[robocup-small] robocup-small Digest, Vol 33, Issue 2

=?GBK?B?s8LN8sPX?= wanmic at 163.com
Wed Oct 3 04:19:23 EDT 2007


Hi, all,   We do absolutely agreed that enlarge the field in 2008 ,for the cameras not to be increased and not to alter the program of the vision system . another way it will increase the number of robots to 7 or 10 for each team.     Wanmi Chen   strive   Shanghai University,China   
ÔÚ2007-10-02£¬robocup-small-request at cc.gatech.edu дµÀ£º
Send robocup-small mailing list submissions to robocup-small at cc.gatech.edu To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-small or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to robocup-small-request at cc.gatech.edu You can reach the person managing the list at robocup-small-owner at cc.gatech.edu When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of robocup-small digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Field Size and Vision Systems (Tim Laue) 2. Re: Schedule for SSL Rules 2008 (Gordon Wyeth) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 10:12:40 +0200 From: Tim Laue <timlaue at tzi.de> Subject: [robocup-small] Field Size and Vision Systems To: robocup-small at cc.gatech.edu Message-ID: <4700ABF8.7010106 at tzi.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Hi RoboCuppers, here are my personal thoughts about increasing the field size and the consequences for vision systems: If we enlarge the field in 2008 and don't have a shared vision system (it is already too late to have something like that for 2008, but this is another topic we need to discuss soon), we must have a field size that allows a reasonable operation with two cameras per team. If every team needs to setup four cameras, we will directly run into an organizational nightmare. Already the setup time for two cameras per team is a major constraint for a competition schedule. I'm quite convinced that a substantial increase of the field size (something between 50% and 100%) may be handled by most team's vision systems without any major difficulties. In the past, there have always been some teams that used only one camera for the current field. Additionally, the FU-Fighters showed that their vision system (without any changes) is capable to work on a field which size has been doubled: http://robocup.mi.fu-berlin.de/pmwiki/Main/Videos (second video from top) My team (B-Smart) uses the same cameras (AVT Marlin F46c). We tried to cover the current field using only one camera and a wide angle lens. In general, this setup still worked with our vision system. In particular, our lens was a bit too wide (covering about 130% of the field size and letting all objects become even smaller in the images...) and our software failed in several situations of fast moving objects. But nevertheless, playing on a much larger field using the same vision setup is absolutely not unreachable. What do you think? Did any other team try something like that? Best regards, Tim -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Dipl.-Inf. Tim Laue Courier Mail Address: FB3 Mathematik - Informatik Cartesium 1.057 Universit?t Bremen FB3 Postfach 330 440 Universit?t Bremen D-28334 Bremen Enrique-Schmidt-Stra?e 5 Phone: (+49) 421-218-64209 D-28359 Bremen Fax: (+49) 421-218-9864209 ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 09:47:10 +0100 From: Gordon Wyeth <wyeth at itee.uq.edu.au> Subject: Re: [robocup-small] Schedule for SSL Rules 2008 To: "'Beng Kiat Ng'" <nbk at np.edu.sg>, andyb at gatech.edu Cc: robocup-small at cc.gatech.edu Message-ID: <001f01c80407$a9b4cde0$4d14f380 at itee.uq.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi All One of the older proposals for resolving this issue (that no-one has mentioned for a while) is to have a standard battery pack for all robots on all teams. An appropriately limited energy source forces some serious changes in strategy: + Continuously running robots from one end of the field to the other at high speed is no longer possible. + Dribbling the ball for long distances is costly in terms of energy, particularly if back spin is being applied to the ball. + Indiscriminate use of high power kickers will drain energy. + Heavy large robots will use more energy, encouraging lighter, smarter robots. + Strategies for moving the ball without moving the robot (i.e. passing) become much more attractive. For your consideration Gordon Wyeth (Formerly from the RoboRoos) _____ From: robocup-small-bounces at cc.gatech.edu [mailto:robocup-small-bounces at cc.gatech.edu] On Behalf Of Beng Kiat Ng Sent: 01 October 2007 2:08 AM To: andyb at gatech.edu Cc: robocup-small-bounces at cc.gatech.edu; robocup-small at cc.gatech.edu Subject: Re: [robocup-small] Schedule for SSL Rules 2008 I believe a lower speed ball would not improve passing. The current problem is that robots are too fast and has unlimited energy. And they are too clumsy in term of ball handling. So passing takes a longer time compared to blocking a ball as the receiving robot takes a while to get control of the ball and change direction, compared to the defending robot, which are capable of accelerating to a postion at very high speed. We need slower robot, or more dexterous robot (able to dribble faster and more skillfully) or bigger field. Regards BengKiat Inactive hide details for Andy Bardagjy <andyb at gatech.edu>Andy Bardagjy <andyb at gatech.edu> Andy Bardagjy <andyb at gatech.edu> Sent by: robocup-small-bounces at cc.gatech.edu 09/29/2007 04:21 AM Please respond to andyb at gatech.edu To robocup-small-bounces at cc.gatech.edu, robocup-small at cc.gatech.edu cc Subject Re: [robocup-small] Schedule for SSL Rules 2008 Do you think that with a different ball (heavier and/or softer) we would be able to lower kick speed further and force passing and coordination? Andy Bardagjy Georgia Tech RoboJackets On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 10:22 +0800, Beng Kiat Ng wrote: > Hi Roman, > > I believe we all want to see more team coordination. > And team coordination is impossible (or limited) if there's no/little > passing. > > Currently, passing rarely occurs during gameplay. And we are limited > to one pass most of the time. It would be nice to see a string of > passes, where team can control the ball and create opportunities. > > As for ball speed, I don't see it affecting passing much. The ball has > to be much faster than robot speed. I would think that currently, the > main problem is that robot is too fast. Cutting down robot speed will > reduce field size requirement, but nobody has a good idea on > controlling robot speed yet. > > The only problem I have with current ball speed is that robot can > score from one end of the field to the other. That really discourage > passing as there is less need to bring the ball up to the opponent > side of field. > > Regards > BengKiat > > Inactive hide details for Roman"Roman Shtylman" <shtylman at gmail.com> > > > "Roman Shtylman" <shtylman at gmail.com> > Sent by: robocup-small-bounces at cc.gatech.edu > > 09/12/2007 09:53 AM > > > To > > robocup-small-bounces at cc.gatech.edu, robocup-small at cc.gatech.edu > > cc > > > > Subject > > Re: > [robocup-small] > Schedule for SSL > Rules 2008 > > > > This is Roman from the Georgia Tech team. I think that a larger field > would be an improvement and add to the gameplay possibilities like > passing and better team coordination. However I am interested to know > what the primary objective is in increasing the size, I think that > that will partially dictate just how and how much to change the size. > > Would this mean that the max kicking speed would also change? > > ~Roman > _______________________________________________ > robocup-small mailing list > robocup-small at cc.gatech.edu > https://lists.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-small > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > NOTICE: > This message may contain privileged/confidential information. If you > are not the intended recipient of this email, please delete it > immediately and notify the sender . > > > _______________________________________________ > robocup-small mailing list > robocup-small at cc.gatech.edu > https://lists.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-small _______________________________________________ robocup-small mailing list robocup-small at cc.gatech.edu https://lists.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-small _____ NOTICE: This message may contain privileged/confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please delete it immediately and notify the sender . This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.cc.gatech.edu/pipermail/robocup-small/attachments/20071001/4658c908/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 105 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.cc.gatech.edu/pipermail/robocup-small/attachments/20071001/4658c908/attachment-0002.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 45 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.cc.gatech.edu/pipermail/robocup-small/attachments/20071001/4658c908/attachment-0003.gif ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ robocup-small mailing list robocup-small at cc.gatech.edu https://lists.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-small End of robocup-small Digest, Vol 33, Issue 2 ********************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cc.gatech.edu/pipermail/robocup-small/attachments/20071003/a4531469/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the robocup-small mailing list