Am I missing something or is that field layout out VERY wrong. look at how the loading zones differ from the manual
screen shot from that match
screen shot from the manual with correct loading zonae markings
3 Likes
Part of me wishes this is FIRST testing out a change to the layout which will come in a team update but realistically the volunteers setting up got it wrong and people didn’t notice. It’s crazy that it got that far given that FTAs are supposed to measure various parts of the field for compliance with the manual.
12 Likes
I wish this would become permanent. I felt it encouraged more dynamic gameplay. Personal opinion though.
8 Likes
The defense I see in final 2 would not have been nearly as effective with the correct loading zones. I really do not want to play with this field layout.
edit: corrected match number
1 Like
I legit can’t see what is wrong
The line for the panhandle of the loading station is off by almost 6ft.
4 Likes
The “chicken legs” of the loading zones are too short, and end at the field gates.
I don’t know if we’re watching the same match (I’m guessing you meant Finals 2?). The vast majority of the defensive interactions wouldn’t have been illegal with correct loading zones, and red would have potentially actually drawn more G207s with the correct zones (obviously they probably don’t take the same routes if the zones are taped correctly).
1 Like
From the stands it also appeared the spots for the starting game pieces were not parallel with the midline/community lines. I never measured to verify though, we had enough other problems to deal with.
2 Likes
Oh i see now that’s a big thing to miss when you’re building the field
1 Like
Hi, FTA from FIM here (not the one at said event). We are aware of this and working on improving internal documentation and procedures to ensure this won’t happen again. We apologize for any impact this may have had on teams.
For the future, we do also always recommend teams perform their own compliance checks and inform the FTA or field staff at the earliest opportunity.
24 Likes
I honestly think the game would be better with less of those legs I hope First would consider changing it
1 Like
Now that AprilTags exist, there’s a real possibility of automating the process of auditing the as-built field dimensions.
Field staff could attach a monopod to a camera, poke the monopod into the corner of the tape lines, point the camera towards the AprilTags, and hit a button in an app.
3 Likes
The compliance checklist is short and one easily completed. I’m not sure the complexity of automation is necessary. For example, the item in question here is on the compliance checklist: verify distance from the center line, verify distance from the field wall.
There are risks with computerizing a compliance check (what if you start the camera at a bad angle?*) and I think when followed, the present system is pretty easy to follow and sufficient.
*Admittedly I don’t know enough about vision. Maybe you can work around this with good code.
A fun thought exercise: Imagine the field in the manual was as implemented at Escanaba, and you wanted to build a “Wall-Bot” to shut down access to an alliance’s game pieces with a single robot. I bet you could do it within the rules.
2 Likes
based on my rough estimate of where the line was, if you made a roughly 16in wide 52in long robot with a 4 ft extension you could make a wall that touches both the field wall and the barrier. That would make it impossible to score game pieces besides the one starting on the field.
2 Likes
This sounds like it would draw card for 201 egregious behavior. G108 would also be a likely call if the wallbot gets moved at all.