fair enough, I’m looking at it exclusively from a vrc perspective where I expect it will be much less useful.
For sure, there’s no doubt there’s legitimate reasons to have multiple GPS sensors, I completely get that. I still have a really hard time believing having only 1 sensor is going to fly, so the notion that you won’t have to get multiple should you choose to invest seems really unrealistic at best.
I get that manufacturing these sensors aren’t cheap, and that VEX is absolutely a for-profit company. It just seems absurd, – going back to Illyana’s point about 3D printing – and almost disingenuous, that VEX refuses to allow things like 3D printing citing cost reasons (among other things), and then turns around and releases this sensor which is going to probably be at least $400 if you’re seriously going to intend to use them.
I don’t think anyone here is of the opinion that the field strips need to be bundled with the sensor itself. I think the main issue with the entire explanation was the notion that 3 GPS sensors would be necessary for decent usage of the entire system. I don’t think anyone needs extra strips. In our room, we already are running out of space to store things, we definitely don’t need more lol.
Like I said, the whole thing sounds disingenuous, VEX continues to shoot down things that most would like to see usually citing cost and accessibility reasons, and then turns around and releases things that go directly against that cost argument. Between pneumatics (which is arguably a bigger hit since they’re much more relevant/important in the long run) and this, any argument of things not being allowed due to being costly is looking more and more ridiculous.
Fair. But at what point is it almost too much to think that the sensor should just be restricted to VAIC only? While odometry will absolutely still hold up (and probably reign supreme since it seems almost no one is actually going to buy the sensor), it almost seems like it would make more sense to just say the sensor is VAIC only, and end it there, rather than potentially allowing some team with a boatload of funding to potentially shortcut their way to a top auton routine (although that’s probably a huge stretch).
time will tell. we literally know nothing of its effectiveness yet
Factually incorrect - please refer back to my earliest post about the GPS strip being included in sensor kit. I misunderstood during Summit discussions - hence Jim Crane coming in with a clear statement about what is bundled or not. Note the origin of the discussion was about how EPs can support teams desire to have strips present if needed by teams. One question we had was specifically competition fields - getting lots of strips is a material acquisition for EPs - so the line of questioning was directed that it might not be a big deal as teams will have strips with all their sensors. Turns out, not the case. EPs will figure it out - we have time.
As mentioned, this may be much to do about nothing.
One point to be aware of is in the world of programming, you generally have 2 possibilities architecturally: one or many. If a system is designed for one device on a robot (one brain, for example), it generally is not designed for more than one under any circumstances. Any system designed for more than one is often designed for a (generally) arbitrary number of devices (bump switches, potentiometers, rotation sensors, etc). Motors are an edge case where it will allow an unlimited number (for VEX U use), but will limit capabilities above 8.
Personally, I am glad they designed it to accommodate more than one GPS on a robot. One rather interesting use case I can see for multiple sensors would be a tether bot (obviously not this year).
I would not assume that more than one will be necessary for most purposes. Lets give VEX the benefit of the doubt until people actually test them in the real world.
Vex is the company that makes the products, recf is the group that makes the rules
(Everything that follows might be entirely wrong, take everything I say below with a grain of salt)
I believe the game design committee has members from both IFI (parent company of VEX Robotic Inc, who own the copyright for VEX Robotics, and own the site where the rules are hosted) and from the RECF. The relationship between IFI and the RECF seems to be… absurdly complicated… especially given the RECF was, at least in the past (not sure about now) heavily funded by IFI. Also, if you want a VEX Robotics Competition, you need to keep the company that owns the trademark for “VEX Robotics” happy.
So yeah. There’s no clear line of “VEX makes the parts, the RECF makes the rules.”
EDIT: Just to be clear, not trying to make any value statements about this relationship. Just trying to make it clear that it’s really hard to draw a line between the two entities.
Absolutely wrong - don’t play lawyer. Neither will I. That said both are legally separate legal entities with very clear lines drawn.
The game design committee is (at least was as of February of 2020, I don’t follow this enough to know if it’s changed) chaired by Grant Cox, a VEX Robotics employee. The game design committee are the ones who design the game, and therefore write the rules. The Game Design Committee is made up of both IFI and RECF employees.
The typical GDC member is, by definition, a valuable subject-matter-expert of the VEX or RECF workforce in some capacity
I am sure there are very clear legal lines in terms of intellectual property ownership, finances, etc between the IFI and RECF. I am in no way saying anything in their relationship is not 100% aboveboard. But it would be absurd to think that the two organizations do not closely communicate and align their strategies. It is therefore very hard to draw a line between a decision made by the RECF and a decision made by IFI, given they have highly aligned goals and work in close coordination. Especially with regards to the rules, in no way can you say that the RECF write the rules entirely on their own.
What part of that is in any way incorrect?
Your initial statement “no clear line…” is factual incorrect in terms of legal terms.
VEX makes products. RECF is a non-profit entity that manages many programs, aside fro VRC, VEX-U, VIQC… (all have roots with VEX for sure…). but RADC and many other endeavors are separate from VEX platform.
As for GDC Grant is a visible member, but Jim Crane is also a member of GDC. Perhaps GDC should publish the membership of the Game Design Committee for full transparency. That might make things clearer for all.
Equally, it is well know IFI is a strong financial of VRC program, but competition is not likely their primary source of revenue - they have many product lines in education, consumer toys, network rack solutions …
Do not confusion partnerships to be full co-dependency, financial or otherwise. Unless you have more insights to financials and contracts.
[final thought edit - clear lines:
RECF non-profit runs robotics educations programs world wide
VEX/IFI for profit makes parts for some RECF programs
GDC - joint agreement to make competition rules for VRC, VEXU, VAIC, and VIQC competitions
]
With regards to the rules, there does not appear to be any line, legal or otherwise. To the extent we have public knowledge of how game rules are written, we know that:
The person in charge of writing them is an employee of VEX Robotics (i.e IFI) and not RECF.
The makeup of that committee is of some number of IFI employees, some number of RECF employees, and possibly (but not necessarily) some number of people not employed by either entity.
My use of the term “clear line” was not meant as a legal term, but meant colloquially, as this is an internet forum and not a court room. I meant it in the colloquial dictionary sense. The first dictionary entry for clear is
adjective easy to perceive, understand, or interpret.
It is very difficult to perceive the line, as there is very little public information. It is difficult to interpret, because copyright law, intellectual property, and financial disclosures are difficult for a lay person to interpret. Ergo, it is not clear. It not easy to perceive, understand, or interpret where the lines are drawn between IFI and RECF for the outside observer.
To the extent we are able to understand the relationship, it is inaccurate to say that the RECF are the ones who make the rules because, as I have shown, the rules are written by the RECF and the IFI cooperatively. There is definitively no line, clear or otherwise, that the RECF are the ones who write the rules.
Game design as well as design of game objects and field elements is literally done by VEX engineering stuff. It is their full time jobs to design the games that play well with VEX EDR mechanical and V5 control system and vice versa. Only accounting department should really care how those are organized. To outside world they appear as a single functional entity that delivers great (fingers crossed) games and hardware to build robots to play them. Why do we need to insist that they are separate?
All,
Some people on the GDC don’t want others to know they are on the GDC, simply because you get hounded with questions if people know. I’d don’t mind that, and so don’t mind people knowing I have been on it for many, many years.
The GDC has varied in size over the years, but right now it his a core group of 5, and then a whole support structure of people who then have various responsibilities, such as reviewing the manual, writing TM, now writing LRT, creating virtual skills, video editing, marketing, etc.
But in the core 5, 2 are VEX employees, 2 are REC Foundation employees and 1 works as a part-time contractor to do the GDC work and other competition aspects throughout the season. The GDC is all about consensus building. No rule has been made without the consensus of the group, no matter what the size of the group that particular year.
Does @DRow happen to be one of those people? 
On the Multiple GPS thing, surely this is just a way to increase reliability rather than just saying that one is inaccurate.
If anyone has yet installed the new releases of VEXcode, you can see how the GPS configuration works. You give it a number of offset parameters which includes which way the camera is facing. If you have one GPS, and the view from that camera gets blocked by another robot, field element, game element or anything else, then it can no longer see the field strip. Now in Skills which is where the GPS will be used in a VRC context, this is not really a big deal since you control these variables so much more (in that you are planning your route, can predict what will happen etc.)
If you were using it in a match (or were an VAIC team), having more than one frame of reference might be useful, say maybe a front and rear GPS or a left and right GPS for example. You could compare the data from each or use one as a failsafe to the other as just a couple of examples.
No, @DRow is not on the GDC. I am one of the two VEX employees on the GDC, and have been for the better part of 5 years. I’ll let you guess at who the other VEX employee is.
For anyone wondering it’s Brandon.
FTFY
20 characters xx
That hurts even more than the price of the 3 x $199 V5 GPS sensors.
We want water game not because it memes well, but because water is the most sustainable, renewable, and recyclable resource on the planet.
Unlike reusable FLL and IQ game elements, VRC generates tons of plastic waste every season.
Marking them with recycle symbol is not enough to keep them out of landfills and oceans. We have to do better not because “Save the Turtles” trends on twitter, but because we now better understand the dreadful impact of microplastics on our environment.
And I thought Brandon was so cool, he could design game elements out of frozen water. But now with you bragging that DRow is not on GDC, you are adding an insult to an environmental injury.
And you know why denying 3D printing option also hurts?
Because it is not about protecting us from the flying debris of 3D printed flywheels, but because we feel it is about protecting profits.
Most teams are not going to use $2000 dollar 3D printers to make insane flywheels and bearings from an exotic $500 filament.
Most teams are going to use budget 3D printers to make battery clips and custom gussets, to save some money off vex gusset packs that cost as much as the entire roll of filament.
I would rather spend my time designing 3D printed parts, than visiting 10 local businesses every week to fundraise just enough money to buy that 6-pack of gussets.
I’ll expand on Jim’s point here to avoid any further rabbit holes of guesswork (and because it’s not a secret or anything). Although I used to work for VEX directly, I shifted to an independent role last year, with my robotics work now focusing solely on GDC leadership and assisting both IFI & the RECF with other competition-related subjects as needed. Balancing the GDC between the two organizations has always been extremely important to me; with this move, the goal is to have an objectively 50/50 balance of IFI/RECF staff, plus an impartial Chairman.
It’s hard to put into words just how deeply rooted our consensus-building decision-making process is, which is why this balance is so important. Sure, Jon may send the initial Slack message saying “hey what about X”, or I may be the one who writes the final Q&A answer, but it’s always discussed with “we”/“our” pronouns. “Our answer”, “what did we think about X”, etc.
I’ve used the James Naismith analogy before… the GDC is like James Naismith, the RECF is the NCAA or NBA, and IFI is Nike or Spalding. None of the three can exist without the others, and although the individual members may represent different stakeholders, it is our shared vision for “what basketball is” which creates the competition ecosystem you see.
For those looking for “clear lines”, I’m not sure if this helps, or makes it more confusing. Either way, when it comes to a topic as complex as 3D printing or VEX GPS, this philosophy is even more pronounced. We don’t vote, we don’t make the decision overnight, we don’t make it in a vacuum, we don’t do it without executive oversight/signoff from both RECF & IFI leadership (i.e. Dan and Tony). “RECF” didn’t write the rule, “VEX” didn’t write the rule; “the GDC” did, in alignment with the missions of the organizations that we serve.