Bookmark and Share

Statistics - How many of you did submit a 725 points submission?

Last post 05-20-2009 7:14 AM by chen xi. 15 replies.

Page 1 of 2 (16 items) 1 2 Next >
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • 05-20-2009 7:14 AM

    Statistics - How many of you did submit a 725 points submission?

     I'm just interested.

    NGG
  • 05-20-2009 7:22 AM In reply to

    Re: Statistics - How many of you did submit a 725 points submission?

     :-)

    I had done one on 25th Last month which took 1074seconds to complete the mission. B-)

    Regards,

    Aravinda D.P.

    2008 PH Semi Finalist: Scarab_Swarm - LK (Top 20 in R2)
    2009 R&A Finalist (4th Place)
    ~Vincent, We have got a problem! There are bugs on Mars...~ :-P
    ~And it's been a long way, but we're here.~
  • 05-20-2009 8:33 AM In reply to

    Re: Statistics - How many of you did submit a 725 points submission?

    no.3 :)

    i guess it will around 15

  • 05-20-2009 9:25 AM In reply to

    • seppl
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on 03-06-2007
    • Posts 11

    Re: Statistics - How many of you did submit a 725 points submission?

    I guess ( /fear ;-)  ) there'll be about 40 people with a score of 725.
     

  • 05-20-2009 5:46 PM In reply to

    Re: Statistics - How many of you did submit a 725 points submission?

    There are many people get the full score, 20 I guess. But unfortunately there will only be 6 people to be advanced to the world final. The first round 203 people, the second round 6 people, so fierce competition is.
    Clark Chan
  • 05-20-2009 9:01 PM In reply to

    • orfest
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on 10-28-2008
    • Posts 5

    Re: Statistics - How many of you did submit a 725 points submission?

    It's not only 203. At the Leaderboard page I see that about 30 people are at 205th place :)

    So, according to the Leaderboard it's about 230-240 people allowed to participate in the Round 2. Please correct me if you have another source of information.

     

    But only 6 will advance...

     

    PS. I also have 725 :)

    Life is a succession of moments. To live each one is to succeed.
  • 05-20-2009 10:32 PM In reply to

    Re: Statistics - How many of you did submit a 725 points submission?

     

     I think about 100 people have gotten 725..

     and about 20 people used all sensors...

     

  • 05-21-2009 1:11 AM In reply to

    • scora
    • Top 200 Contributor
    • Joined on 03-15-2009
    • Posts 46

    Re: Statistics - How many of you did submit a 725 points submission?

    I doubt whether all contestants with a full mark will be aksed for codes further. I can't figure out how the referee makes it clear that who with a full mark has used all the sensors?
  • 05-21-2009 6:55 AM In reply to

    Re: Statistics - How many of you did submit a 725 points submission?

    I can't imagine though that simply using all of the sensors makes the better rover.

    I'd find it rather distasteful if they went with the submissions with lesser running time, if that was the case I would have just hard coded my rover rather than making it almost completely dynamic.

    "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler" ~ Albert Einstein
  • 05-21-2009 3:14 PM In reply to

    • Avalor
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on 02-05-2009
    • Posts 8

    Re: Statistics - How many of you did submit a 725 points submission?

     Hi, I did submit a 725 score. As Carlos says, I think they will take into account the strategy for instance to analyze the rocks, to travel to the next position, to find the heat shield.... more than the number of sensors used.

     

    About the number of people with a perfect score... also think we'll be more than 100... so I just can cross my fingers and hope they like my code (if I am requested about it).

     

    So, good luck to everyone!

  • 05-21-2009 3:29 PM In reply to

    Re: Statistics - How many of you did submit a 725 points submission?

     Also, if they don't have our code, I don't think there's a way for them to fairly detect whether or not the sensors were used, I imagine it would be possible maybe for them to detect if a sensor was used perhaps by some trigger built in the functions of the sensors, but how they were used is what should be taken into account. Also, it's very much possible that particular implementations of the sensors make other sensors obsolete.

    Quite personally, I didn't use either of the hazard cameras, the back one was most especially useless for me since my rover only did ever move backwards over an area it's already been, and as for the front, well, if there would be anything I would have used it for, maybe to help with the positioning of the rover before tapping the rocks, but I managed to achieve something rather precise with the navcam alone, so I didn't feel the need to complicate it (going through those images takes a good long number of loops, and my image processing algos aren't something I wanted looping too much). I also could have used the front hazard camera to avoid rocks I didn't want to run into, but I decided to just make use of formulas to create paths around waypoints that were neither my origin nor destination. I was very much satisfied with that because even if they mixed up the order of the way points, my rover would have avoided the ones it wasn't supposed to go to yet, and still manage to get the bonus 75.

    Any thoughts on what they could possibly, fairly use as criteria to determine who's bots would be further evaluated via code inspection if not everyone's? All I could possibly think of is the need for a 725. I don't think running time nor use of all sensors should be criteria for it either. And I can't imagine, well maybe I could, them deciding based on the .plb's.

    On a side note, anyone know how to use the plb's? Is there any way we could see the replay of our submission?

     

    PS, I'm sorry if it seems as though I'm bragging on my second paragraph, I'm only trying to make my point with regards to the sensors and why I believe it isn't necessary to implement all of them. It really depends on how everything comes together.

    Sometimes a group works best when every one works together, sometimes a group works best when the members who aren't very good step out of the way of the one who is.

    "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler" ~ Albert Einstein
  • 05-21-2009 10:53 PM In reply to

    Re: Statistics - How many of you did submit a 725 points submission?

    I also got 725. I agree that judging based on use of all the sensors is not a good criteria. I didn't use either hazard camera since the extra information wouldn't have improved my robot's performance at all. However, I think that the run time could be used as a factor in the judging. After all, run time is an indication of your navigation efficiency between waypoints and how accurate you are at sampling rocks. One potential problem with using run time for judging is the fact that the heat shield's location is randomized, so some robots need to travel further than others. In response to Carlos' comment, making the robot more dynamic doesn't necessarily mean that the robot has to be slower than a hardcoded one. The following two tasks were probably the most tempting to hardcode (both of which can be solved fairly fast dynamically):

    - Getting out of the crater.
    - Avoiding the crater on the return trip.

  • 05-21-2009 11:19 PM In reply to

    Re: Statistics - How many of you did submit a 725 points submission?

    "However, I think that the run time could be used as a factor in the judging. After all, run time is an indication of your navigation efficiency between waypoints and how accurate you are at sampling rocks. One potential problem with using run time for judging is the fact that the heat shield's location is randomized, so some robots need to travel further than others."

    I agree with this completely.

    However, for clarity, what I meant by not using run time as a criteria would be: if they do decide not to request the files (especially their source) from all competitors who submitted, the method of deciding who's codes will be reviewed should not involve run time as a criteria because any competitor could have provided to his/her rover the optimal path to follow for the course of the qualification, especially when it comes to going out of the crater. This is of course assuming that having hardcoded the path isn't a particularly desirerable feature the judges are looking for.
    "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler" ~ Albert Einstein
  • 05-22-2009 1:30 AM In reply to

    Re: Statistics - How many of you did submit a 725 points submission?

    I don't think it's good to use run time as a criteria.

     in real case, we should avoid using full speed,isn't is? because full speed is not designed to be used all the time(it's not a computer game). though I use full speed 80% of the mission,I think it's good to use full speed only climbing the slope.

  • 05-22-2009 8:31 AM In reply to

    Re: Statistics - How many of you did submit a 725 points submission?

    Another weak point of the "Sensor used" a criteria is that someone could code all the part and used all of them, but have done nothing useful. Just use them to do some unimportant stuff, so how do they juggle for our performance.
    Clark Chan
Page 1 of 2 (16 items) 1 2 Next >