FIRST Robotics Wish List

FIRST General Forum
#41

A better controller robot controller. It’s time for the BS2P to be upgraded dramatically better. I’m seeing all sorts of competitors with faster and better alternatives to the BS2P, including more memory and i/o capability.

PBASIC is not the best programming language to learn. I’d like to see people writing code in Java or C/C++ as those are the languages that are being used in industry.

Linux and/or Macintosh tools. Not everybody loves Windows and a lot of schools are Macintosh equipped. More and more Linux is happening because schools don’t have the funds to pay the steep M$ licenses. Linux also plays much nicer on older hardware as well.

I’d also like to see a requirement for an electronics enclosure. I’ve seen many times during construction and competitions that the exposed electronics get damaged and that hurts the team.

I like the bud box approach. Make it bigger and raise the budget limit for it. Combine it with the above enclosure and simply set a budgetary limit for the whole electronics package. Allow people to drum up their own controllers.

Make the dashboard capabilities more accessible. Currently, you cannot see all of the input variables right there on the operator interface. Allow people to design their own packets to feed robot controller data back to the operator interface.

Switch to 802.11b or bluetooth wireless networking for RF communications between
robot and controller. This maybe a bit of a stretch for now, but it opens the door to a lot of possibilities. The gear is much cheaper off the shelf than the current RF system.

Btw, animation needs more time, like starting in the fall and ending just before the National finals.

#42

*Originally posted by Neal Probert *
**Switch to 802.11b or bluetooth wireless networking for RF communications between
robot and controller. This maybe a bit of a stretch for now, but it opens the door to a lot of possibilities. The gear is much cheaper off the shelf than the current RF system.
**

There is a new radio system that IFI is testing…i’m not sure if it will make it in this year or the next, but it would basically be integrated into the RC, eliminating the need for a separate radio on the robot. There is a possbility that the new system would be set up such that you would no longer need to bring an OI radio to the field(integrated with the arena controller perhaps)…

#43

Some $ considerations-

  1. do everything possible to get free shipping from Fedex again. It saved thousands of dollars.

  2. since the kit has been “abbreviated” and there is no more Sm. Parts stipend, reduce the entry fee for the contest. If nothing else do not raise it past the 2002 season figure - only fair since the odd teams were largely left out.

  3. offer a direct contact e-mail link on the FIRST website for posting of events. Our team is still waiting for a post requested two months ago- there is no direct link to the site evident other than FRC engineers.

  4. Continue to use the same shell playing field. Offer a link to the manufacturers so teams can purchase fields for regional events. These regional fields could be left near the sites of regionals and used in the off season for local competitions. I am willing to bet that consortiums of teams would invest in setups if they knew they were a constant from year to year.

  5. making the Chairman’s Award due at the end of the building period makes great sense.

  6. continue to maintain the dimensions for the starting size of the robot. Years ago the footprint was greater than 30" and robots couldn’t fit through the doorways at venues. The 30x36 footprint is fine and allows reuse of shipping containers.

  7. Increase publicity on a region to region basis via the parent organization. How about some magazine ads in trades based mags to interest sponsors? Progress is being made but more could be done.

  8. Have ladies only rounds at all regionals as a small sub event. It would definitely encourage teams to get more girls involved.

A few things to chew on…

WC :cool:

#44

Did anyone notice why they added those gates this year???

Because Dean had to drive his Segway in the field ah haha They even made little ramps!!!

I say either get rid of those gates or make them longer, I found them more of a pain that anything else!!! because they were to short and there was allways a line waiting to get out.

What do you think???

#45

*Originally posted by gwross *
**
Renzo,
Care to explain what you mean? **

some part of the robot has to be build out of recycled materials

#46

-Diffrent playing Surface

-Feather weight award sound cool

-Chairman’s due at the end of the Competitions

-Better enforced rules

#47

*Originally posted by The wheelman *
**-Diffrent playing Surface
**

I heard rumors during the competition season last year of an idea bouncing around at FIRST for a new surface…how likely that will be remains to be seen, however

*Originally posted by The wheelman *
**
-Chairman’s due at the end of the Competitions
**

While this would be nice for timing purposes, looking at the award structure as a whole, it’s not really possible…with the regional chairman’s awards this year, it’s a requirement that the submisson date is before the first week of regionals. As well, with the amount of time that is put into viewing the various entries, and considering that there is at most 2 weeks currently between ship date and the first set of regional events, it is not viable to have a “bring it to your event with you” policy, nor would this be fair to all teams as it would create a “floating” submission date, rather than a fixed “out of your hands by this date” scenario. The only truly viable way that the Chairman’s award submission could be restructured is if the requirements for the coming season were released in the fall, as that would give teams time before the build season to start work on it, and the only things that would need to be added were those aspects of the submission based on the build. Even if FIRST did not go officially to this type of format, it is still a way that teams could prepare for the coming season. Using the award requirements from the previous year, develop your entry during the off season, and then adjust or add to it as needed throughout the build season, perhaps even shipping it on the same date as the robot, maybe even with the robot(?).

#48

A lot of very good points.

Some comments:

Constant section steel – why not?

more pneumatics – good if FIRST can afford it, especially more valves.

2 coachs – very very big YES to that.

springs from anywhere – of course this only makes sense.

more motors – for once, I am going to say that enough is enough – we had enough motors in the 2002 kit (imho).

Batteries – keep the size batteries we have, just pitch those Exides that they gave out last year – they were no were near as good of batteries as the batteries they gave out in prior years (really my data shows that the 2002 batteries had something like 60% of the current output of the 2001 batteries)

Now for some new points:

Breakers with the game design and the many motors, we have reached the point where the breaker can be an isssue, especially when shock loads are introduced. We need a shock resistant breaker – perhaps a bit larger, but mostly just shock resistant. Self resetting would be a DREAM, but I have not found a source – if anyone knows of a source, please forward it on to me.

The custom electronics were great, but getting data in and out of the custom board to the Pbasic computer was well… …less than ideal. I propose that FIRST allow RS-232 communication with the custom electronics board via Port 0 (i.e. the programming port). Read the Pbasic manual, this is doable. It makes debugging code a nightmare but that is our problem not FIRST’s. Give us the rope and let us hang ourselves if we screw up.

Finally, we need a good set of clutches and/or brakes in the kit. Think of how cool a clutch would have been for shifting or whatever. Now if only we had a willing donor…

All for now.

Joe J.

#49

Allow confined, shielded electromagnets… For Whatever your use may be… They’re frequently the lightest option for strong holding of things that can be useful… Don’t ask why, just figure it out yourself… Electromagnets are good!

#50

heh, i propose liquid nitrogen and high temperature superconductors. talk about power :p. here at my ‘work’ (summer research) at bnl, they have some really neat superconductors, that work at rather high temperatures, high enough so that liquid nitrogen turns them into superconductors. then you could do some really neat stuff, like repell other robots, if they have magnitized parts :D. now if only liquid nitrogen wasn’t so dangerous… :wink:

#51

*Originally posted by JosephM *
**How 'about making a game that is easy to learn, hard to master, and can captivate an audience?

Sure, FIRST isn’t into the Battlebots thing, but there are still ways of demolition that aren’t viloent. **

ZONE ZEAL was really easy to learn and it was entertaining to me and other people who have never seen a FIRST match before.

#52

*Originally posted by BURGDEW *
**

ZONE ZEAL was really easy to learn and it was entertaining to me and other people who have never seen a FIRST match before. **

From a strategy standpoint it was way too easy…

#53

i’d like a game similar to this year again. some smashing and fighting as part of the strategy, for two reasons. you have people watch and say, that’s cool, they’re smacking in to each other, and because as everyone says, it is fun :p. but, i believe that should only be a small part of the game. the rest of the game should be based on manuverability and function. for instance, make like, 4 or 5 different ways to get points. one robot would never be able to cover all 5 ways. so, you would have drastically different designs. then, every match would be unique. but one request is to make the game so that a whole lot of brute force won’t win it for you. those are just boring, to both driver and everyone else. i’d love to have something that actually took more skill to drive, but didn’t create a huge disadvantage to us.

but by far, the most important thing is that the general public will be able to understand it, and maybe even say wow, this is really cool. i’d love it if we could get the local communities to come to the competitions, but they don’t understand the game, or don’t think it’s cool. so, we need a bit of the destructivness to make it cool, then at least a simple game to understand, but only from the spectator’s view. this means having clearly marked scoring zones, and obvious scores. no multipliers or crazy things like that. but, just because your grandmother understands the point system, doesn’t mean she can make an effective strategy. i’m sure if FIRST works hard enough, this mix can be attained. if there ever was a game like this, i believe that’s when our best chance would be to get out to the community.

#54

I think that the Specs for the robot shouldn’t have to be submitted so early in the six weeks. We had to pick our robot name befor we even started to design it, mainly because we wanted to “CALL SHOTGUN” on the name. The name of the bot should be a reflection of the basic characteristics of the bot itself. This would also help when trying to identify a robot on the feild.

#55

*Originally posted by DaBruteForceGuy *
**I think that the Specs for the robot shouldn’t have to be submitted so early in the six weeks. We had to pick our robot name befor we even started to design it, mainly because we wanted to “CALL SHOTGUN” on the name. The name of the bot should be a reflection of the basic characteristics of the bot itself. This would also help when trying to identify a robot on the feild. **

While I can see your point, I’m not sure how much could actually be done…the deadline is not one that FIRST sets arbitrarily, but rather one which is imposed by the submission deadlines to get the program books done in time…

#56

i really like the idea of autonomy at the start and/or end of the match. i also think the size and weight of the bot shouldn’t change. pnuematics need a boost, and pbasic needs to be replaced with something better. i think they’ve got a good combination of motors (except that stupid torque motor).

i also love getting the alliance pairings ahead of time. this is what makes the one coach rule possible. i think having 4 people on stage makes things less confusing. as a strategy guy, knowing who we’re playing with and against makes my life much easier.

George
S.P.A.M.
Team 180

#57

Ok, I have a few things that came to me after nationals and I was waiting for the best time to mention them, I think this qualifies.
1.) Many people complained about the FRC confusions. My sloution is to try and keep the updates and the board up but to also have a live chat once a week so that there can be a discussion about the rules in question which will also allow for better understanding and explanation. This will hopefully cut down on the same question being asked multiple times over.
2.) I know that many people would like to see the playing field change, yes the carpeting is getting old. Not only would I like to see the surface change but also the shape. Rectangles are used for so many sports. It’s kind of like when you play checkers, chess, and most other board games, they are all on square or rectangular boards. Then there’s Chinese checkers. This game requires you to use a strategy that must be defensive in all directions and aggressive in 1 direction at all times. So even if carpet does stay around at least give us a change, if anything count it as something done for the strategy part of the teams(a field like this will also promote drive trains that will allow robots to change directions easily and quickly as well as cutting down on crowding the drivers especially if another coach were to be added back onto the field, see my #3). I think you guys can keep adding to the list of things that will change based on te shape of the playing feild. I realize that the rectangle is easy for most schools to accomodate but you can put other shapes inside a rectangle :wink: .
3.) Plenty of schools out there have college students working with them for whatever reason, they did FIRST in high school, it helps them in their major, it’s a hobby, whatever the reason I’d like to see something added to give them more of a role during competitions. I’ve seen teams that alow the college students to help somewhat but they aren’t necessarily given the respect or even the courtessy they deserve. Granted the coaches don’t always get enough credit but as soon as soeone mentions that fact everyone jumps to thank them. College students go to school as much as the adults work and often put in just as much time and effort. Often the on field coach is an adult why not add a 2nd coach back as a college student?
4.) Beating a dead horse is not something I like to do so I’ll let everyone else take care of the programmers and the animators not being as involved and I’ll skip to the human player. As a former hp I can say it’s a glorified position. There really isn’t a whole lot to do. Throw a few balls on the field or something like that big whoop. It’s just one more person trying to find roo mat the plexy glass to crowd out the drivers. Now before anyone flies off the handle, I don’t want to get rid of the hps I want them to have a bigger roll, or maybe even have them in a location other than near the drivers, ahem maybe in the center of the field behind plexiglass ahem. Maybe have 2 hps, one high school student and one college student… My other idea is to have a pannel of judges, all the teams compeating judges the competitions performance. Now I know that many people will say no due to having favorites but think of it this wayif teams 47, 111 and 45 (I’m just picking teams that everyone can relate to) are all in a match and 45 is judging 47 then 47 will have to judge 111 see no judging of opposite teams. Put gracious professionalism to the test. Rate the other teams based on performance and ability, how well did their drive train work not how much do you like their team. Maybe it’s a bit too naive but how else are we going to keep gracious professionalism in prospective for everyone? How else are we going to explain it to the rookies?
5.) My final point is one of money. Not rich teams versus poor teams but poor teams trying to get money to even compete. Location is a HUGE part of how well a team does financially. That’s not to say that old fashioned hard work hasn’t gotten any team anywhere. But going back to my previous examples of teams, those who start near a large corporation have a better chance of being around for lengthier periods of time. I don’t ant this to come out as me being mad about anything what I am suggesting is getting some of the companies who go to FIRST looking to start teams, instead of FIRST telling them where there is a lack of a team tell them where there is a team lacking money. It seems to make more sense to me to make sure and keep what you have before you try to get more. The stronger your foundation the better off the building. Maybe set up something like the federal aide for college students. Fill out applications to get money for the teams ( if I’m not mistaken NASA already does this). Maybe with encouragement otehr large companies will do the same.
My inal wish is one that will most likely be discounted, well at least faster than the rest of my wishes. I’d like to see the possibility of a regional or something like that on the same weekend as nationals for the teams not fortunate enough to b at nationals. I knw that this will be seen as a push for more or even a split nationals, but I’m not looking for anything of the magnitude. Maybe even a few regionals so that those teams who are not lucky enough to get to have the glory and the extra week of competition can at least get the same chance to compete as many times.

yea, so as you can tell I was one of those kids who was taught to wish and dream big. But I really don’t think the majority of what I said is unreasonable. Still, as often times this post will be read and forgotten in rush to read everything or even looked over because of the length. For those of you who actually read everything WOW! I’m impressed and I’m also sorry that this is so long.
The last thing I wanted to say was that Dr. Joe you are exactly right about the breakers. The impact reaction problem was one that 86 had to toy with quite a bit last year and it was a bit frustrating.
Time for me to shut up now and fall back into the abyss…
~C~

#58

3.) Plenty of schools out there have college students working with them for whatever reason, they did FIRST in high school, it helps them in their major, it’s a hobby, whatever the reason I’d like to see something added to give them more of a role during competitions. I’ve seen teams that alow the college students to help somewhat but they aren’t necessarily given the respect or even the courtessy they deserve. Granted the coaches don’t always get enough credit but as soon as soeone mentions that fact everyone jumps to thank them. College students go to school as much as the adults work and often put in just as much time and effort. Often the on field coach is an adult why not add a 2nd coach back as a college student?

    I really think that is a big problem with some teams. The mentors definitly don't get the respect that they diserve and i think that the coaches of the teams are responsible. I have heard many instances where the coaches look at the mentors as a few more students to look after. But i have also talked to people that said that the teachers make the mistake of putting too much pressure and too much responsibility on the college students to the point where all descisions fall onto the mentors. There has to be a balance or conflicts will ruin the best of times (beleive me it gets pretty nasty). 
     There actually have been ideas to try to pan out the balance of power between the two groups. One thing that was mentioned was to actually compensate the mentors on behalf of FIRST. But it turns out that compensation would render this "volenteer" aspect of the students involvement in the program and most of the colleges look very highly on any volunteering done by it's students.  So for next year i definitly think that FIRST should find some way to give a more important role to the college mentors as coaching is concerned on the feild but having two coaches behind the controller at once is way too much. Take it from a driver, it gets kind of hectic having three poeple behind you screaming out orders, another would be make it impossible to function all together!
#59

*Originally posted by DaBruteForceGuy *
** Take it from a driver, it gets kind of hectic having three poeple behind you screaming out orders, another would be make it impossible to function all together! **

Maybe this is just on my team, but I really hope you can resolve whatever causes the yelling at you by the other three in the player station. On our team anyways, myself and the other driver don’t even talk during the match, to each other (telepathic communication) or to the coach or human player. The human player doesn’t talk to anyone either. The coach tells myself and the other driver everything to do, and at the right time tells the human player to start shooting.

Also, with mentors not getting enough respect I think it depends on what perspective you see them from. I personally don’t think my team in general knows all that my coach does on the field. However, all three of us in the player station know how much he does for us. He is the brain out there and everything that we do is in result of him. The only reason our team had success this year, was because myself and the other driver were what you could call ‘in-sink’, we had Moose, we had a good human player, and our coach was ‘awesome’!

#60

Personally, I like the current control system. PBASIC is easier to teach rookies than a language such as C and MUCH easier to teach than something object-oriented like Java. It’s one of the few languages that is easy to learn on a fundamental level and yet still powerful enough that advanced programmers can find ways around its little quircks. As of yet, I haven’t found anything I wanted to do but couldn’t do to limitations of the language. Besides, the Isaac32 is one of the best robot controllers out there.

What I wish would be different:

Larger/more fuse panels in kit: This year, almost half of ours were spliced to drive multiple relays. Definately not ideal.

Allow teams to hold the circuit breaker in the “on” position with a metal bar. The internal mechanism of the circuit breaker will still trip without the physical switch moving, but it prevents impact shocks from tripping the breaker.

Add an award for software engineering. Some teams have some truly amazing programming and it needs to be recognized.

Switch to NiCads: I know this won’t happen, but I’ll dream about it anyway. NiCads are smaller and lighter than the current SLA’s, but are a bit more expensive. The problem with SLA’s is that their capacity plummets as you pull more current out of them. For the 2 minutes we use batteries for, a 9Ah NiCd would probably provide more capacity than the current 17.2Ah SLAs we are using, due to the inefficient nature of SLA’s. The only problem is that they would cost 3-4 times as much as the current SLA’s.

Bring back the old chargers: Let’s face it, the battery charger’s they gave us this year sucked. The old ones were so much faster and made it so much easier to keep all the batteries charged.