At the end of a competition, I want my Robot: |
Destroyed and inoperable... |
|
75% |
[ 3 ] |
Dented, but I always win, so it will be OK... |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
Unscathed and ready for me to improve if I don't win! |
|
25% |
[ 1 ] |
|
Total Votes : 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Red.13
Joined: 17 Jun 2013
Posts: 47
|
quote:
Originally posted by marto:
Hey Mark.
Very few of us here have built Sumo robots. Reason why.... sumo is generally boring.
Fair point, as certainly the videos of Sumo bots simply pushing each other around is nowhere near as exciting as sparks, loud noises and pieces of metal flying around.
But, I have seem some pretty cool moves and some interesting adaptions to try and fool the other robot.
And you must admit, for the beginner just entering the world of *automated* robotics, the learning potential in the programming is just as valid as in the destructive robotics.
quote:
Originally posted by marto:
The level of autonomy you get in a sumo robot is very minimal. Usually just a detect edge and turn. Maybe if your lucky you have some with a sharp IR sensor on there to detect the opponent.
I would say that if the creator has not taken the effort to add any sort of sensors to detect the enemy, then they have missed the point and I wouldn't really call it a "robot" as such. And from the video of the championship Sumo battles, every robot had sensors.
quote:
Originally posted by marto:
As for our robots getting destroyed, well really if thats your big concern then you don't get it. That is what makes it exciting, intense and enjoyable to watch. And as for it ending up in pieces well you really hope that your the one who is doing the destroying not the destroyed. And if it does happen then it teaches you what you have done wrong and how to do it better.
Yes, but not everyone has money to throw around, these days. And during the formative learning period, seeing your robot crushed to oblivion could be off-putting. Sumo offers you the ability to learn, without the higher cost.
Certainly, once the experience of creating a non-destructive autonomous robot has your inspiration fueled, I completely understand the fun and challenge that battle robots would bring to the table and can see a progression towards that as a natural course of development.
I must admit I'm surprised at the derisive tone at the Sumo class. Do you not see that these could well be a "stepping stone" entry to the more exciting Robowar classes? Personally, I would encourage ANY sort of entry into robotics for the beginner, and if there is a competitive element to it, be it destructive or not, then that puts the fun into it, as well.
Mark[/b]
|
Wed Jun 19, 2013 11:06 am |
|
|
Red.13
Joined: 17 Jun 2013
Posts: 47
|
quote:
Originally posted by dyrodium:
To be honest, they're not really comparable in the slightest.
If you're a programmer interested in Autonomous robotics - sumo offers you a basic, reliable platform to let you perfect your code to your hearts content.
If you enjoy building machines, or designing and testing radical new ideas then the locked down format leaves a lot to be desired... the machines are essentially oversize remote controlled cars,
I think you hit the nail on the head... The major difference being that my definition of "robot" is one that is autonomous and at least simulates some sort of intelligence... While if the machine is remote controlled by a human...
But, that said, I guess the Mars rovers are not any better... They can't go about their business doing their own thing, yet I see them as "robots"... Hmm...
Well anyway, I do look forward to seeing a Robotwar in person. I bet it's a lot of fun! (Well, seeing other people's machines getting destroyed, would be. )
Hey, is there an automated Robotwar class or are they all human-controlled?
Mark
|
Wed Jun 19, 2013 11:23 am |
|
|
|
Knightrous
Site Admin
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 8511
Location: NSW
|
quote:
Originally posted by Red.13:
Hey, is there an automated Robotwar class or are they all human-controlled?
In the "Robotics Community", there is the great divide, there are the "Programmer" blokes who think if it's not autonomous, it's not a robot. And then there are the "Engineers", where a robot has power rated in KW not mW, drive trains made of heavy metals and think an arduino, a few servos and a ping sensor a robot does not make.
Over the years, we've had plenty of "Programmers" come and say this and that ("My autonomous hex walker with a turret chainsaw will beat everything"), but never actually build anything and they just fade into the background. Those that do attempt something, usually have issues keeping a wheel connected to a drive motor or making the robot drive in a straight line. While the rest of us "Engineers" just build our giant RC cars, constantly evolve them as we abuse them through conditions that even military equipment doesn't survive.
We constantly wait for a "Programmer" to man up, graduate from the kids class of toy micromice/sumo/bipods auto bots and build a combat robot with the "TRUE ROBOT" automation brain in it. When someone can marry the smarts of autonomy class robots with the power and endurance of a combat robot successfully, that person will be hailed a god and will probably pull some mega contract from the defence department... But alas, it hasn't happened in the last 15 years... _________________ https://www.halfdonethings.com/
|
Wed Jun 19, 2013 3:09 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Red.13
Joined: 17 Jun 2013
Posts: 47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Knightrous:
Not 1 auto robot in 12 years that I've been involved in Combat Robots in Australia. I don't believe it is impossible,
OK, I'm astounded. And disappointed, frankly.
quote:
Originally posted by Knightrous:
The "Programmers" are born/raised in cotton wool environment where everything around there robot is harmless. They simply don't pick up a hammer and hit their robot repeatedly to test it. And this is where they generally fail.
Now, now... No need for that tone.
quote:
Originally posted by Knightrous:
In the current forms, automated combat robots are far from even being competitive against the "RC Cars".
This is the RoboGames 2012 3lb auto finals - http://youtu.be/7ccDh-L6daA
This is the RoboGames 2012 3lb finals - http://youtu.be/QVItSW_6rao
Well frankly, I didn't find either of those video all that entertaining. :\ The Auto robots were piss-poor! My mini sumo could have done better against the non-spinner. And the spinner had no control over direction at all! It was just spinning randomly. Quite pathetic. And I think the whole spinning thing is pretty boring, anyway.
Here is a very cool video of the Japanese doing Sumo. Some of the bots are damn clever!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OWopN7Wysg
As to the RC one... I think I could make an automated version of the wedge pretty easily! CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!
quote:
Originally posted by Knightrous:
Now that you've accepted the challenge, I expect to see a auto featherweight (13.6KG) running around at events within the next 12 months.
No, I don't have the money for a 13.6kg one. I might try for Ant weight, first. But first I need to have some experience with Sumo... And hence the reason for this thread in the first place.
And I'll throw this out there...
If there is enough support for it, would the organiser of the Sydney Robowars object to having a Sumo ring set up and run a comp for that as well?
Mark
|
Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:33 pm |
|
|
|