Don't ad-block us - support your favorite websites. We have safe, unobstrusive, robotics related ads that you actually want to see - see here for more.
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Hmm.. I guess it won't be too hard then.. just have a random sonar pinging, and some IR leds rapidly blinking... just make sure you don't come out looking unsportsmanshiplike, some competitions its okay, others they kind of frown on bending the rules like that
Actually, the few robot competitions I have heard of encourage sensor counter measure technology.
Think about it, you have to truly understand how the sensor technology works to be able to build systems to counter it, and you have to do it in such a way you don't kill your own sensors. And you have to try to stop competitors from fooling your sensors!
It's a way to demonstrate your innovation and technically ability, which is the point of a robot competition anyway!
How do you distinguish designing a robot to flip the competitor over, disabling there robot, or blinding their sensors, and disabling them that way?
Directional EMP - doesn't take much understanding, just an "electronic sledgehammer".
That only counts if the person really invents it - most of what goes into competitions are jig-saw'd from the net - copying isn't invention.
I thought The American WayTM was going heads and fist on in a manly way, not like a weenie hiding behind a tree, shooting poisonous gas to avoid actually facing the opponent - Perhaps a redefinition is in order
In one competition I saw and participated last year, the two teams robots were on a single game board, and had to score points. There were no rules against sensor jamming, but there was a rule that one couldn't deliberately destroy the other opponents robots. Basically, the idea was do the best you can in making a robot with sensors that can react to changing situations (the game board had some moving pieces as well). The idea behind the rule was that you focus on making your robot the best, and not just designed to fK up the opponents robots.Pretty much all the teams did their best, nobodys robots were battlebots or stuff like that, except for one team. THEY decided to bend the rules a bit and create a robot whos sole purpose was, at the very begging of the game, go to the center of the board, grab onto as many points as possible, and it expanded sideways with many little lego barbs and hooks to keep the opposing robots in the starting area. That robot would just sit there, holding on to points and blocking opponents robots so that the opponents robots couldn't score a single point. Their second robot was designed to pick up and score 5 points. The game was over in about 10 seconds after the first robot blocked, and the second one scored 5 points.Needless to say, they ended up winning the competition, with an impressive point score of 5 to 0, out of a 400 point game. EVERYBODY thought they were complete A-holes. Sure the rules technically allowed their passive-aggression, but come on, seriously. This year they changed it significantly so that things like these won't ever happen again.Just saying, use your judgment wisely... just because rules allow for it, doesn't really mean you should do it. If everyone else is doing it, it may be okay...
well behaved people are not the ones that gets rejected... Those allways trying to bend the rules, on the other hand...
Quote from: Soeren on August 08, 2010, 02:30:27 PMwell behaved people are not the ones that gets rejected... Those allways trying to bend the rules, on the other hand... I'm living proof of the opposite. My current boss has told me one of the things that made me stand out among many applicants was my impressive senior design robot. A robot that we as a group did take a short-cut on, something not against the rules, but what many in the other groups thought was "unfair". It destroyed all the other groups in score at the locally competitions,[...]
You can call it whatever you want and try to insult my country some more, [...]
but remember, we beat the British the first time
by attacking them at night and wearing camo while they were decked out in red and only attacked during the day. I'm sure they thought it was unfair too.
Can you give me a objective reason why sensor jamming should not be a avenue to explore in robotic competitions that don't rule it out?
Robot battles aren't life and death issues, so it's fair to expect some unwritten rules to apply as well and blinding your opponent,
however much it might make you win easily, will only reveal a cowardly streak - if you enter such a competition, you shouldn't be afraid to go mano y mano.
I bet the rules don't mention that either and I'm equally sure that would give you the upper hand big time as well! \If sensor destruction/hindrance IS part of the allowed rules, then it's OK of course and everyone will know beforehand.
since we're talking about the morality of jamming i'd like to point out that there are other perfectly acceptable systems that could be considered "cheep" such as spinners that cover the full robot body. their goal is obviously not JUST to immobilize the opponent but to do serious damage to it whenever it comes in contact.
in fact so long as the spinner is well designed the opponent must either be MUCH heavier or made out of very strong armor to avoid any damage caused from contact. does this make them cheep or unsportsmanlike? no because there are workarounds [...]
such as fast wedges or flippers. good programming can make most jamming ineffective for more then a few seconds and it would be impracticle to jam sensors by filling the area with noise since your robot needs to sense things too. even if a robot is driving it's self into a wall because it doesn't know there's a wall there is still mobile and so jamming alone is NOT an effective primary weapon.
what razor concepts mentioned was something that couldn't be easily worked around because they weren't permitted to deliberately attack the other opponent.
Hi,Quote from: blackbeard on August 09, 2010, 06:53:05 AMsince we're talking about the morality of jamming i'd like to point out that there are other perfectly acceptable systems that could be considered "cheep" such as spinners that cover the full robot body. their goal is obviously not JUST to immobilize the opponent but to do serious damage to it whenever it comes in contact.Sure, but they're mechanical and very visual, so nobody will be in any doubt about them.
There are counter measures for any attack, as long as it's expectable (even to EMP), but there's nothing sneaky in that, as long as it isn't just a coward trying to immobilize the opponent to avoid real battle.
It could be made to absolutelu stun the opponent. One of the reason it's not allowed in most competitions is probably that it would be extremely boring to spectators to see two 'bots constantly jamming each other and never get to the infight.