Detector Building C [TRIAL]

Umaroth
Member
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: February 10th, 2018, 8:51 pm
Division: C
State: CA
Location: Kraemer Room 504, Troy Room 909, or studying at my dining table

Re: Detector Building C [TRIAL]

Postby Umaroth » June 7th, 2019, 11:20 am

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.
Troy SciOly 2019-2020
Kraemer SciOly Padre 2018-2019
Dank Memes Area Homeschool Juggernaut 2018-2019
Kraemer SciOly Pretty-Much Head Coach 2019-2020
2020 Tryouts: Circuit, Code, Detector, DP, GeoMaps, Machines
SOLVI Events: Code, Detector, DP, GeoMaps, Machines

Umaroth's Userpage

User avatar
builderguy135
Member
Member
Posts: 474
Joined: September 8th, 2018, 12:24 pm
Division: C
State: NJ

Re: Detector Building C [TRIAL]

Postby builderguy135 » June 7th, 2019, 2:56 pm

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.
No no no no no no no no please no no no no no no that's gonna take forever to build
HSN '22 & DMAH Co-Captain
6-time medalist in Nationals 2019
2020 Events: Detector/PPP/Sounds/Wright

User avatar
Unome
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4133
Joined: January 26th, 2014, 12:48 pm
Division: Grad
State: GA
Location: somewhere in the sciolyverse

Re: Detector Building C [TRIAL]

Postby Unome » June 7th, 2019, 3:01 pm

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.
No no no no no no no no please no no no no no no that's gonna take forever to build
If an event is replacing Mission, it kind of deserves to be tough.
Userpage
Chattahoochee High School Class of 2018
Georgia Tech Class of 2022

Opinions expressed on this site are not official; the only place for official rules changes and FAQs is soinc.org.

User avatar
pepperonipi
Wiki Moderator
Wiki Moderator
Posts: 92
Joined: January 21st, 2019, 11:38 am
Division: C
State: FL

Re: Detector Building C [TRIAL]

Postby pepperonipi » June 7th, 2019, 7:19 pm

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.
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.

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.
⋆͛*͛ ͙͛ ⁑͛⋆͛*͛ ͙͛ヽ(°∀°人´ヮ´)ノ⋆͛*͛ ͙͛ ⁑͛⋆͛*͛ ͙͛
Holidays are snow much fun...

Boca Raton Community High School
Relevant Wiki Pages:
My Wiki Page | School Wiki Page

My Events
2019: Code Busters, Fermi Questions, Thermodynamics
2019 Trials: What the Function (MIT), Detector Building (Nationals)
2020: Detector Building, Ornithology

Umaroth
Member
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: February 10th, 2018, 8:51 pm
Division: C
State: CA
Location: Kraemer Room 504, Troy Room 909, or studying at my dining table

Re: Detector Building C [TRIAL]

Postby Umaroth » June 7th, 2019, 8:03 pm

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.
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.

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.
A size bonus could also be a good idea, but not sure how it could be implemented well
Troy SciOly 2019-2020
Kraemer SciOly Padre 2018-2019
Dank Memes Area Homeschool Juggernaut 2018-2019
Kraemer SciOly Pretty-Much Head Coach 2019-2020
2020 Tryouts: Circuit, Code, Detector, DP, GeoMaps, Machines
SOLVI Events: Code, Detector, DP, GeoMaps, Machines

Umaroth's Userpage

chessbucket
Member
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: September 5th, 2018, 4:34 pm

Re: Detector Building C [TRIAL]

Postby chessbucket » July 7th, 2019, 2:02 pm

Has anyone tried a Kalman Filter or nueral network?
2019: Nationals Mission Possible 2nd
2019: NC Mission Possible 2nd
2018: NC Mission Possible 1st

It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes. - Douglas Adams

shrewdPanther46
Member
Member
Posts: 426
Joined: October 9th, 2017, 6:25 pm
Division: C
State: NJ

Re: Detector Building C [TRIAL]

Postby shrewdPanther46 » July 8th, 2019, 4:29 pm

Has anyone tried a Kalman Filter or nueral network?
highly doubt it


Return to “2019 Build Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest