If YOU were the GDC...

FIRST General Forum
#81

The RI’s will ask the team if they intended it to block shots, or obscure the ability of vision tracking.
If they say that it is only meant to block shots, then it will be allowed.

This happened at the NEDCMP, where a team added a blocker of Lexan, but the kept the opaque protective covering on it.
It was allowed.
But I sort of agree with you assertion that if you have a vision system mounted low, it may be blocked.

We’ll see how this plays out in two weeks.

#82

I see a lot of robots making contact initially inside the bumper zone and then getting wedged over/under leading to inadvertent tipping. I would change the bumper rules so teams can make taller than 5 inch bumpers as long as they have 5 inch bumpers within the bumper zone. Teams would be place the bumpers outside of the 4-12 inches as long as 5 inches is always within the zone. In other words, teams can stack 2 noodles to create a standard 5" bumpers. Maybe cap the total height at 5inches.

I would also require robots to have 5"inches of bumper within the bumper zone when 100 or so pounds of force is applied to each side of the robot. Inspectors can check this relatively easily. This would help in situations where robots tilt back and forth from change in directions and their center wheel drops, and then their bumper heights change.

#83

Get rid of the audience-selected defense. Yeah, it’s fun, I know. Maybe I’m just lazy, but it’s a lot of work to make sure you’re cheering for the right one, and it cripples defense selection strategy. There’s so many things that can be done with defense selection that are eliminated by taking away the control of slot 3.

#84

Get rid of category C defenses. Pretend the GDC never created it.
And for all events currently and in the future, the dumb white line in front of driver stations. I hate seeing DS’s flying off the supporting platform from robots ramming the wall.

#85

Isn’t the velcro there to STOP DS’s from flying off the platforms? Or is it not effective enough?

#86

If a robot runs full speed into the driver station wall? Not even close to enough.

#87

The white line is there because back when auto was introduced, people immediately started thinking of ways to control their robots in auto. (There are threads on this, I’ve seen a couple of them.) So the GDC at the time put that line in. The idea is that you can reach your controls if you really need to, but the refs have a chance at seeing you do so.

And, there is NOTHING preventing you from taking actions to save your controls.

For the Category C defenses, I’d go with use different defenses. They did have other defenses on the drawing boards… Anybody want to try a rolling log or a spinning table? (One of those two was on the list, if I recall the podcast on that correctly…)

With respect to the vision/shot blocking, had a team at one event I reffed at show up with an improvised blocker: a volleyball net on a PVC frame. Great, it’s see-through, they passed inspection no problem. The next match they came out and it was covered with painter’s tape. That got the head ref asking questions. The tape didn’t appear again after that match…

#88

There might be tweaks like the ones suggested, but the GDC got this one right. Funny after the snoozer last year.

I like that the capture has to happen with all 3 robots in place. I still would like the GDC to send out a notice in September that a game will require that ALL 3 bots will need to accomplish a task to gain significant points. That would encourage teams to work together in the preseason.

#89

I disagree. If FIRST needs to put out a disclaimer to get teams to work together, there’s a culture problem that needs to be addressed. Teams helping each other should be the default.

#90

I would like to see more motivation for teams to build shooting robots and to gain points for passing between robots.
The way to do might be to allow shooting boulders over the barriers in both directions and to have more visual targets for robots to use in auto mode. Plus larger targets would motivate more teams to build shooting robots.

Others mentioned the divider on the batter, I would go one step further and add some tint to the dividers on the barriers, to make it easier to line up and drive thru a barrier opening.

#91

It has been two consecutive years where 3 robots are required to score some points. I would just assume that next year will be similar. Let’s see how long it takes teams to figure out that they should be helping other teams during the preseason.

#92

+1

This would have led to a lot more diverse autonomous routines.

#93

Which FTA? Look at the video all 3 were on the right of the field. We were in the center window. I know I did not say flip.
We apologized and I personally explained what happened to your drive team. It was a misjudgement from our side I didn’t react fast enough and you seem to be trying to inflame the situation. The penalty was valid and we do not contest we messed up. It effected us severely in our rankings. We are sorry that your robot sustained damage as it was honestly not our intent. We are glad to hear your team is okay.

#94

I thought my earlier post sounded a bit Polyanna, so I went through the entire thread. Most of the recommended changes would have clearly messed with the game balance. I’m not going to comment on the equipment issues; they’re not really the GDCs provenance. Based on the takeaway from our drive team, I suspect that (as inspectors have said for years) most of the disconnects are on the robot side. I’m going to consider the game as the Q&As treated it, not as it was in January.

Here are the few suggestions I felt were at least worthy of comment; the others would have (IMO) wrecked the game balance. The two adjustments that I actually endorse are in red, and another that I like but can’t work around is in orange…:

  • Eliminate audience selection: I get that it’s silly, but its also relevant. The marketplace is fickle, and we need to recognize it. Keep it!
  • Transparent drawbridge and Sally Port: they were a problem, but they were a symmetrical problem. I wouldn’t be against changing it, but it’s not really an improvement.
  • Dead robot fouls: If a robot dies or is disabled where it may repeatedly cause foul points, that’s a problem for the team/alliance that has the dead robot. If the opposing alliance were to push the dead robot into a place that will be a foul, that **should **
    have been a G11. Perhaps a change in implementation, but not in the rules.
  • Make tipping legal: I would be in favor of the following rule, or more likely exception to G24: If a robot is tipped as a result of bumper-to-bumper interactions, and the other robot’s bumpers are within the bumper rules, G24 is not applicable.
  • Make dividers between the defenses and batter thirds more visible: OK, provided they’re still clear enough to allow the referees to do their jobs.
  • Allow a driver station clamp (or suction cup to the front screen): I don’t see in the rules that it’s forbidden, so unless it’s been enforced as illegal no change is required.
  • Reduce the bumper zone window: The bumper zone is 8" high, and bumpers are required to be 5" +/- 1/2" high, resulting in a minimum of 1" overlap. This is probably a tiny bit too small, though I don’t think this was the cause of most of the tipping we saw this year; I saw very few bumpers with a lower edge below 6" off the carpet on level ground.
  • Field Reset is too difficult; timing is too tight: Yes, I get it. I don’t know what to do about this one without modifying the game beyond recognition.
  • Have dedicated scorekeepers in addition to referrees: in my mind, this falls on the “game execution committee” side. Sounds like a good idea, but (IMO) a bit outside the scope of this question.
  • Eliminating rules based on intent: That would be a great place to take things in theory, but living in Louisiana (one of the two states with criminal code law, and the only one with civil code law in the U.S.), and having a brother who was killed by violence, I know directly that while rules based on objective conditions sound like a great idea, the results are less than stellar.
#95