Detector Building C [TRIAL]
- Umaroth
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 337
- Joined: February 10th, 2018, 8:51 pm
- Division: C
- State: CA
- Pronouns: He/Him/His
- Has thanked: 114 times
- Been thanked: 229 times
Re: Detector Building C [TRIAL]
I competed in this event when it was a Division B trial event at SoCal States 2018, and I do have some thoughts on how it could be improved based on last year and what I heard this year.
The number one issue with the event in its current state is the lack of separation between the top and bottom teams. From what I can tell whenever this event is run, the top teams are all extremely close to each other, as are the bottom teams, with a huge separation between the two groups because of the heavily weighted build log. At the national level, where the top will most likely have nearly perfect scores with little to break ties, it may as well come down to luck. Granted, the only environmental factor that has been tested thus far has been temperature, but with an entire season to work on the detector, I doubt there would be anything preventing teams to nearly perfect every other factor.
My idea: make this event sort of a Swiss Army Knife do everything type device
Similar to how many events have topics that will only be tested at the State and National level, there would be different environmental factors that would be tested at each level. Not every factor will be tested each time, so, for example, and ES at one tournament could choose to test temperature and salinity, whereas another ES at another tournament could choose to test air pressure and wind speed. With this type of set up, competitors would have to prepare for every type of environmental condition that could be tested, but it is not guaranteed that all will be tested at once. While I could see cost getting in the way of this, it could be worked around by making the ones that are more likely to cost more only tested at the State or National level. By having the event set up this way, there would be much more to separate teams, and it would require teams to find more efficient ways to calibrate their devices and complete the tiebreaker quiz with so many things to test.
I hope the event committees will listen to people's suggestions for this event. Detector has the potential to be a great event provided that the rules are set out well.
The number one issue with the event in its current state is the lack of separation between the top and bottom teams. From what I can tell whenever this event is run, the top teams are all extremely close to each other, as are the bottom teams, with a huge separation between the two groups because of the heavily weighted build log. At the national level, where the top will most likely have nearly perfect scores with little to break ties, it may as well come down to luck. Granted, the only environmental factor that has been tested thus far has been temperature, but with an entire season to work on the detector, I doubt there would be anything preventing teams to nearly perfect every other factor.
My idea: make this event sort of a Swiss Army Knife do everything type device
Similar to how many events have topics that will only be tested at the State and National level, there would be different environmental factors that would be tested at each level. Not every factor will be tested each time, so, for example, and ES at one tournament could choose to test temperature and salinity, whereas another ES at another tournament could choose to test air pressure and wind speed. With this type of set up, competitors would have to prepare for every type of environmental condition that could be tested, but it is not guaranteed that all will be tested at once. While I could see cost getting in the way of this, it could be worked around by making the ones that are more likely to cost more only tested at the State or National level. By having the event set up this way, there would be much more to separate teams, and it would require teams to find more efficient ways to calibrate their devices and complete the tiebreaker quiz with so many things to test.
I hope the event committees will listen to people's suggestions for this event. Detector has the potential to be a great event provided that the rules are set out well.
Troy SciOly 2021 Co-Captain
Proud Padre of the Evola SciOly Program 2018-now
Dank Memes Area Homeschool Juggernaut 2018-now
Sierra Vista SciOly Co-Head Coach 2020-now
2021 Tryouts: Circuit, Code, Detector, DP, GeoMaps, Machines
The team may be gone, but the program lives on...
Umaroth's Userpage
Proud Padre of the Evola SciOly Program 2018-now
Dank Memes Area Homeschool Juggernaut 2018-now
Sierra Vista SciOly Co-Head Coach 2020-now
2021 Tryouts: Circuit, Code, Detector, DP, GeoMaps, Machines
The team may be gone, but the program lives on...
Umaroth's Userpage
- builderguy135
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 723
- Joined: September 8th, 2018, 12:24 pm
- Division: C
- State: NJ
- Pronouns: He/Him/His
- Has thanked: 141 times
- Been thanked: 96 times
- Contact:
Re: Detector Building C [TRIAL]
No no no no no no no no please no no no no no no that's gonna take forever to buildUmaroth wrote:I competed in this event when it was a Division B trial event at SoCal States 2018, and I do have some thoughts on how it could be improved based on last year and what I heard this year.
The number one issue with the event in its current state is the lack of separation between the top and bottom teams. From what I can tell whenever this event is run, the top teams are all extremely close to each other, as are the bottom teams, with a huge separation between the two groups because of the heavily weighted build log. At the national level, where the top will most likely have nearly perfect scores with little to break ties, it may as well come down to luck. Granted, the only environmental factor that has been tested thus far has been temperature, but with an entire season to work on the detector, I doubt there would be anything preventing teams to nearly perfect every other factor.
My idea: make this event sort of a Swiss Army Knife do everything type device
Similar to how many events have topics that will only be tested at the State and National level, there would be different environmental factors that would be tested at each level. Not every factor will be tested each time, so, for example, and ES at one tournament could choose to test temperature and salinity, whereas another ES at another tournament could choose to test air pressure and wind speed. With this type of set up, competitors would have to prepare for every type of environmental condition that could be tested, but it is not guaranteed that all will be tested at once. While I could see cost getting in the way of this, it could be worked around by making the ones that are more likely to cost more only tested at the State or National level. By having the event set up this way, there would be much more to separate teams, and it would require teams to find more efficient ways to calibrate their devices and complete the tiebreaker quiz with so many things to test.
I hope the event committees will listen to people's suggestions for this event. Detector has the potential to be a great event provided that the rules are set out well.
West Windsor - Plainsboro High School North '22
PPP/Sounds/Wright/Code/Cyber/DigiStruc
7x National Medalist, 2x MIT SoM Champion
Test Writer and Event Supervisor, BirdSO Co-Director
My Userpage
PPP/Sounds/Wright/Code/Cyber/DigiStruc
7x National Medalist, 2x MIT SoM Champion
Test Writer and Event Supervisor, BirdSO Co-Director
My Userpage
- Unome
- Moderator
- Posts: 4287
- Joined: January 26th, 2014, 12:48 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: GA
- Has thanked: 183 times
- Been thanked: 59 times
Re: Detector Building C [TRIAL]
If an event is replacing Mission, it kind of deserves to be tough.builderguy135 wrote:No no no no no no no no please no no no no no no that's gonna take forever to buildUmaroth wrote:I competed in this event when it was a Division B trial event at SoCal States 2018, and I do have some thoughts on how it could be improved based on last year and what I heard this year.
The number one issue with the event in its current state is the lack of separation between the top and bottom teams. From what I can tell whenever this event is run, the top teams are all extremely close to each other, as are the bottom teams, with a huge separation between the two groups because of the heavily weighted build log. At the national level, where the top will most likely have nearly perfect scores with little to break ties, it may as well come down to luck. Granted, the only environmental factor that has been tested thus far has been temperature, but with an entire season to work on the detector, I doubt there would be anything preventing teams to nearly perfect every other factor.
My idea: make this event sort of a Swiss Army Knife do everything type device
Similar to how many events have topics that will only be tested at the State and National level, there would be different environmental factors that would be tested at each level. Not every factor will be tested each time, so, for example, and ES at one tournament could choose to test temperature and salinity, whereas another ES at another tournament could choose to test air pressure and wind speed. With this type of set up, competitors would have to prepare for every type of environmental condition that could be tested, but it is not guaranteed that all will be tested at once. While I could see cost getting in the way of this, it could be worked around by making the ones that are more likely to cost more only tested at the State or National level. By having the event set up this way, there would be much more to separate teams, and it would require teams to find more efficient ways to calibrate their devices and complete the tiebreaker quiz with so many things to test.
I hope the event committees will listen to people's suggestions for this event. Detector has the potential to be a great event provided that the rules are set out well.
- pepperonipi
- Moderator
- Posts: 201
- Joined: January 21st, 2019, 11:38 am
- Division: C
- State: FL
- Has thanked: 168 times
- Been thanked: 323 times
Re: Detector Building C [TRIAL]
Definitely agree. I heard lots and lots of teams say that they got a perfect score in the device portion of the event when I was in the testing room at Nationals, which isn't really how an event should be.Umaroth wrote:I competed in this event when it was a Division B trial event at SoCal States 2018, and I do have some thoughts on how it could be improved based on last year and what I heard this year.
The number one issue with the event in its current state is the lack of separation between the top and bottom teams. From what I can tell whenever this event is run, the top teams are all extremely close to each other, as are the bottom teams, with a huge separation between the two groups because of the heavily weighted build log. At the national level, where the top will most likely have nearly perfect scores with little to break ties, it may as well come down to luck. Granted, the only environmental factor that has been tested thus far has been temperature, but with an entire season to work on the detector, I doubt there would be anything preventing teams to nearly perfect every other factor.
My idea: make this event sort of a Swiss Army Knife do everything type device
Similar to how many events have topics that will only be tested at the State and National level, there would be different environmental factors that would be tested at each level. Not every factor will be tested each time, so, for example, and ES at one tournament could choose to test temperature and salinity, whereas another ES at another tournament could choose to test air pressure and wind speed. With this type of set up, competitors would have to prepare for every type of environmental condition that could be tested, but it is not guaranteed that all will be tested at once. While I could see cost getting in the way of this, it could be worked around by making the ones that are more likely to cost more only tested at the State or National level. By having the event set up this way, there would be much more to separate teams, and it would require teams to find more efficient ways to calibrate their devices and complete the tiebreaker quiz with so many things to test.
I hope the event committees will listen to people's suggestions for this event. Detector has the potential to be a great event provided that the rules are set out well.
Couldn't the rules also be changed so that there are more building restrictions? I think this would also make the event harder without adding too much cost for other sensors/parts in a Swiss Army Knife-like device. This could include restrictions such as: having to use certain parts (such as a third-party ADC) in the device's setup, requiring the device to fit within a very small size (such as within a 10-15cm cube), or requiring the device to be contained inside a waterproof case. There were already some this year which added some challenge to the event (such as requiring LED's or making sure the probe could withstand boiling temperatures for a set period of time), and I believe that adding more would just increase the difficulty of the event.
And will you succeed? Yes! You will, indeed! (98 and 3/4 percent guaranteed.)
Boca Raton Community High School
My Wiki Page | School Wiki Page | WikiProject SciOly and Scioly.org | Pi-Bot
2019: Code, Fermi, Thermo
2020: Detector, Orni, Code (Substitution: Penn)
2021: Detector, Orni, Circuit, WICI
Boca Raton Community High School
My Wiki Page | School Wiki Page | WikiProject SciOly and Scioly.org | Pi-Bot
2019: Code, Fermi, Thermo
2020: Detector, Orni, Code (Substitution: Penn)
2021: Detector, Orni, Circuit, WICI
- Umaroth
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 337
- Joined: February 10th, 2018, 8:51 pm
- Division: C
- State: CA
- Pronouns: He/Him/His
- Has thanked: 114 times
- Been thanked: 229 times
Re: Detector Building C [TRIAL]
A size bonus could also be a good idea, but not sure how it could be implemented wellpepperonipi wrote:Definitely agree. I heard lots and lots of teams say that they got a perfect score in the device portion of the event when I was in the testing room at Nationals, which isn't really how an event should be.Umaroth wrote:I competed in this event when it was a Division B trial event at SoCal States 2018, and I do have some thoughts on how it could be improved based on last year and what I heard this year.
The number one issue with the event in its current state is the lack of separation between the top and bottom teams. From what I can tell whenever this event is run, the top teams are all extremely close to each other, as are the bottom teams, with a huge separation between the two groups because of the heavily weighted build log. At the national level, where the top will most likely have nearly perfect scores with little to break ties, it may as well come down to luck. Granted, the only environmental factor that has been tested thus far has been temperature, but with an entire season to work on the detector, I doubt there would be anything preventing teams to nearly perfect every other factor.
My idea: make this event sort of a Swiss Army Knife do everything type device
Similar to how many events have topics that will only be tested at the State and National level, there would be different environmental factors that would be tested at each level. Not every factor will be tested each time, so, for example, and ES at one tournament could choose to test temperature and salinity, whereas another ES at another tournament could choose to test air pressure and wind speed. With this type of set up, competitors would have to prepare for every type of environmental condition that could be tested, but it is not guaranteed that all will be tested at once. While I could see cost getting in the way of this, it could be worked around by making the ones that are more likely to cost more only tested at the State or National level. By having the event set up this way, there would be much more to separate teams, and it would require teams to find more efficient ways to calibrate their devices and complete the tiebreaker quiz with so many things to test.
I hope the event committees will listen to people's suggestions for this event. Detector has the potential to be a great event provided that the rules are set out well.
Couldn't the rules also be changed so that there are more building restrictions? I think this would also make the event harder without adding too much cost for other sensors/parts in a Swiss Army Knife-like device. This could include restrictions such as: having to use certain parts (such as a third-party ADC) in the device's setup, requiring the device to fit within a very small size (such as within a 10-15cm cube), or requiring the device to be contained inside a waterproof case. There were already some this year which added some challenge to the event (such as requiring LED's or making sure the probe could withstand boiling temperatures for a set period of time), and I believe that adding more would just increase the difficulty of the event.
Troy SciOly 2021 Co-Captain
Proud Padre of the Evola SciOly Program 2018-now
Dank Memes Area Homeschool Juggernaut 2018-now
Sierra Vista SciOly Co-Head Coach 2020-now
2021 Tryouts: Circuit, Code, Detector, DP, GeoMaps, Machines
The team may be gone, but the program lives on...
Umaroth's Userpage
Proud Padre of the Evola SciOly Program 2018-now
Dank Memes Area Homeschool Juggernaut 2018-now
Sierra Vista SciOly Co-Head Coach 2020-now
2021 Tryouts: Circuit, Code, Detector, DP, GeoMaps, Machines
The team may be gone, but the program lives on...
Umaroth's Userpage
-
- Member
- Posts: 23
- Joined: September 5th, 2018, 4:34 pm
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Detector Building C [TRIAL]
Has anyone tried a Kalman Filter or nueral network?
2020: MIT Gravity Vehicle 2nd
2020: MIT Machines 6th
2019: Nationals Mission Possible 2nd
2019: NC Mission Possible 2nd
2019: MIT Mission Possible 4th
2018: NC Mission Possible 1st
2020: MIT Machines 6th
2019: Nationals Mission Possible 2nd
2019: NC Mission Possible 2nd
2019: MIT Mission Possible 4th
2018: NC Mission Possible 1st
-
- Member
- Posts: 438
- Joined: October 9th, 2017, 6:25 pm
- Division: C
- State: NJ
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Detector Building C [TRIAL]
highly doubt itchessbucket wrote:Has anyone tried a Kalman Filter or nueral network?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest