DPRG
DPRG List  



[DPRG] A Modest Proposal

Subject: [DPRG] A Modest Proposal
From: ed at okerson.com ed at okerson.com
Date: Thu Mar 6 11:00:54 CST 2014

Doug,

I was referring to Ron's comment about the 20 foot drop.  I pretty sure
that would be destructive to most of the entries.

I won't be entering this time.  At some point when my Hero 1 mods are
complete, I may give it a go.

Ed

> Ed,
>     You are thinking about this wrong. In the CanCan Soccer event, the
> opposing robot is a randomizing element. Autonomy in a changing
> environment
> is a much more interesting (and fun to watch) problem. The rules expressly
> prohibit behavior that would be anything even remotely lead to robot
> destruction or even intentional robot aggression. BTW, Are you planning on
> entering a robot? The more robots entered the merrier the competition.
>
> Ron,
>      ...nah. <grin> That sounds like our current table top with the
> addition
> of walls and a 20 foot drop instead of a 3 foot drop. <grin> We will have
> plenty of time at the Perot. We can run single robot demonstrations
> throughout the day, but the competition is the competition.
>
> Regards,
> Doug P.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ed at okerson.com
> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 9:17 AM
> To: dprglist at dprg.org
> Subject: Re: [DPRG] A Modest Proposal
>
> Yep, just as I thought, moving more towards robot destruction than robot
> autonomy......
>
> Ed
>
>> Hello David,
>> Here is a counter proposal:
>>
>> Solo Soccer
>>
>> If a person feels/knows their robot can locate and move at least one can
>> to the "opponent" goal in 20 seconds then they may choose to enter your
>> robot in the solo soccer contest.
>>
>> Opting for the solo contest and failing to meet that initial goal of
>> first
>> can in 20 seconds will result in termination of the solo run (after 20
>> seconds) and you will be required to compete in the two contestant
>> soccer
>> match or make a donation to the "big robot project" of at least $20 or
>> opt
>> to have your robot dropped from a height of 20 feet onto a hard surface.
>> (I am big on 20s this morning).
>>
>> If your robot moves meets the initial 20 second goal, it is allowed to
>> continue for up to 3 minutes or until all of the cans have been moved to
>> the goal.
>>
>> Someone can work out the formula for the  time/can count scoring details
>> for the contest.
>>
>> Ron Grant
>>
>> PS I realize that there is a loophole favoring people who build poor
>> performing impact resistant robots. They can enter solo soccer without
>> penalty.
>>
>> PPS I dropping bit can be deleted if it seems too extreme. Was probably
>> trying to make the post more interesting to read.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ed <ed at okerson.com>
>> To: dprglist <dprglist at dprg.org>
>> Sent: Thu, Mar 6, 2014 6:59 am
>> Subject: Re: [DPRG] A Modest Proposal
>>
>>
>> I guess RobotWars combat style competitions are next?  Could be fun, but
>> a
>> totally different crowd.  I guess it just depends on who you are trying
>> to
>> appeal to.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>> Perhaps.   I was under the impression that the purpose was to increase
>>> the skills of the builders.  At least that's how it's been explained to
>>> me.  My bad.
>>>
>>> See you all in May.
>>> dpa
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/05/2014 10:48 PM, paradug wrote:
>>>> David,
>>>>    I think Karim has it right.
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Doug P.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Karim Virani
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 7:04 PM
>>>> To: dprglist ; davida at smu.edu
>>>> Subject: Re: [DPRG] A Modest Proposal
>>>>
>>>> How dare you, sir.  Not only is your modest proposal actually modest,
>>>> but it also fails to be both unreasonable and irrational. Further it
>>>> viciously impugns our beliefs that we each shall surmount all the
>>>> various minor capabilities required of our mechanical contraptions.
>>>> Our personal delusions lie at the core of our humanity and thus are
>>>> sacrosanct. One wonders whether you were compelled to offer this
>>>> proposal on behalf of your cold and calculating creations.
>>>>
>>>> OK, so let's assume that I agree with just about everything you said.
>>>> Further, I recognize that you are pretty much the only member who has
>>>> consistently demonstrated a robot that is able to avoid moving
>>>> obstacles and still proceed toward a particular goal.  I remember you
>>>> trying to obstruct SR04 and forcing it to move around you to deliver a
>>>> can back at one of the last classic can can competitions at the old
>>>> science plan - probably a decade ago. So you are really just lowering
>>>> the bar for the rest of us in your inimitably warm and gracious manor.
>>>>
>>>> Yet I still find myself disagreeing with your recommendation.  If the
>>>> goal of the contest is to fairly judge the true capabilities of each
>>>> of our evolving entries, then the proposal makes perfect sense.  If
>>>> instead, the goal is to get maximum entertainment and public buy-in at
>>>> a premier venue like the Perot, then a head to head contest would be
>>>> better - even if the robots just wander about bashing into each other,
>>>> the walls and running over cans. The latter is the actual premise that
>>>> the contest was designed around if I recall correctly.  Of course that
>>>> presumes that 1. we are actually confirmed for the Perot (Doug?) and
>>>> that 2. we still wish to pursue the original premise. The fine points
>>>> of the various capabilities of our robots is something that will be
>>>> understood by only the few of us involved in building them.  I'd
>>>> happily sacrifice some fairness and predictability in order to draw in
>>>> some fresh interest.
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Karim
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: dprglist-bounces at dprg.org <dprglist-bounces at dprg.org> on behalf
>>>> of David Anderson <davida at smu.edu>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:03 PM
>>>> To: dprglist
>>>> Subject: [DPRG] A Modest Proposal
>>>>
>>>> Greetings Fellow Roboteers,
>>>>
>>>> Runnning my best attempt at the DPRG CanCan Soccer contest with SR04
>>>> over the weekend, and conferring with some of the other teams'
>>>> members,
>>>> it looks like the problems associated with 1) sensing and locating the
>>>> cans, 2) capturing them in some way, 3) locating the goal, 4)
>>>> delivering
>>>> the cans thereto, and 5) doing all of this repeatedly, are the major
>>>> areas of R&D that everyone (myself included) are currently trying to
>>>> solve.
>>>>
>>>> Adding the complication of sensing and avoiding the other robot, not
>>>> to
>>>> mention the problems involved in sensing and avoiding the judge, (who
>>>> will at times also be in the competition space to "immediately remove"
>>>> any secondary cans the robot might have collided with) seems beyond
>>>> what
>>>> most teams are currently working on.  Doug has tried to address this
>>>> problem with a fairly complex set of rules regarding "collisions" and
>>>> who can call "reset" and under what conditions. All of this is, at
>>>> this
>>>> time, untested.
>>>>
>>>> Understanding that the DPRG CanCan Soccer rules for 2014a are pretty
>>>> much cast in concrete, I nonetheless have a modest proposal: Run the
>>>> robots one at a time.
>>>>
>>>> All the other rules remain the same.  The Robot with the most cans at
>>>> the end of its 10 minute run is the winner, and ties will be decided
>>>> by
>>>> the fastest times.
>>>>
>>>> When we have a group of robots that can successfully do the 5 tasks
>>>> listed above (probably not what will happen at 2014a), then we can
>>>> have
>>>> them go head-to-head.  This modest proposal allows the teams to
>>>> concentrate this time around on the main goals (no pun) of the contest
>>>> itself, and show the performance of their solutions in the best
>>>> possible
>>>> light.
>>>>
>>>> Having the robots go head-to-head involves a whole new group of
>>>> problems, which are probably best solved once you have a robot that is
>>>> already able to solve the 5 basic tasks.   Further, head-to-head
>>>> competition inevitably invites counter-measures.  I can think of half
>>>> a
>>>> dozen off the top of my head, all that lay within the letter and
>>>> spirit
>>>> of the rules.   Seems like that sort of thing should be reserved for a
>>>> more advanced contest.
>>>>
>>>> As an aside, I found this weekend that "immediately removing" any
>>>> secondary cans and returning them "to their original locations"
>>>> invariably interferes with both the offending robot and the
>>>> non-offending robot, because of the presence of a large object, the
>>>> judge, within the contest boundary.  Has anybody else actually tried
>>>> this?  This rule may need to be revisited for the next contest in
>>>> 2014b.
>>>>
>>>> modestly,
>>>> dpa
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> DPRGlist mailing list
>>>> DPRGlist at dprg.org
>>>> http://list.dprg.org/mailman/listinfo/dprglist
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> DPRGlist mailing list
>>>> DPRGlist at dprg.org
>>>> http://list.dprg.org/mailman/listinfo/dprglist
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> DPRGlist mailing list
>>> DPRGlist at dprg.org
>>> http://list.dprg.org/mailman/listinfo/dprglist
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DPRGlist mailing list
>> DPRGlist at dprg.org
>> http://list.dprg.org/mailman/listinfo/dprglist
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DPRGlist mailing list
>> DPRGlist at dprg.org
>> http://list.dprg.org/mailman/listinfo/dprglist
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DPRGlist mailing list
> DPRGlist at dprg.org
> http://list.dprg.org/mailman/listinfo/dprglist
>
> _______________________________________________
> DPRGlist mailing list
> DPRGlist at dprg.org
> http://list.dprg.org/mailman/listinfo/dprglist
>


More information about the DPRG mailing list