We've made severals observations and proposals on the layout on the table with Barbatronic and grouped them in the following document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zeZj58cJ8As5QQC-a8mhKNVE_R9E1DVWzb1nFWNiZvo/edit?usp=sharing
This involve a number of modicfications that frees up the table, remove conflictual situations, helps readabilty and benefit to all categories of teams/contests.
(limitations of the FAQ editor prevented us from writing directly the document here)
Observation 1: The reserved zone (backstages) highly limits the navigation on the table. There is no free space between the elements in the center of the table and the reserved zones. (Here the red robot cuts the table in half)Proposal 1: Reduce the size of the reserved zone (backstages) to 450mm (just like the scene and the ending zone)
Observation 1: The reserved zone (backstages) highly limits the navigation on the table. There is no free space between the elements in the center of the table and the reserved zones. (Here the red robot cuts the table in half)
Proposal 1: Reduce the size of the reserved zone (backstages) to 450mm (just like the scene and the ending zone)
=> Je trouve que c'est une proposition qui ne coûte pas grand chose, aide à la lisibilité du plateau et permet + de déplacements sur le terrain : que du positif :)
J'en profite pour le mentionner ici : je crois qu'il manque une proposition associée à la modification de la forme de la fosse. Idée que l'on retrouve dans le schéma "After" à la fin.
Observation 2: Elements are big this year (which is great) but the current size seems excessive and might result in: more robot collision, large debris blocking navigation.Proposal 2: Reduce the number of cans from 4 to 3, and the board size from 40cm to 30cm. (still fairly big)
Observation 2: Elements are big this year (which is great) but the current size seems excessive and might result in: more robot collision, large debris blocking navigation.
Proposal 2: Reduce the number of cans from 4 to 3, and the board size from 40cm to 30cm. (still fairly big)
Je ne sais pas quoi penser de la proposition. ça change pas mal ce que l'on verra en match et je suppose que la commission règlement a déjà grandement réfléchi au sujet. D'un côté je suis pour vis-à-vis de la taille limite effrayante des éléments de jeu (sans même parler du poids). De l'autre, cela va rendre les tentatives de construction plus fastidieuses. What about laisser par exemple une zone (c.f. proposition 5) en 40cm/4 cans, ou bien les 2 centraux ? Et le reste en paquets de 30cm/3 cans, peut-être ?
Observation 3: By allowing to build a 2-stack construction, current composition of the elements zones (4 cans + 2 boards) limits the (required) movements of the robots on the field. This encourage robots to remain fairly static while building their construction, leading to less interesting games from the public.Proposal 3: Reduce the number of boards from 2 to 1 (and integrate proposal 2).
Observation 3: By allowing to build a 2-stack construction, current composition of the elements zones (4 cans + 2 boards) limits the (required) movements of the robots on the field. This encourage robots to remain fairly static while building their construction, leading to less interesting games from the public.
Proposal 3: Reduce the number of boards from 2 to 1 (and integrate proposal 2).
Pour moi proposition totalement groupée avec la précédente. Je pense en effet que la 2nd planche y deviendrait superflue (en plus d'ajouter un poids non négligeable que des équipes sans gros budget pour des actionneurs avec un bon couple seraient incapables de déplacer)
Observation 4: Current elements and construction zone layout will make it hard for a robot to differentiate elements on the side from an opponent construction. And the proximity of the elements/zones will result in many unintentional collision with opponent’s constructions. There is no margin between zones.Proposal 4: Change the side starting zones to construction zones, reduce their size (according to smaller boards of proposal 3) and rotate the elements vertically along the border.
Observation 4: Current elements and construction zone layout will make it hard for a robot to differentiate elements on the side from an opponent construction. And the proximity of the elements/zones will result in many unintentional collision with opponent’s constructions. There is no margin between zones.
Proposal 4: Change the side starting zones to construction zones, reduce their size (according to smaller boards of proposal 3) and rotate the elements vertically along the border.
Grosse proposition ! Pas fan du fait de dégager 1 starting zone. Mais je suis d'accord avec le reste de la proposition :) Eventuellement ne pas faire la rotation des éléments de jeu les plus en haut ?
Observation 5: Current PAMI starting zone is blocked behind the robot ending zone. This will result in many PAMI/Robot collisions at the end of each game.Proposal 5: Move the PAMI starting zone in front of the ramp (replacing the reserved elements). To compensate the lost elements, add an element zone at the bottom of the table (as other proposal freed some space)Observation 6: Manipulating the reserved elements is at high risk for the PAMIs in case of failure. If a board falls on the floor, PAMIs will be blocked. So one mistake will cost many points. (Reserving elements is mainly beneficial to beginners so manipulation error are very probable)Proposal 6: Refer to proposal 5 that removes those elements and frees up the space for PAMIs to navigate.
Observation 5: Current PAMI starting zone is blocked behind the robot ending zone. This will result in many PAMI/Robot collisions at the end of each game.
Proposal 5: Move the PAMI starting zone in front of the ramp (replacing the reserved elements). To compensate the lost elements, add an element zone at the bottom of the table (as other proposal freed some space)
Observation 6: Manipulating the reserved elements is at high risk for the PAMIs in case of failure. If a board falls on the floor, PAMIs will be blocked. So one mistake will cost many points. (Reserving elements is mainly beneficial to beginners so manipulation error are very probable)
Proposal 6: Refer to proposal 5 that removes those elements and frees up the space for PAMIs to navigate.
Pas fan de cette modification, je ne trouve pas qu'elle apporte grand chose.
Je rassemble les propositions 5 et 6 parce qu'en l'état j'ai l'impression qu'elles disent la même chose.
Observation 7: The position of the ArUcO tags on the table has changed, deprecating the blank (grid) vinyl teams have bought last years. The reason seems motivated by the PAMIs following line. So teams might not realize this update and encounter issues during competitions.Proposal 7: Reshape the following line to restore the position of the ArUcO tags (as the proposal 5 moved the PAMI starting area).
Observation 7: The position of the ArUcO tags on the table has changed, deprecating the blank (grid) vinyl teams have bought last years. The reason seems motivated by the PAMIs following line. So teams might not realize this update and encounter issues during competitions.
Proposal 7: Reshape the following line to restore the position of the ArUcO tags (as the proposal 5 moved the PAMI starting area).
Je suppose, accompagné du reshape de la fosse, non mentionné :) J'aime le reshape de la fosse qui semble laisser un peu plus d'espace. Avis neutre sur la ligne.
Hello, Thanks a lot for such a detailed proposal ! (it's a duplicate from my answer on the discord in case some people are not on it)
Proposal 1 : Great idea ! Seems more logical for the back stages to be behind the scene without a part of the concert pit inside. while making the field of play more open.