[robocup-legged] 11x11 RoboCup match

[Oskar von Stryk]

Hello Will,

Excellent job. 

2 further remarks only:
- Goals: An alternative may be the kid oder teen size goals of the 
  humanoid league.

- Testing: The GermanTeam thinks about testing 11x11 in a meeting at the 
  end of March. If all prerequisites are settled early enough, e.g., by 
  the end of February, we can report about the experiences made with the setup. 

Thank your very much for your efforts!
Cheers,
Oskar von Stryk
Darmstadt Dribbling Dackels, Member of GermanTeam

On Sat, 7 Jan 2006, William Uther wrote:

> Hi all,
>   I'm glad there is some interest in the 11x11 match.  Issues that have been
> raised:
> 
> - Lighting
> Yes, we will need enough lighting for the AIBOs to see.
> 
> - Field
>   The 2005 mid-sized field was about double the size of the legged league
> field (linear dimensions).  I suggest we just go with that.  The only change
> would be the size of the centre circle.  The mid sized one is a little large
> for AIBOs (2m diameter as opposed to 30cm diameter).  I suggest say, 60cm
> diameter?
>   We could use mid-sized locations for the 'restart points', but use them as
> the end-points of the legged-league 'throw-in lines'.
> 
> - Landmarks
>   My original thought was that we would have Mid-Sized landmarks unmodified,
> but I have no objections to making mid-size-league sized landmarks, but with
> legged-league style markings.  We could go back to having 6 landmarks as well.
> I think that the increased landmark size should enough that these can be seen
> across the field, but we need to check (I haven't head from anyone with a
> mid-sized landmark and an AIBO yet).  We've doubled the linear dimensions of
> the field, so landmarks ~4 times higher and double the diameter should still
> be visible, right?  Yes, there will be an associated loss of absolute
> localisation accuracy, but the relative accuracy should be similar.
> 
> - Ball
>   I was assuming we stay with a legged league ball.  You will not be able to
> see it from very far away, but you will be able to spread your team out and
> communicate to find it.  We don't want to have to re-develop ball manipulation
> skills.
> 
> - Goals
>   I have no idea what width to make the goals.  The goalie is still an AIBO
> with limited speed, but a goal the size of the legged league goal would look
> silly.  Making a third size of goal somewhere in between means we make to make
> another set of goals.  I'd start with mid-size goals, but am open to
> suggestions.
> 
> - Communications
>   I was planning to have something simple like that used in the
> rUNSWift/NUBots open challenge last year.  That was a UDP broadcast packet.
> Each robot would broadcast:
> - Its team and player number
> - Its own location and covariance matrix
> - Whether the robot can sense the ball, and if so, the ball's mean 
> location and covariance matrix
>     - "sensing the ball" includes both visual sensing and whatever other
> mechanisms you have to detect the ball, e.g. the mouth or IR sensor during a
> grab.
>   - The current destination of this robot.  This might be the location of the
> ball, or a location on the field.
> 
> I don't know that we need much else.  We might want an: "I'm going to kick the
> ball here", section in the packet.  I wouldn't want too much more than that:
> Keep It Simple and Stupid.  We didn't used any more than this in our pick-up
> open challenge last year.  Teams that want to use more certainly could -
> amongst those robots using that code base.
> 
> - Game Controller
>   Yes, we'd need a modified game controller that could handle 11x11.  I don't
> think the packet format needs to be changed, except for increasing the size of
> one array.  We could come up with a general format that included the number of
> players on each team.  Then the same packet would be used in normal games and
> the 11x11 game.  The tricker part is re-designing the UI in the GameController
> program itself, but I don't see this as a huge issue.
> 
> - Rules
>   Rules would be similar to the legged league rules.  i.e. there would be no
> off-side concept.  The only ones that I think really need to change are
> kick-off rules.  Even those changes can be kept simple: rather than being
> behind the 1/4 line, you must be 2m from the centre line.
> 
> - Physical setup.
>   This is the part that requires extra work.  And the answer at this point is:
> I don't know who would build the landmarks, make numbers, etc.  If the
> landmarks are simply re-coloured mid-sized landmarks then that isn't much
> extra work - it is really extra cost, and that decision is made by people on
> other committees.
> 
> Finally, I'd like to comment on expected performance.  Simulation league teams
> have very high standards of play for 11x11 matches.  We have high quality low
> level skills.  The real issue is testing time, especially given the pickup
> part of the demonstration.
> 
> Because of the almost complete lack of testing time, I'm not going to be
> disappointed if the standard isn't wonderful.  While we want to make this as
> good as we can, if we worry too much about all the things that could go wrong
> then people might decide not to bother.  I don't want that to happen.  It is
> much better to have something that we can build on for future years than to
> make this a perfect game of soccer.
> 
> Is there anything I missed?
> 
> Will            :-}
> 
> _______________________________________________
> robocup-legged mailing list
> robocup-legged at cc.gatech.edu
> https://mailman.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-legged
> 

--
Prof. Dr. Oskar von Stryk           E-Mail: stryk(at)sim.tu-darmstadt.de
Simulation and Systems Optimization Phone:  ++49 (0) 6151-16-2513
Technische Universitaet Darmstadt   Fax:    ++49 (0) 6151-16-6648
Hochschulstr. 10                    http://www.sim.tu-darmstadt.de
D-64289 Darmstadt, Germany