So, if they make the real FMS open source, does that mean everyone is going to run out and spend thousands (probably 10’s of thousands) of dollars on servers, touch panels, routers, displays and all the other hardware required to make it actually work? As an experienced Software engineer, I can tell you that the system is most likely too complicated to accurately and reliably reproduce on a simple computer, at least to the point where someone could contribute to updating it. Isn’t that why they released FMS Lite? It’s a simple, low cost alternative to the FMS that actually CAN be run on a normal computer with no specialised equipment.
The playoff display is too complex. It’s difficult to determine who actually won the playoffs.
http://frc-events.usfirst.org/2015/TXDA/playoffs
They need to simplify to something similar to the TBA format.
Cool, guess I can tell my bosses that because our projects are open source I don’t have to meet deadlines or work on uninteresting bugs.
You clearly have never worked on an open source project for a company. Please try to actually have experience with something before you comment on it.
Source: I work full time developing open source software. Last year I worked heavily on a project to compute clinical quality measurefor the Veterans Health Administration. It uses the same computation engine as the verification tool for Meaningful Use Stage 2, a tool named Cypress, also developed as open source software. I’m currently working on tools to validate FHIR servers and to build a tool for patient risk management for doctors assessing geriatric patients. All of these have deadlines and the “boring bugs” get fixed.
Darn. Inland Empire, Georgia Southern Classic, and PNW Oregon City are still missing data. I wonder if they’ll upload the data for these events manually so that we can see it.
Edit: Oops. Now I see there is only partial info for a lot of other events. The ones I mentioned have nothing.
I expect most of the FMS servers are in transit between events right now, so if the data didn’t get fully uploaded it may be a day or two before the FTA’s backup is used to backfill the data or the FMS servers get back online.
I wouldn’t despair though, the data for Northern Lights was incomplete most of yesterday but now appears to be fully correct. The missing info could be stuck in a queue somewhere in the cloud.
Cheesy Arena is indeed open source. I didn’t make it to Chezy Champs this year, but from what I hear, it performed flawlessly. No surprise given the all-star engineers that developed it.
FMS Lite has not been updated in years and is not open source.
No, it’s not open source, but I wasn’t saying it was. I was saying it was designed to be used on cheap, easy to obtain hardware, unlike the real FMS.
And also, it hasn’t been years since it was updated. It was updated just last year for the 2014 season, and I would assume it will be again this year. http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-2014-fms-lite-available
Thanks for that link, I wasn’t aware of the 2014 version; if I recall correctly, there was a gap of several years prior to that (2009?) which is where I got that idea.
It has been stated that a new FMS lite is planned so that in future years you do not need to select the FMS/DS communication within the driver station.
Allow me clarify my statement:
Given the talent of our community, I know putting the FMS and STIMS/VIMS on Github would result in useful, bug fixing, and feature adding pull requests. It wouldn’t take away control from FIRST but would allow motivated mentors and students to help.
As a remote spectator, I was disappointed that I could not find a qualification schedule for my former team, and as a result I watched less than I have in years past.
The FRC website is actually doing this more “correctly,” though neither are providing an accurate picture of what is happening. In qualifications, quarterfinals, and semifinals, neither alliance “wins.” It is all based on average score for these rounds.
It would be nice if the FRC website highlighted who won the finals though, and both should more clearly highlight the teams that move on to the next round throughout playoffs.
As for Cheesy Arena:
Keep in mind that Cheesy Arena is designed for offseason events that don’t have the team number signs, the team lights, emergency stop buttons, alliance station lights, SCC (alliance scoring cabinets), any game-specific field hardware (e.g. goal lights in 2014, weight sensors in 2013), ref panels, or any other miscellaneous field hardware that typical comes with a FIRST event.
It may be open source, but it also has far fewer moving parts to deal with.
Except the FRC website doesn’t show the average scores, but The Blue Alliance does.
The bolded “winning” team on The Blue Alliance will be removed for non-finals matches.
Ah, I was just looking at the match results and somehow missed the playoffs breakdown on TBA. That is definitely more useful.
Cheesy Arena handles most of this stuff and was designed around using readily available hardware to display things such as team numbers. It even improves upon the game specific elements like the hot goal lights, which were actually timed correctly in Cheesy Arena.
Yes, it does provide most of things in forms other than what we are used to at FIRST competitions.
However, FIRST is unlikely to completely replace the existing hardware in the very near future. Additionally, while Cheesy Arena is an excellent substitute for the FMS for offseason events and the cost of the overall system is lower, FIRST has a different set of requirements for the official field.
For example, the GitHub page for Cheesy Arena explains that Chezy Champs used cheaper consumer-grade LEDs instead of the professional grade LEDs used on the official field.
I am not privy to the decision making process that goes into selecting the components for the field, and I’m not making any arguments for which software or hardware is better. What I’m saying is that Cheesy Arena isn’t designed to be a replacement for the FMS during competition season, and isn’t likely to become a replacement there.
I’m not sure whether or not open source FMS is a good idea yet. Certainly I think the community would be very on board with helping out. One additional point: wouldn’t open-sourcing FMS open FIRST up to 2012-style sabotage?
The best security is achieved when everyone can see the problems and then fix them, not through obfuscation. Security achieved because “no one knows how our internals work” is bad practice.
Although it’s not a perfect analogy, this sounds like various Wikipedia debates I’ve heard. On one hand, letting anyone edit pages leads to incorrect/biased information, sabotaged pages, and edit wars. On the other hand, Wikipedia is one of the largest, easily accessible sources of information–and most of the time other editors fix incorrect information.
Without any relevant experience, my guess on this would be that if FIRST decides to open source it, they open up the possibility that experienced mentors and students are able to help. However, they also open it to the risk that anyone can sabotage it if they like. Of course, there are far worse consequences to this than just a sabotaged Wikipedia page, which FIRST has to consider carefully.
It’s important that to note that “open source” does not mean anyone can make edits without review, potentially allowing the system to be “sabotaged.” Changes must still be reviewed and then accepted by the owner.