[robocup-nao] a few discussion items for Nao

[Oskar von Stryk]

Hi Michael,

As there are only a few days until RoboCup 2008 I would like to take up 
the discussion from May and to continue next week in Suzhou.

I am still convinced that as the size of the Nao and the Humanoid 
KidSize robots as well as many related problems are quite similar 
there should be much more exchange inbetween the two leagues.
For example, probably many Nao teams now had to reinvent solutions to 
basic problems of humanoid locomotion which are already common knowledge 
in the Humanoid League.

To foster exchange between leagues it would be helpful to have related
setups and rules which come out of joint discussions how the
two leagues could perhaps support and complement each other
to speed up progress, for example, as close as possible and reasonable:

- field and goal layout,
- rules of play,
- complementing technical challenges,
- game controller /referee box.

I strongly suggest that the techncial committees of Nao
and Humanoid Leagues get together during RoboCup in Suzhou
(perhaps on Saturday) to discuss ways of cooperation and joint progress
for 2009.

See you all next week in Suzhou!

Regards,
Oskar


P.S.
Comments on your remarks to goal shapes:
The humanoid league had discussed the rules for 2008 already
in the team leader meetings in Atlanta and published them in early fall 2007.

The current HL goals are inbetween the massive shapes
of the 2007 HL goals and the less  massive 2007 Aibo goals.
The full Aibo goal shape was not used because of safety reasons.
We were afraid that a humanoid robot will fall over the
low edge of the back wall and be damaged severly and decided to keep
them at an reasonable height.

The current shape of the Nao goals was suggested only months
after the HL rules have been finalized already.
But goals with nets were also not favorized in the previous discussion
because the mesh size would have to be very fine to avoid
that a robot gets tangled in the goal net.


On Thu, 15 May 2008, Michael Quinlan wrote:
<...>
>> - using the humanoid kid size goals and poles,
>>  	(pro: localization becomes easier than in current setup,
>>  	Nao teams will have lots of other problems to solve besides
>>  	localization)
>> see PDF linked at
>> http://lists.cc.gatec
> Two points:
>
> The TC is torn between having Beacons/Posts, I think we are almost evenly on 
> this point. So we are still open to a league wide request to put the beacons 
> back on (although I think we should stick to AIBO sized beacons). I'd be 
> happy for teams to vote either way.
>
> On the goal, to be honest I think the humanoid league should move to our 
> goals.  They are more realistic, look better and provide a better viewing 
> environment for the crowd. (http://www.bowdoin.edu/~jstrom/IMG_1374.JPG). Yes 
> they may be harder to use, but they also remove most of the problems caused 
> by shadows being cast on the walls of the old goals. Also I notice that the 
> humanoid league changed its goals this year (or at least the drawing look 
> different to the 2007 movies).
>> Further advantages are
>> - Goals and posts field are already planned for Suzhou, it is
>>  	easy to have some more,
>> - Exchange with RoboCup humanoid kid size league will be facilitated also.
>> Exchange would be further facilitated if the same field lines as in the 
>> humanoid league would be used.
>> 
> These are valid points, the first one I think is the responsibility of the 
> local organizers to build the few extra goals and shouldn't be a big problem. 
> The exchange idea is a difficult one, if this is an immediate aim then I 
> agree over the next few years we should be making these leagues as similar as 
> possible. However, most Nao teams come from the AIBO league so keeping 
> similarity to the previous/current AIBO rules was also an issue for this 
> year.
>> Team uniforms will have no use for the Nao teams in 2008 for
>> player recognition because there will be more basic problems to be solved.
>> They will therefore be only useful for the spectators and referees.
>> But for this purpose one could as well use other types
>> of markers to identify players of different teams,
>> e.g., removable colored numbers on the robot heads.
>> 
> Agreed, this is the least of my current concerns regarding the Nao ;)
>> Being a member of the technical committee of the humanoid league
>> I am also surprised that there was yet not a single intent of
>> inter league communication and discussion between the TCs of the new 
>> standard platform humanoid league and the established humanoid league.
>> 
>> Of course, every league has its right to repeat the experiences
>> already made in other leagues. But in no other RoboCup leagues
>> the platforms and problems are so related as in the humanoid league
>> and the new Nao league.
>> 
>> For the future, I think it would be much more efficient for the
>> progress of each league and of RoboCup as a whole
>> if at least the technical committees of Nao and humanoid league would
>> be discussing ways of cooperation and exchange.
>>
>> 
> I agree that the leagues should share where possible, but I think its a two 
> way street. Humanoid leagues could easily have adopted the 2007 style Aibo 
> goals, removed beacons or used our throw-in rules. Also we need to remember 
> that the Nao competition went from a demonstration 8 team league to a full 
> fledged 16 team league. So originally we tried to keep things similar to the 
> AIBO so those 8 teams could potentially do both this year.
>
> Most teams have vision and localisation code already from the AIBO which can 
> be reasonably easily ported to the Nao field.  So the real Nao problem will 
> be locomotion and the rule differences don't really effect this aspect.
>
> Also the SPL is a `software' only league, so we can probably afford to 
> present more software problems (i.e. fewer/harder landmarks) where the 
> Humanoid League teams also research and deal with hardware development which 
> is time consuming on their behalf.
>> Just my 5 cents.
>> 
> Thanks for the comments !
>
>
> Michael
>