Scioly.org

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.

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.

No no no no no no no no please no no no no no no that's gonna take forever to build

builderguy135 wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

pepperonipi wrote:

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.

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

Has anyone tried a Kalman Filter or nueral network?

chessbucket wrote:Has anyone tried a Kalman Filter or nueral network?

highly doubt it