determine position using two points, you need at least 3.

[Robert Cawthon]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

It is also impossible to determine position using two points, you need at least 3.

It wouldn't be impossible since the playing field tends to be a flat surface. All one would need to do is put both beacons on the same side of the field (separated by a fair distance) so there would be no confusion as to which side of the beacons the robots were on. It would simple triangulation.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Robert Cawthon

It wouldn't be impossible since the playing field tends to be a flat surface. All one would need to do is put both beacons on the same side of the field (separated by a fair distance) so there would be no confusion as to which side of the beacons the robots were on. It would simple triangulation.

Oh yeah, two knowns two unknowns... I swear, my brain works sometimes.

[dodar]

All I'm saying is to bring back the pull-up bar and the tetras lol

[SuperJake]

Originally Posted by dodar

All I'm saying is to bring back the pull-up bar and the tetras lol

The tetras were a pain because they kept breaking, however I agree with the pull-up bar.

The pull-up bar was a great success because it was something that always got the crowd cheering.