Again - why?
Bluetooth provides several advantages to teams like running multiple robots with less chance of frequency interference and the ability to have two way communication between operator and robot.
This opens up a range of options for robotic design and sensor use. Two way communication is essential to developers of robots used in a variety of real world applications - FTC teams now have the same advantages.
You'll notice from the short video the robot is driven with a game controller. The game controller interfaces via a dongle to the robot. This form factor gives drivers the ability to tightly control the robot - similar to how you'd play a video game.
You'll get a chance to see this in action at the World Championships in April.
More information will follow - let us know what you think.
Ken
18 comments:
bluetooth is nice, but game controller!? how will a game controller allow feedback from the robot? i mean a PS3 or Xbox controller doesn't really allow room for a LCD screen or something
could we see pictures of the real controller if FTC is not using a PS2 or Xbox controller!?
I think that if the bots were somehow control by something like a PS3 controller, that would be amazing. Personally, I think you guys at FIRST are plenty smart enough to figure out how to intergrate something that responsive. I mean with the vex controllers, those nobs are pretty long. But with a PS3 controller you've got smaller nobs that also click something known as L3 and R3. those two little buttons could possibly serve as a program starting switch. Also, if you compare the vex conrtoller with the PS3 conroller, you've got six channels as opposed to what? 16? 17? 18?? I guess there are some minor drawbacks like no screen but unless that sucker is full color hd jammed in a remote, there's no real need for it. A cd with appropriate software could take care of that. I just think it woul dbe a great idea to use a game controller.
P.S. Gamers such as myself would also be able to pick somthing like that up, learn controls in mere minutes and operate like a pro.
What is the range and speed? Will it allow wireless downloading? Will it be able to stream video from the robot? Which game controllers will be supported?
I believe that you are making an error that is counter to your mission. By mandating a change to another platform next year you will divide the competition. Some teams will be able to raise money for the new kits, some will not. Robot competitions are mostly set up and run by volunteers. Do they need FIRST to run a competition? The answer is "NO." The organizers will face a lot of pressure to pick one class of robot--either the new or the VEX. The competitors will have a large say in that decision. If teams cannot afford the switch, then the challenges will break from FIRST and run their own challenges using VEX. Your poorly (!!!!) executed decision will divide he sport and cause great harm to the purpose you claim to support. I do not know who made this decision, nor who supported it--I suspect that money was at the root, however, if they worked in my business area they would be out of a job.
Cab:
Keep in mind that it is still possible your old motors and sensors have not been disqualified from this system... yet. The new system runs on the same voltage as VEX (so if allowed, your old motors will work), and if it uses PWM inputs, then your sensors should still work as well. Buying the full-scale kit might not be necessary. You might be able to only buy the CPU and modem components.
Of course, this is all speculation: thanks to this absurd way of announcing the new system, we won't know for sure until the championship.
Will we be able to program using Easy C? I am begging and pleading to allow us to program using Easy C, as the entire community has spent a long time learning how to program and it would be a huge pain to have to relearn everything.
darthpragus, easyC is supposed to teach you normal C at the same time of having an easy to use interface, ill bet they will use C (MPLAB or RobotC)
I can't believe FIRST is even thinking of moving away form Vex. If Vex had been around a couple years earlier, I think my original school would still be in FIRST. I've been using and working with some Vex teams the last two years, and the students love it. It's pretty cheap, still challenging, doesn't need a machine shop, the school can do it with teachers and students without needing engineers, and they don't have to spend the year fundraising. If everyone seems to like it, and all the teams I talked to at the LA vex event december seem to really like it, why would FIRST switch. I don't get it. The school I work with already spent a lot of money on it, and the students get a lot out of it, so we won't be switching to something else - there's no reason to.
Plus, I'm much more excited about the wifi system Vex announced than the bluetooth system announced hear. I'd trust wifi over bluetooth any day. I don't get it, bad decision FIRST, just doesn't make sense.
yes what im mad about is that they didn't even ask the teams, 'hey guys would you consider switching the platform?' just a simple e-mail is all it would take
The technology going into this platform seems impressive, but I feel that's really irrelevant both to FIRST's mission and participating students.
As a founder of a FIRST Vex Challenge team (Occam's Engineers - FVC3053) last season, and now a college student I think I've seen the competition and organization from a lot of perspectives. Along with a friend I literally ran all aspects of the team, so I have a very good understanding of the costs and challenges. Fundraising is really hard when you have a small team. We spent the entire season tirelessly fundraising and by the end each member had a contribute about $150 to cover the costs of competing in Atlanta. I talked to many teams at different regionals and Atlanta and I know many had a much harder time fundraising - our team was lucky to live in a business filled area of NJ.
One reason we went through so much money is we prototyped a ton; pretty much every crazy idea was built (for a post season event we tried to make a rubber band powered softball launcher...to no avail). So by the end of the season there were many many parts left over that never made it into the robot, but that was great, Vex parts (aside from some metal and the batteries) are almost infinitely reusable. Now it turns out this year's team has no trouble fundraising money (it turns out winning the World Championship doesn't hurt), but it certainly helped to start off with a large supply of parts.
The team bought some more parts, but far less than the team purchased last year. I'm sure this is true with many other teams. A huge and worthwhile investment was made in Vex parts and for good reason, the platform is great. Considering the thousands of dollars my former team has invested in Vex parts I would not be surprised if they decide to switch over to the Innovation First run Vex league next year. FIRST is all about inspiring people into STEM, and as far as I can tell the Innovation First league is really similar to the FIRST Tech Challenge - so it ought to do just the same.
I mean no ill will to FIRST (in fact I adore it), but I encourage teams with an investment in Vex to think about switching over to the Innovation First run league. It really pains me to say this but I think FIRST has made a horrible decision.
I would think that FIRST would allow both platforms to compete in next year's challenge, just as RCX and NXT were allowed to be used in FLL.
Personally, I played with a VEX kit and, sorry, wasn't impressed. The robot I experimented with was rickety and the whole thing felt like the Erector set I played with as a young kid - fun but it just didn't have a durable feel. My opinion only.
My real reason for commenting here, though, has to do with the remote control - I'm still against robotic competitions that use remote controls; with them, you're not building a robot but a remote control car that can use some attachments (again, though, triggered by a human). I was guessing that the change for FTC would be to encourage more autonomous robot building but it looks like FTC with the LEGO NXT will be the same type competition as before.
"I would think that FIRST would allow both platforms to compete in next year's challenge, just as RCX and NXT were allowed to be used in FLL."
FIRST is not exactly ditching vex because they hate the platform it's more so due to a "political break-up" with IFI which sells the Vex platform and maintains it. FRC will not be using the IFI Controller Robot System next year either.
There is an autonomous mode in FTC and FRC (actually FRC made a hybrid mode which I am somewhat against) but the autonomous mode is short (20 seconds). Although with Vex I must admit autonomous mode is hard to create (some sensors are somewhat faulty). But to the above I suggest you go to an FTC regional and do a bit of research before trying to flame Vex, and "controlling robots tele-operated" because teams have still engineered great robots.
This whole blog announcement system is ridiculous, but these teasers are especially annoying. They leave me with the distinct feeling FIRST doesn't have their act together. This in turn makes it very difficult for me to lobby for funding with a good conscience.
We understand what advantages Bluetooth offers, but how exactly are you using it? Show us this full-duplex controller or tell us you don't have it developed, but hypothetical 'range of options' doesn't tell me anything.
Mike.
Hmm, I guess I'm a little bit confused. Is the goal of the community to progress, or to remain static? The second is certainly easier, and cheaper, & *far* less risky... and also sure to become obsolete rapidly. Switching platforms is going to have some cost associated with it. And there will certainly be folks that locks out, and it may end up spinning off a "splinter" group. Is that a bad thing for producing a strong diverse community, or growing a community? On the other hand, the new platform (from what very little actual information has been released) seems to have strengths as well. Perhaps before snap judgements on the "best" direction, we should wait until we see what the actual pluses & minuses are, instead of just guessing & assuming.
With regards to the VEX platform itself, my experiences have paralleled Jim Kelly. And when I see things like the VEX PackBot that the Mythbuster team tried to build, & all their problems with the product, it doesn't further encourage me.
As to "autonomous vs remote controlled", I have to agree with Jim Kelly again. Putting the robot intelligence off-platform and in the hands (literally) of a human being doesn't make it a robot - it makes it a mechanism. Not that this isn't a good thing, or a useful thing, and not that it's not a *great* learning experience for kids & adults... but it's no longer an autonomous robot.
I'm just looking forward to more details - this sounds very interesting.
Brian,
In this sentence and those that follow it, you present us with a false choice" "Is the goal of the community to progress, or to remain static?".
The current situation isn't one in which we/FIRST are forced to switch from using Vex to using the different FTC kit, or stagnating.
It is one in which we/they can choose to grow with the well-established, evolving Vex product line; or perhaps grow with the different kit FIRST is in the process of assembling and releasing.
I think viewing the situation in this way helps to clarify the real choices that have been faced and the consequences of the decisions that have been taken.
One still might choose to unhitch one's wagon from the IFI/Vex products; but the choice is not between static and dynamic.
To me the choice seems to be a choice between, on the one hand "imperfect, but well liked and more than good enough"; and on the other hand, "unknown and probably more expensive".
You do the math.
Blake
Andy,
Regarding your response to my post, you stated "But to the above I suggest you go to an FTC regional and do a bit of research before trying to flame Vex, and "controlling robots tele-operated" because teams have still engineered great robots."
It was not my intention to "flame" Vex... I stated my opinion which was that I wasn't that impressed with what I had experienced.
I have attended FTC challenges with the VEX devices in play - but last year was an eye-opener at World in Atlanta when I was watching one team try and fix their VEX design - they were extremely irritated with some parts that broke (easily, in their words) and the main body was so rickety-loose that when I asked about it they told me they'd learned to "just work around it."
Look, I'm not knocking the designs the kids come up with using VEX - my point was that using a remote controller takes away the "robot" term and the autonomous behavior that is associated with it. I'm sorry if I offended, but it doesn't change my thoughts on the platform or the way it is controlled.
Blake wrote:
"The current situation isn't one in which we/FIRST are forced to switch from using Vex to using the different FTC kit, or stagnating."
I agree, actually. But what I seem to notice is a lot of people bemoaning the fact the a "platform switch" is occuring, without any real information on the abilities of the new platform or how it might relate to changed challenges. To put it another way, I don't notice a lot of people saying "this is an inferior system", or "how will this allow the FTC or the students to grow in ways different from the VEX base", but more comments along the lines of "this is expenssive and ill-thought-out"... when there is scant data to know why this change was made, or what else it might bring with it.
Will the new system be able to use some of the VEX kits from years past? Will FTC allow both systems for a while? What new abilities might BT bring the the challenges? I can see lots of reasons for concern... and also lots of reasons to look forward to new things. It seemed to me there was a lot of kicking about the price or the obsoleting of old HW, more than looking forward to what might happen.
Like it or not, change happens (ask anybody who's installed Vista). Some of it is for the good, some of it isn't... but until you know which is which, it seems a little premature to complain about change in general, and there's a lot of that in how I'm interpreting these response.
Am I dead wrong? I hope so. But time will tell. BTW I would agree that this is not the best way to introduce a change in platform - if more evidence is needed, look at the comments in this thread. On the other hand, I'm not sure the best way to introduce such a platform change either (I'm glad this is not me department).
I'm a FRC/FLL'er looking to start an FTC team.
My experience with NXT Blutooth is not stellar (from FLL) . Response times seem long, and the controller can only talk to one other Bluetooth device at a time.
This prompts questions about two-driver mode. Will the new system permit two drivers on a robot (one to drive, the other to manipulate)?
Also, if two NXT's are required for two drivers, will the two NXT's also be able to talk to each other as well... to share sensor data in auto-mode?
Post a Comment