Before we talk Kickoff, we wanted to let folks know that we found two mistakes in our KitBot shopping list. We apologize to any teams who may have already purchased these items.
We have updated Table 3 to include (4) of the ¼-20 x 1.5 in long hex head bolt (or M6 ~40mm) and (8) of the ¼-20 Locknut (or M6).
The brushed motor controllers that were noted in Table 2 are only needed for teams who have opted out of the Black Tote. Table 2 has been updated to remove that line and Table 7 has been updated to add the line.
The Kickoff of CRESCENDOSM presented by Haas is fast approaching! The official broadcast will begin at Noon eastern time on Saturday, January 6, 2024. Just like in prior seasons, there will be some pre-broadcast content so that you can check your connection and audio/video set up. You can tune in via FIRSTtv.
The broadcast will last approximately one hour. The Field Tour Videos will be shown as part of the broadcast and available on the FIRST ® Robotics Competition YouTube channel following Kickoff.
CAD files and drawings of the field, drawings of the team version of field items, the Field Tour Videos, and more will be available on the Playing Field Assets page.
Last season, we opted to forgo the pre-Kickoff field shopping list (a list of materials teams could purchase before Kickoff and have on hand once team-versions of field designs are released on Kickoff day) for reasons described in this blog. That decision is sticking for this season too; it allows for better focus on Kickoff material prep and teams aren’t invited to make blind purchases based on what FIRST® thinks they’d want.
Only one of the 2023 reasons (“Teams aren’t invited to make blind purchases based on what FIRST thinks they’d want”) is in alignment with a 2022 reason.
Original 2022 reasons
None of the items on the list should be difficult to acquire quickly
There may have been a game hint tucked into the materials list
2022 reasons added in the edit
The creation (and proofing) of this content adds to the burden placed on the engineering team in preparation for Kickoff and field shipping.
Recent team surveys show little actual use by teams
For those teams that did use it, frustration due to their good faith investment in materials that don’t accurately reflect those of the official field
2023 reasons
It allows for better focus on Kickoff material prep
Teams aren’t invited to make blind purchases based on what FIRST thinks they’d want
.
EDIT: Unless maybe HQ is the one requiring “focus”? In that case that would be in alignment with the comment about “burden” placed on engineering. In my initial read, I thought that they were asking teams to better focus on Kickoff material prep.
None of the items on the list should be difficult to acquire quickly
Removing this procurement activity from the time-constrained build season adds a small amount of equity to a volunteer-constrained program. This FIRST-published list serves as a documented need that teams can fundraise against, and having earlier access to that list increases the odds for fundraising success.
There may have been a game hint tucked into the materials list
The secrecy of the game is much less valuable than equity of access to a well equipped facility for STEM exploration. What evidence supports the idea that the secrecy of the game, and the grand reveal of the Kickoff, is SO essential to the program’s positive impact on students that the small risk of a game hint baked into the material list is intolerable to FIRST?
The creation (and proofing) of this content adds to the burden placed on the engineering team in preparation for Kickoff and field shipping.
Why is this publication not considered Kickoff material? Is simulating the playing field not considered part of the challenge that is being kicked-off at Kickoff?
Recent team surveys show little actual use by teams
If this is the case, it is a symptom of the deep inequity of access to spaces where teams can play their STEM sport. This is something to be fought against by spending more engineering effort to wring the cost out of these items (while still accurately simulating the required physics) not less.
For those teams that did use it, frustration due to their good faith investment in materials that don’t accurately reflect those of the official field
A reasonable interpretation of this feedback is that the community wants HQ perform more thoughtful and sustainable design at all levels of the program. What evidence supports the idea that a brand new playing field each year is essential to the program’s positive impact on students?
It allows [Manchester to] better focus on Kickoff material prep
Why is this publication not considered Kickoff material? Is simulating the playing field not considered part of the challenge that is being kicked-off at Kickoff?
It allows [teams to] better focus on Kickoff material prep
This procurement activity would be great pre-season preparation for teams, very much on par with other things that teams could do to prepare for Kickoff.
Teams aren’t invited to make blind purchases based on what FIRST thinks they’d want
If there are only so many engineering hours that can be spent on work ahead of kickoff, I’d rather that time be spent on making a field perform consistently well than on the crapo team versions.
I’d obviously prefer that time be spent on both, and even more so I’d obviously prefer that the team versions are reflective of the real field.
But the reality is that HQ is resource-limited, just like teams, and there aren’t unlimited labor hours.
I think the one I disagree with the most is the possible game hint in the list. What element from last year would have been a real hint at the game? Or for any of the lists they have created for any game? I remember the hype around the brush material used to hold the hatch panel at the loading station in 2019. I don’t think anyone got it right.
I would consider my team to be pretty well off resource and volunteer wise and it is still a pain for us to get going and complete the team field elements. So not having this list certainly sets us back a bit.
Alright, I’ve defended this in the past but I’m flipping on it now. Why are they still doing Twitch-only broadcasts?
When they started doing this, they both got special treatment from Twitch through time on the front page and indefinite archives of VODs and they did regular streams in the off-season in an attempt to build a presence there. Since then, FIRST doesn’t seem to use their channel for anything other than event broadcasts, Twitch’s front page isn’t as significant for viewership, FIRST’s VODs aren’t made public anymore, and Twitch now allows partners to stream to multiple platforms at once. Is FIRST still gaining anything from this agreement?
Well, for one, Livestreaming on Twitch has a far lower chance of having the stream interrupted/taken down compared to YouTube. Even if they license all the media in the stream, YouTube’s system is more of a “remove first, ask questions later” which is totally unacceptable for a global simulcast.
Back in the day we used to stream competitions to Youtube, and had our streams taken down simply because the MCs mic picked up some barely-audible ambient music in the background.
The VODs thing is a bit silly though I agree, especially since you can just create a “highlight” from a VOD that’s the entire length of the VOD and it stays up forever.
It’s not like FIRST’s construction techniques are going to suddenly change.
If you took the the shopping list from the last ~20 games and eliminated anything that didn’t appear 3 times the team version shopping list would approximately be:
Three sheets of plywood, twelve 2x4s, deck screws, (door hinges?), lexan/plastic/regolith sheet, ~2" pipe.
I wish they would at least drop a recommended number of 2x4s & 4x8s to build the field or literally anything that means lumber can be on hand ahead of time. Like, just look me in the eyes and tell me to buy 40 2x4s so they can get bought and taken care of
(edit; I’d hope it’s not 40 2x4s, but like, if so a heads up would be much appreciated)
We’ve sort of gotten in the habit of just having sheets of 4’x8’ and quite a few 2"x4"s on hand. Same for deck screws. I understand that having money tied up in lumber isn’t something every team can do, but your total cost over time doesn’t increase if you consider any leftovers will be used the next year. Our only problem is making sure the shop class doesn’t think it’s theirs.
The fact that going back and finding random moments from practice matches (or even some of our qualification matches) is so hard because twitch hides/deletes the VODs, and FIRST doesn’t upload everything drives me up the wall. It’s 2023 for crying out loud—we shouldn’t need to be fighting to prevent media loss from stuff that was streamed globally.
I think accurately simulating the physics of the real field is the issue that has driven everyone I know away from using the “team versions” of the field. We have looked at the field drawings against the team drawings and made a compromise almost every year, but rarely have we ever built anything as the team drawings instructed.
Not arguing your point, just another reason to add to the pile.
Agree this is frustrating, but FIRST has come such a long way in match videos. Previously, you’d have to depend on a random volunteer connecting to the feed at the event, splitting out individual matches and uploading the video whenever they got the chance (if at all). And this video was very rarely the static, full field. Now, nearly all regionals and championship has full field match video uploaded in minutes. The billion dollar industry NFL just started releasing their ‘full field’ video a few years ago and even those take a couple of days. I actually think match video and streaming is something FIRST has done a very good job at. Doesn’t mean it can’t be better, but I don’t want to get lost how awesome it currently is and how much we appreciate FIRST’s efforts.