In the past we also never repositioned, but many top teams did. It will be interesting if some new teams can beat these top teams because their autonomous would be better or even more reliable. Which I believe will be the most valuable thing this season
Hi thedarry,
Just a quick correction – this isn’t completely true. It is true that the “bones” of the 2015-2016 game were decided during the summer of 2014.
However: the GDC incorporates team feedback into their decisions right up until the unveiling (and even afterwards during the “manual finalization period”). It is never too late to provide constructive feedback to the GDC.
You can bet they are reading these forum posts right now.
If you have comments on an aspect of the game, please keep posting them!
In that case, should we start a thread about the possession rule last season?
But this rule I would like to see come back. I have always believed that you should not be able to turn your robot in either autonomous or programming skills.
In purpose to bring this alive again, I presume it would not be legal to mount a light sensor on the robot and if I put a piece of black paper infront of it, it would stop the robot. It would act like a fail safe that many teams used in tossup but they used a bumper switch.
Obviously it would not be ideal as many tournaments have different lighting. A division at worlds compared to the VEX Dome for example.
Just a thought though. Would be interesting to program.
I am positive Karthik would not allow this. That is still “interaction”. Interaction does not require physical touching.
Just wondering…why are some people so “scared” of writing truly autonomous routines? This is robotics and it is called autonomous for a reason! Let the robot do the work! It’s only 15 seconds. Sorry if that sounds a bit harsh, but I really don’t get all the concern over this interaction rule.
Don’t worry about sounding harsh. We did a “full autonomous” routine last season. We are happily welcoming the intention of this rule. (As shown in our previous posts, perhaps not the latest one) perhaps the reason I wanted this fail safe (which is in violation of i think it’s G8 ) is because maximum reliability is only achieved if fail safes are designed in mind.
Vex could be challenging us to come up with physical “fail-safes” rather than programming ones. Personally I would’ve like to manipulate both. What my overall point is NOT that I dislike this rule or it’s intention, it is NOT because I am ‘scared’ of programming but rather that I would like to use human sensor input. Because robots work at their best when they work in harmony with humans.
Saying this, my point may not have been apparent in my last post. So I hold any offence from your last post as I hope you don’t from mine.
Would you like to have this rule redefined so it includes sensor input? Or have it remain as it is? I would like what I have said but I feel VEX should be concentrating on other things first. Like keeping the possession out of any future games.
I think I get what you are saying. Personally I feel autonomous should involve no human interaction through physical or sensor activation…but that is just my opinion.
Not sure if this helps with the original question, but there was a recent ruling by Karthik in which he said it would not be ok to push a bumper switch to activate an autonomous routine once the match has started. I feel this is analogous to using a piece of paper to “trip” a light sensor for a fail safe.
