A new version of the Kinect Kiosk software has been posted. It enables multiple machines on the network to have the Kinect Server running as long as only one is actively using the Kinect. This would be potentially necessary for the Kiosk to function properly at pre-ship events if multiple teams have the Kinect software setup.
Scoring
[G40]
The Answer in the Q&A to the Question asked on Rule [G40] by FRC2826 on 01/17/2012 has been updated. We apologize for the confusion.
Power Distribution
[R43]
Please note, per [R64] **[R63]**, that for an 8-slot cRIO, the circuit may not exceed 16W. For a 4-slot cRIO, the circuit may not exceed 21W.
Smaller value Snap Action auto resetting breakers may be used on the PD Board for circuitry not defined above.
In addition to the required branch power circuit breakers, smaller value fuses or breakers may be incorporated into custom circuits for additional protection.
Motors & Actuators
[R48]
Note that this is not a change to the Rule but is simply changing the Rule to match the documentation (Kickoff Kit Checklist and FIRST Choice site).
The only motors and actuators permitted on 2012 FRC Robots include:
up to 2 Denso throttle control motors (acceptable part # AE2351000 AE235100-0160)
The code box is the blue box. (And bolded stuff is what was changed, idk how to cross things out)
The Q&A update redefines the Bridge, the ball ramp no longer counts as part of the bridge.
Question:
Q. What physical parts make up the bridge by definition? Essentially, where does the bridge begin and end? For example, does the welded structure under the bridge that the top connects to count as the bridge? Does the lateral bar that rotates with the bridge that count as the bridge?
Revised answer:
A. The Bridge is defined as all components depicted in GE-12017, with the exception of the Bridge Base (GE-12022) and the Ball Ramps (GE-12064). Updated per Team Update 2012-02-14.
This is week 6 and they redefined a fundamental part of the game, impacting multiple teams’ well thought out and carefully crafted designs. I’m far too frustrated to say more right now.
This was obviously a strategy that was never going to be allowed. Nevertheless they should have been more careful with their definition of bridge.
This is better than 07 when 111 asked if you could stack robots pre-match for points and the gdc said yes then turned around and made it illegal during the season.
If they respond twice, to two questions asking for the definition of bridge, with an answer that defines that ramp as part of the bridge, on a QnA forum defined as official interpretation, why wouldn’t it be allowed?
Because the intent is clearly to be on top the bridge. If they dont want people hanging from the bridge why would they want you to drive under it to balance?
Its obviously a loophole that they mistakenly opened with their Q&A response.
Obviously you shouldnt have to judge intent and the Q&A needs massive improvement but nobody should be surprised at this update.
Remember when people were honestly surprised that they weren’t allowed to launch the minibots up the pole? And then they designed an elegant solution that did precisely that without doing that?
Part of engineering is anticipating what your customers want. Ever worked a project before it’s fully funded? I have, and it was because if I didn’t I wouldn’t have met the schedule expectations. How creative teams get with that anticipation is 100% on the teams.
If FRC were the open marketplace, the GDC basically just said customers aren’t going to buy cute little troll bots with pink hair. If this were the government or a large company who put out an interactive RFP, this is like them saying “that’s not what we meant”. And “that’s not what we meant” was almost a weekly occurrence on some of my projects.
So Swamp Thing – does your bot still comply? I’m not sure what all encompasses the “Bridge Base”, but from a first look it still does.
No, since it’s still supported 100% by the bridge. It is still touching the bridge part itself, and no other part of it. If what 179 did turns our illegal, I’m sending an angry email to FIRST, with a bunch of frowny faces.
Yup. I’m actually pleased that FIRST is moving even more toward a non-positivist rules set, wherein reasonable interpretation of intent guides design. It’s much more realistic…
…at least FIRST doesn’t change parameters like footprint, weight, and allowable power sources during the build season – that would be an even more realistic engineering project!
I remember in 07’, we got to champs and they told us that if any part of a tube was touching your ramp then the lift didn’t count. Which made us very mad.
It was worse that that, they said any part of the robot.
In the first match we had two robots on top of us and they ruled that our arm was touching a tube so it didn’t count. The ruling was that the the tube was supporting us!
