|
[DPRG] Games
Subject: [DPRG] Games
From: Randy M. Dumse
rmd at newmicros.com
Date: Sat Jun 16 16:55:09 CDT 2007
dpa opined on a rainy: Saturday, June 16, 2007 11:45 AM
> As Ed and others have pointed out, it's easier
> to administer but not nearly as exciting. ...
> the miniature course we currently use, and about
> which there is apparently so little enthusiasm.
As long as we are opining, may I offer some lateral thinking.
Most of the excitement of the contest was also having outside
spectators. Having the peanut gallery up the steps near the
course gave a viewing angle that was unique. The traffic of
people coming into the museum for a casual day of mental
stimulation, and then side-stepping to watch the robotics
activities, was, somehow, perfectly appropriate. If we have our
contests in the warehouse, we close ourselves off from the
outside world. We loose the excitement factor of a cheering
crowd. In short, I think we turn a excitement exhibition into
another quiet RBNO.
So if the crowd brings the excitement, how about we consider
going to the crowd? For instance, why don't we have a contest on
the floor of the Galleria Mall? And have three floors of on
lookers?
(Anybody ever made an ice skating robot? Besides a Zamboni I
mean?)
There are lots of malls that would have excellent overviewing
capacity, and if they are like the Galleria, the bottom floor is
the least traffic'ed.
I bet such a thing would be attention getting enough, the mall
might actually encourage the use of there space that way
(although I'm not sure what their real policy might be).
> 1. Go back to the full size course for QuickTrip, TTime, etc,
> and hold those competitions at the warehouse.
Yes on one, no on two.
> 2. Blow off CanCan. No robot has ever accomplised it in the
> 10 years since SR04 first collected all 6 cans.
You feel about CanCan like I feel about Quick Trip. Been there
done that.
Major difference is: people still enter Quick Trip.
I don't feel the need to say, let's get rid of Quick Trip, even
though I personally don't intend to enter again because I
understand Odometry and Navigation well now, unless I've got
something quite different to try. For instance, I might enter
with one of my walkers. Let's say I work out odometry for the
foot stroke, and think I can dead recon from my leg movements.
Or if I have a gyro, or compas, and that's how I am deteriming
going straight. Those might be occassions where I'd re-enter
Quick Trip. It's nice to know it is still there, if I want to do
that.
I would like to think when and if I ever get around to entering
CanCan, it would still be there.
(Since we've reduced the challenge, it has also reduced my
interest in attemptimg it. Just the opposite of the intention of
making it simpler. So in that sense, it _isn't_ there and
therefore no longer inspiring.)
Also, as I think back about all the people I've helped program
and build robots, many have expressed an ultimate goal of
CanCan. Bill James and BeerBot; we were working on integrating
the arm last time he was out. Travis; R2, and Travis;
RedOctaBot. Dave Peterson; various. Earl Bolinder; several. I
also considered entering my Tankbot with James Koffeman. We were
making a front catcher to fit the cans. If anything the
simplifying of this contest did more to squelch robot building
around here than any single other event I can think of. Getting
rid of it would have an even greater negative effect.
If anything, CanCan should be modified be more difficult rather
than simplified, to have extra points. Add a requirement to
stack the cans in the corner. Or put a can in each inside corner
(there are six inside corners in the T course). Add a
requirement to stack the cans up. Add a requirement to get the
cans and leave the bottles. Or get the Coke Cans and leave the
Pepsi Cans out there, alternate type on command.
Then maybe even dpa would have a reason to look forward to
CanCan again. Even dpa would have a reason to go on improving
SR04.
There's an interesting?telling question. Just when was the last
time you made an SR04 update(s)? And what was your
inspiration(s) for doing so?
Rename this contest the CanCan Challenge, and be sure it is, but
moving the goal to keep everyone innovating.
> 3. Design some new contests to be held at the Science Place
> which require *NO* setup. I suggest three contests be
considered:
I think we're working under a false premise.
The course size was reduced, because it was hard to set up. The
problem isn't the size, it is the hard to set up.
You are suggesting no set up. Yes, that is easiest, but you have
to ask, why would we bother with any setup at all then in any
sport? If we allow no set up at all, its like playing baseball
in a park without putting out any bases. Or having a race
without a starting line and ending line. You will find games and
contests almost always have arenas, boundary lines, fields of
play, etc.
The reasons we have boundaries is to make the contests fair and
equal. For instance, if your robot is following a line on the
floor at TSP, and some little girl wanders over and sits on the
line during your run, you haven't had a fair go. Or if your
robot is picked up by a little boy and he runs off with it to
show his daddy, your time could be longer than necessary. We
generally signal the expected social norm by put up boundaries.
If we don't put up boundaries, we are implying that the space
has no special function, and all are welcome to pass without
concern.
Your experience with jBot makes that extremely clear. I don't
think I've seen you run it around people without someone coming
over to follow, watch, touch, or stand infront of it.
So the problem isn't that the arenas are too big, or there
should be no arenas, it is that they are too hard to set up. Why
do the walls have to be rigid? What if we made them with those
crowd control belts?
http://www.crowdcontrolexperts.com/muso.html
http://www.crowdcontrolexperts.com/skcomoreba.html
This would work for everything except wall following (or CanCan
where the robot needed the walls for containment of the field of
play. For those events, it could be as easy as making these
stands just 12" high, and hanging a roll of paper towels from
the belt to make the wall.
Even better if we could come up with a retractable wall 8" (or
so) wide.
Easy up, easy down, exceedingly portable, can be made most any
size, shape, quick retraction for tear down.
> c. Navigation. Start at one of the "planets" embedded in
the
> lobby floor and navigate to another and back. Or to
several
> and back.
Now this, Interplanetary Hoping, I really like. Very symbolic as
well. But I think it is only fair, if pedestrian traffic is
restrained from being "in the way". How are the goals marked, or
are they not marked? What is tested and what is demonstrated?
> motivate more entries?
> Would $1000 first prize do it?
I hate to see an amature robot club get into handing out cash
prizes. As with other social events, when money gets involved,
politeness, civility, comradery, all go out the window.
Motivation should come from the personal challenge, the
back-and-forth between contestants trying to out do each other,
and the praise for those who perform well.
I've been doing some soul searching why I haven't revisited my
tank, after the Hbridge torched the whole electronics stack. You
know, I've gotten quite a bit of negative feedback about the
tank, even without anyone ever seeing it move. Seems other
builders are sure "those motors won't do". I've also been told,
the tank is a bad platform, abandon it, the Traxxas truck frame
is the way to go.
While I'd love to prove all the nay sayers wrong, a continuous
line of negative feedback does take its toll. It errodes
interest and self-confidence.
I'm wondering if our lack of building robots is due to a mode of
negativity we've let ourselves fall into. As a group, we've
become rather down in the mouth. I remember when I used to bring
things in, people would go, "ooooh that's neat". Now I hear,
"That tank? You did it wrong." or "Your walker can barely hold
itself up." I feel the incentive is gone. I think the interest
and the excitement was the incentive.
I think that's why we should go to a mall. Lots of people would
be very impressed and excited by our robots, and we've forgotten
that they would be, and lost touch with why this was all fun in
the beginning.
There in lies the motivation. Even if we don't get praise for
our robots, because we aren't up to snuff yet in some aspect, we
can at least watch SR04 winning CanCan, or jBot winning the Long
Haul contest, (or whoever wins MiniSumo and the other contests)
and we can wish to earn the praise and excitement from the crowd
the winner is experiencing, even more so if we are the poor
performing examples he is compared against. We can dream someday
of exceeding what he is doing. We can dream of getting the
praise. But when dpa doesn't show, doesn't enter, doesn't at
least exhibition, if no one else does the task, then no one is
particularly impressed or excited, and the whole club slides
down in expectations.
Randy
www.newmicros.com
More information about the DPRG mailing list
|
