So the problem I have is the found it in a textbook, implemented it part. So this document (https://georgegillard.com/resources/documents) which is my goto on PID wouldn’t be good enough?
But if I’m doing it from a textbook, I’m doing it from the formula I showed earlier. So that counts out most of the USA MS and HS teams. (Thank goodness @meng has a great school system).
It’s like holonomic drive base, I can teach / explain how it works, but if I need one to work, I copy Cody’s drive code and use that. It’s simple and it works and I can find it here (Holonomic drives 2.0: A video tutorial by Cody)
We are trying to “stand on the shoulders of giants”, not digging at the rockface to mine silicone to make our own chips.
Otherwise we need to start a pretty aggressive campaign to have PID added to VEXCode / start testing teams in their in-depth knowledge of PROS.
And I get the “Purpose of G4” but I think that there is people drawing the bright line in an inappropriate place. There is nothing in the EP Commitment to Event Excellence) document https://kb.roboticseducation.org/hc/en-us/articles/12094736701975-Commitment-to-Event-Excellence that says anything about what they did. My disclaimer, it wasn’t my rodeo, wasn’t my monkeys, not my circus and I wasn’t there.
There is this line: Remember that the teams, regardless of experience, have worked hard preparing for an event. Prioritize the team experience whenever possible and help students leave with great memories from their event. Volunteers and event staff should be kind and respectful to all students.
And while it says that the rules need to be adhered to, there is no guidelines about how to determine “what playing above your level” looks like. And I’ve recently done a ton of RECF training, answering questions like “What word is missing from the RECF Mission Statement” and “Who do you call if your field elements are broken”, etc. But there is zero guidance on things like this. A key thing that does appear across all the training is “DONT MAKE THINGS UP”.