Storing Groceries

[johaq]

#490

[kyordhel]

I strongly disagree with this change. It is necessary to keep fairness (even distribution among teams) and for logistical reasons. Further, the heavy and tiny objects are necessary due to bonus points (see scoresheet).

[johaq]

I agree that distribution has to be equal for all teams but I think that is something for the referees to decide on location and is not something that should or needs to be in the rulebook. Why not allow the referees the flexibility to decide: "Hey at this competition no team is really strong in manipulation let's use easier objects for everyone." And also if teams get stronger we do not need to update single numbers from year to year and keep more consistency in the rulebook over time

[kyordhel]

Because scoring needs to be consistent among tests. This tests makes pick and place an object automatically worth ~100pts, so it can be taken as measure for assigning scores to other tests. Further, we are implying that each manipulation should not take more than one minute.

Besides, we need to be consistent in the three leagues (or at least between OPL and DSPL). If you leave the decision to the referees, the difficulty will vary between leagues and you have no consistent progression over the years.

Teams know:

• There are [5, 10] objects to deal with
• We must move 5
• 3 are easy to recognize (and grasp?)
• The rest are a PITA. (← all decision making enters here)

So yes, a state machine can be used, but a more robust decision making will produce better results to maximize scoring. IMHO, that setup is way too complex for a state machine.

[johaq]

I don't see how this affects consistency among other tests.
Consistency among leagues I understand but don't the referees switch leagues anyway during a competition and talks are with referees of all leagues.
Consistency over the years I agree is lost a little here but definitely not entirely.
I prefer teams know:
-There are several objects on a table
-We get points for moving up to five of them
-Our robot should know which of the objects are easy to grasp for it

[kyordhel]

up to five

Or maybe at least.

Let's hear other opinions from the @RoboCupAtHome/technical-commmittee

[kyordhel]

@moriarty @balkce @justinhart @awesomebytes @allisonh-tri

[kyordhel]

I agree on most corrections and removing some numbers, but we need to keep consistency among tests and, from the referee and OC perspective, the object distribution is important.

Please check the Scoresheet

[kyordhel]

Move an objects → Each object moved or Move an object

[kyordhel]

Careful!

\scoreitem{500}{Move 5 means that team won't score unless 5 objects are moved.
\scoreitem[5]{100}{Move an means one object is enough to start scoring bonus points.

I agree on the 2nd one. HOWEVER: move an objects?

[johaq]

Yeah should be "an object"
I think second option is more in line with scoring in clean up task which seems similar in some ways.

[kyordhel]

:+1

[kyordhel]

I'm OK with this so far, but lets hear other TC members opinion on the removal of the object distribution before merging.

@RoboCupAtHome/technical-commmittee @moriarty @justinhart @awesomebytes your comments, please

[kyordhel]

We need to resolve the removal of object distribution before merging.

[kyordhel]

@johaq We discussed yesterday the object numbering in the meeting. We came out with the following decision:

• To keep consistency between local (open) tournaments and the Worldcup, we need to specify a range of objects (e.g. 5-10).
• It's up to robots to interact with available objects or not.
• The number of objects available can never be smaller than the number of objects to be scored.
• The number of objects to be scored is already in the scoresheet and so tests are balanced. There might be variation in the number of present objects but all teams in all leagues shall be evaluated the same. Hence this number remains fixed.

Please do the pertinent corrections so we can merge.