[robocup-nao] a few discussion items for Nao

[Michael Quinlan]

Hi,
  I think its a good idea for the TC's the meet and discuss things, so 
lets definitely make sure the 2009 members get together before the end 
of RoboCup.

Michael

Oskar von Stryk wrote:
> 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
>>
>