[robocup-humanoid] WG: [Fwd: Field sizes used in 2008]

Thu Aug 21 03:35:46 EDT 2008

I think we need also to clarify if the small size league can jump to our
line width, layout. We cannot go below 4cm I think. If this is a problem
we can suggest to come towards the following plan:

joint layout HL/SPL/Aibo 2009
joint layout SSL/HL/SPL/Aibo 2010 -so we would have more time to come
together (?)

even if the line width is not problem we could suggest to delay the
merger a little (1y,?)

On Wed, 2008-08-20 at 17:08 +0200, Oskar von Stryk wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> There can not be any doubt that an ancient and very moderately 
> progressing league can _not_ impose any constraints on the development of 
> a such an actively and dramatically progressing league like the humanoid 
> league further to the RoboCup 2050 goal!
> 
> We should first discuss which field size is best for the humanoid 
> league and then discuss how to consider other constraints.
> The team leader voting in Suzhou was in favor of a moderate 
> increase in field size.
> 
> The only reason I can imagine why RoboCup trustees want to have more
> standardized field sizes can only be the cost of the fields.
> 
> The main cost for HL field has been the special lighting
> but as the voting about lighting in the team leader meeting in Suzhou
> clearly said, the HL will probably go to indoor lighting (TC still has to 
> discuss).
> But then cost is not a reason to have different field sizes
> in HL and other leagues like SSL.
> 
> Regards,
> Oskar
> 
> P.S.
> SSL could be more progressive and introduce a combination
> of global and local vision in 2009 to cover a larger field size.
> 
> 
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Thomas Röfer wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > before discussing an increase of the field size, I forward a reaction from
> > the Small Size League to my initial e-mail about field sizes. So far, they
> > seem to be reluctant about increasing the size. So if we really want to
> > increase the size, we must be pretty convincing:
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: zickler at gmail.com [mailto:zickler at gmail.com] Im Auftrag von Stefan
> > Zickler
> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. Juli 2008 18:24
> > An: Alexander Hofmann; Mahisorn Wongphati; Alfredo Weitzenfeld;
> > small-size-committees at informatik.uni-bremen.de
> > Cc: Thomas.Roefer at dfki.de
> > Betreff: Re: [Fwd: Field sizes used in 2008]
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I think the current SSL field-size has reached its limit given the
> > two-camera setup, both in terms of resolution and distortion/occlusion
> > caused by the very wide angle we have to cover. Many teams have
> > already bought new lenses for this year, so we should maintain current
> > field size as much as possible until we will eventually scale up the
> > size significantly for 11 vs. 11 in 2011 or 2012. Such a significant
> > scale-up should in my opinion only happen once shared vision is fully
> > established and we will be able to run 4 cameras per field.
> >
> > As Tim suggested, this should not be too much of a problem for the
> > other leagues. SPL and Humanoid should be able to easily adapt to the
> > current SSL field-size, leaving only Aibo, which is being replaced by
> > the new SPL anyhow.
> >
> > I have also had a short chat with Manuela and she agrees that SSL
> > might have to "dictate" field sizes due to our global vision
> > constraints, which is fine with her as long as all leagues agree on
> > one field size.
> >
> > I think for now we should focus on two things:
> > - ensure that current SSL size can and will be used among the other
> > leagues for this and possibly next year.
> > - coordinate with the other leagues about an eventual significant
> > scale-up of the field in 2011 or 2012. I think such a scale-up would
> > also benefit humanoid and SPL as their locomotion and teamplay should
> > become more robust in the future.
> >
> > In terms of field markings we should try to find out the specific
> > requirements of the other leagues and then create a proposal that
> > incorporates our needs.
> >
> > Thomas already brought up the idea of having two rectangular defense
> > areas. This might actually work out well for small-size, as the
> > smaller one could take the role of the traditional defense area, and
> > the larger one could become what's currently the 90cm radius for fair
> > "header" positioning during corner-kicks. Having a line to better
> > enforce this rule might actually be beneficial (as it was hard to ref
> > this without markings in place).
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Stefan
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Alexander Hofmann
> > <alexander.hofmann at technikum-wien.at> wrote:
> >> In my opinion we should keep the current size for 2009 and start a
> >> discussion for 2010 right now. We should start to publish major rule
> > changes
> >> 1 year before, so every team can slowly adapt their systems.
> >>
> >> Best Regards,
> >> Alexander Hofmann
> >>
> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >> Von: Mahisorn Wongphati [mailto:mahisorn.w at gmail.com]
> >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. Juli 2008 14:24
> >> An: Alfredo Weitzenfeld
> >> Cc: small-size-committees at informatik.uni-bremen.de
> >> Betreff: Re: [Fwd: Field sizes used in 2008]
> >>
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> I'm do agree with Alfredo. For our league, crease the field size to match
> >> the biggest one still possible. And change the defense area to rectangular
> >> shape may reduce some work of the constructor too.
> >>
> >> The only problem for increase the field size it the camera resolution.
> >> Currently, Plasma-Z camera resolution is about 800x600 at 60Hz increase the
> >> size of the field will not much effect them. However, team with 640x480
> > will
> >> surely have the problem with this change.
> >>
> >> Further more, at 4 m height some team's camera will not cover the whole
> >> field for anymore. (Please see the attchement).
> >>
> >> Finally, If we (all leagues) need to change the field size. The most
> > effect
> >> league may be the SSL because we are the only league that use the global
> >> camera. We should mention this issue to trustees to give us additional
> >> weight for our vote.  The additional detail about this size and ratio of
> > the
> >> field issue also in the attached table. The may give us some aspect about
> >> the percentage of play area change between each field size.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Best Regards,
> >> Mahisorn Wongphati
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 10:08 AM, Alfredo Weitzenfeld <alfredo at itam.mx>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> From the table Tim sent, field sizes don't differ that much between
> >>> leagues with the exception of MSL. Actually, SPL AIBO has slightly
> >>> bigger field than us and others are very similar.
> >>> So I wouldn't see a problem to standardize for next year.
> >>> In the future, other leagues will probably want to increase their
> >>> fields as well, so we can coordinate with them on that.
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>>
> >>> Alfredo
> >>>
> >>> Prof. Dr. Alfredo Weitzenfeld
> >>> Director ROBOTICS and CANNES Labs
> >>> Computer Engineering Dept
> >>> ITAM
> >>> Río Hondo #1, San Angel Tizapán
> >>> México DF, MEXICO CP 01000
> >>> email: alfredo at itam.mx
> >>> tel: +52-55-56284000 ext 3614
> >>> tel: +52-55-56284060
> >>> fax: +52-55-56284065
> >>> ROBOTICS Lab: http://robotica.itam.mx
> >>> CANNES Lab: http://cannes.itam.mx
> >>> http://www.cannes.itam.mx/Alfredo/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Mensaje original-----
> >>> De: Naruse Tadashi [mailto:naruse at ist.aichi-pu.ac.jp]
> >>> Enviado el: Lunes, 28 de Julio de 2008 07:38 p.m.
> >>> Para: Tim Laue; small-size-committees at informatik.uni-bremen.de
> >>> Asunto: Re: [Fwd: Field sizes used in 2008]
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> The uniform field was suddenly proposed by Manuela this April. She
> >>> requested the change this year. The reason was "Just for consistency
> >>> for RoboCup in general".
> >>> Since we had no time to change the field, we refused this year's change.
> >>> So the issue start toward the next year.
> >>>
> >>> My opinion.
> >>> It depends on how we realize the future plan of SSL, i.e. 11 on 11
> >>> games. In case of 11 on 11 game, current field size is clearly too
> >>> small. We cannot accept the uniform field except for the case that
> >>> each league agreed with the SSL's larger field.
> >>> So, we should decide the future plan (these five years) as soon as
> >> possible.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Tadashi
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Tim Laue wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -------- Original Message --------
> >>>> Subject: Field sizes used in 2008
> >>>> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:06:42 +0200
> >>>> From: Thomas Röfer <Thomas.Roefer at dfki.de>
> >>>> Reply-To: <Thomas.Roefer at dfki.de>
> >>>> Organization: DFKI-Labor Bremen
> >>>> To: 'Humanoid League Technical & Organization Committees 2008'
> >>>> <humanoid08 at jeap.org>,        <spl_tech at tzi.de>, 'Tim Laue'
> >>>> <timlaue at informatik.uni-bremen.de>
> >>>>
> >>>> @Tim Laue: please forward to SSL TC
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> since the trustees want us to come up with a single field size for
> >>>> all leagues except the Middle Size League, Tim Laue and I have
> >>>> collected the current dimensions of the fields in our five
> >>>> competitions. Since the different leagues measure different distances
> >>>> to describe their field layout (e.g. center of line to center of line
> >>>> vs. outside of line to outside of line), we described the dimensions
> >>>> in a unified outside of line to outside of line manner. The only
> >>>> exception is the specification of the crosses in the Humanoid League,
> >>>> the position of which is given in a center of line to center of line
> >>>> fashion, since these crosses do not exist in other leagues anyway.
> >>>> For now, we left out the goals. We can talk about goals later.
> >>>>
> >>>> The motivation for outside to outside measurements is that the lines
> >>>> are usually part of the area they surround.
> >>>>
> >>>> The general idea is to come up with a set of dimensions that fits for
> >>>> all competitions. Since the size of the penalty area depends on the
> >>>> size of
> >>> the
> >>>> goal, we also might think about two penalty areas on the same field.
> >>>> In some competitions, the smaller one is used, in others the bigger
> >>>> one is employed.
> >>>>
> >>>> After all TC members looked at the current dimensions, we can start
> >>>> making suggestions for the "RoboCup Small Field".
> >>>>
> >>>> Best regards
> >>>>
> >>>> Thomas Röfer
> >>>>
> >>>> _____________________________________________________________________
> >>>> __
> >>>> Dr. Thomas Röfer
> >>>> DFKI Bremen
> >>>> Safe and Secure Cognitive Systems
> >>>> Cartesium 00.055
> >>>> Enrique-Schmidt-Str. 5
> >>>> 28359 Bremen, Germany
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.dfki.de
> >>>> www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~roefer
> >>>>
> >>>> Phone: +49 (421) 218-64200
> >>>> Fax:   +49 (421) 218-9864200
> >>>> eMail: Thomas.Roefer at dfki.de
> >>>> _______________________________________________________________
> >>>> Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz GmbH
> >>>> Firmensitz: Trippstadter Straße 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern
> >>>>
> >>>> Geschäftsführung:
> >>>> Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender) Dr. Walter
> >>>> Olthoff
> >>>>
> >>>> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
> >>>> Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
> >>>>
> >>>> Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> La informaciÃ³n contenida en este mensaje de datos es confidencial,
> >>> constituye un secreto industrial y/o profesional en tÃ(c)rminos de la
> >>> legislaciÃ³n vigente y se encuentra dirigida exclusivamente al
> >>> destinatario indicado en dicho mensaje. Si usted recibe esta
> >>> informaciÃ³n por error o si usted no es el destinatario del mensaje,
> >>> favor de notificar al emisor, y destrÃºyalo.
> >>>
> >>> The information contained in this electronic message is confidential,
> >>> it constitutes a professional and/or industrial secret in terms of the
> >>> current legislation, and is intended for its recipient only. If you
> >>> receive this message by mistake and/or if you are not the recipient
> >>> thereof, please notify the sender and destroy it.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Mahisorn Wongphati
> >> Mishima, Japan
> >>
> >> Simple != Easy
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> --
> Prof. Dr. Oskar von Stryk           E-Mail: stryk(at)sim.tu-darmstadt.de
> Simulation, Systems Optimization    Phone:  ++49 (0) 6151-16-2513
> and Robotics                        Fax:    ++49 (0) 6151-16-6648
> Technische Universitaet Darmstadt   http://www.sim.tu-darmstadt.de
> Hochschulstr. 10                    D-64289 Darmstadt, Germany
> _______________________________________________ robocup-humanoid mailing list robocup-humanoid at cc.gatech.edu https://lists.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-humanoid