|
|
|
|
|
| |
Posted by Padu on October 19, 2005, 12:54 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>
> Your forgetting GPS data was a requirement last year and this year.
> A CD was given out with GPS data and you had to pass over the GPS points,
> at the required speed for that GPS data point.
Not sure I understood what is your point here, but anyway, my point is that
I don't see the use of GPS as "cheating" or a bad thing. Although, if you
only rely on GPS for navigation, sooner or later you will be doomed.
>> For the sake of robotics field, it would be nice to see vehicles with
>> more intelligent vision systems, and I deeply believe that the real
>> intelligence is in vision.
>
> You can see in the dark, unless you use ultrasonic, FLIR? SONAR? SAR?
> Light seeable edge detection is not that easy and how are you
> going to see a water puddle or pond? that water puddle cause
> a car to wreck itself last year. What about driving in a sand storm,
> or fog when you can't see 1 ft. in front of you, heavy rain?
You are misundertanding vision (as in vision algorithms) with human vision.
We can only see in a limited spectrum of light. Cameras can use a much
broader spectrum. My point is: it doesn't matter what sensor you are using,
the real challenge is making good sense of the data you are receiving. We
humans can see a water puddle with our vision, so the computer should be
able to do it, it all depends on the intelligence is givem to it. As
mentioned above, there is an additional advantage to robots, they are not
limited to one type of sensor as we are. How do you drive through a
sandstorm or through heavy fog?
> I'm not clear about your definition of intelligent vision.
That's because I did not define it. What I asserted is that the real
intelligence [yet to be found] is in vision. You see, identify that there is
a blob in a picture frame is already not a simple thing. Ok, in ideal
conditions it is, but the real world is far from mathematical ideal. Light
conditions change, lenses get dirt, etc. But assume you got that part nailed
and you have the image nicely structured into objects. Now the real problem
is to recognize what are those objects and what do they mean. For example,
it would be nice for an autonomous tank vision system to identify bushes or
soft objects from untraversable ones.
I think all falls into the discussion if one day we will be able to have a
strong AI, able to implement our horizontal knowledge (or learn its own) and
common sense.
Cheers
Padu
|
|
Posted by Ben on October 11, 2005, 1:37 am
Please log in for more thread options
>"Ben" wrote
>>
>> I don't think they're blaming that for not winning. The second
>> excerpt points out that they had some sort of other problem.
>>
>> Red Team Too also suffered some unknown technical glitch which put
>> them out of first place.
>>
>> All sorts of things happened. Cajunbot's servo motor burned out while
>> it was "paused" waiting for congestion to clear.
>>
>> Those are the breaks.
>>
>
>I was there and it was really windy, but that was true for everybody.
>Terramax left the gate a few hours after the first team. They had to be
>paused for at least 15 minutes because they were removing Alice (caltech if
>I'm not mistaken) from the road (quite an entertaining crash, very close to
>all us). The first teams could also blame light conditions as the sun was
>not giving full light at dusk.
Good to hear a first hand report - I was rooting for CMU, being an
alumnus of them myself and while I was disappointed in their failure
to take the win, I feel they have nothing to be ashamed of.
I feel a lot of teams hit upon some hard luck, and as I said "those
are the breaks".
I don't hold any ill-feelings towards Stanford at all - they had a
very fine machine and they finished first, and that may probably had a
lot to do with their anticipating whatever breaks may have come, be
those breaks dust storms, glaring sunlight or flat tires.
Even though I had nothing to do with Red Team itself other than having
been a student there at one time, they performed admirably.
As did the other teams.
I was a bit disappointed in the "webcast" as it was - I was hoping for
some video or at the very least more real time updates, and as I have
mentioned in another post, the "real-time" standings weren't very
realistic - I imagine everyone involved was too busy to update all of
us spectators on the web.
>
>>> I saw
>>>video of TerraMax during the trials at the speedway, it took a long time
>>>to get through one gate, backing up a several times before finallly
>>>"deciding" to go through.
>>
>> Yeah - I got bored watching it, so I didn't see how many times they
>> had to back up.
>>
>
>I don't know if at that point it was already "glitchy", but it took forever
>for terramax to cross the railroad bridge close Buffalo Bill. It was stop
>and go for at least 10 minutes.
>
>Real pitty was team ENSCO... they got a flat tire at about 60 and something
>miles... they were looking very good.
From the (quasi) real-time standings, they were on pace to finish
within minutes of Stanford and the Red Teams and possibly even beat
them - it was hard to tell since the "webcast" didn't take into
account pauses in the race.
It must have been very disappointing for them to have been shut out by
a failure of a tire.
>
>
>Not trying to take the shine off the winners, but I found that this year it
>was much easier than last year.
I believe a guy from Stanford (if not him, someone else) mentioned
that last year's race had one of the tougher stretches early on, while
this year's race left the toughest (Beer Bottle Pass) for those who
could travel 125 miles in the first place.
> Less miles
Only 10 less though
>and the only challenging part was
>beer bottle pass, on the last 7 miles of competition. All that said, teams
>really improved from last year, as there was no spectacles on the starting
>chute. Even the last team did close to 7 miles. (I think only one team
>failed to start)
>
>
>
>Overall, it was very fun to be there.
I can only imagine.
>Kudos for grayteam team that finished
>very close to the big dogs.
and IMO kudos to everyone who qualified
>
>
>Cheers
>
>Padu
>
|
|
Posted by Padu on October 11, 2005, 2:31 pm
Please log in for more thread options "Ben" wrote
>
> Good to hear a first hand report - I was rooting for CMU, being an
> alumnus of them myself and while I was disappointed in their failure
> to take the win, I feel they have nothing to be ashamed of.
Nothing at all! The results were very close indeed.
> I feel a lot of teams hit upon some hard luck, and as I said "those
> are the breaks".
>
> I don't hold any ill-feelings towards Stanford at all - they had a
> very fine machine and they finished first, and that may probably had a
> lot to do with their anticipating whatever breaks may have come, be
> those breaks dust storms, glaring sunlight or flat tires.
As that Montmerlo guy said on the webcast, their success comes mostly from
lots and lots of testing under different circunstances. If you never
achieved 20 miles of autonomous drive, you cannot expect to achieve 132.
> Even though I had nothing to do with Red Team itself other than having
> been a student there at one time, they performed admirably.
>
> As did the other teams.
ditto
> I was a bit disappointed in the "webcast" as it was - I was hoping for
> some video or at the very least more real time updates, and as I have
> mentioned in another post, the "real-time" standings weren't very
> realistic - I imagine everyone involved was too busy to update all of
> us spectators on the web.
Well, the live webcasts at the spectator tent weren't much better. If they
really wanted to do a live webcast, they would have live video in each one
of the shadow cars. That would really be great.
> From the (quasi) real-time standings, they were on pace to finish
> within minutes of Stanford and the Red Teams and possibly even beat
> them - it was hard to tell since the "webcast" didn't take into
> account pauses in the race.
>
> It must have been very disappointing for them to have been shut out by
> a failure of a tire.
Specially when the first place is an almost stock SUV while you are running
on a custom made off-road vehicle.
> I believe a guy from Stanford (if not him, someone else) mentioned
> that last year's race had one of the tougher stretches early on, while
> this year's race left the toughest (Beer Bottle Pass) for those who
> could travel 125 miles in the first place.
Yes, that was Montmerlo from stanford.
>> Less miles
>
> Only 10 less though
I don't know why but I was expecting 175 miles, and I was not the only one.
But, from the results, even if it was 200 miles, chances are that results
would not be too different.
Cheers
Padu
|
|
Posted by Ben on October 9, 2005, 4:01 pm
Please log in for more thread options On 8 Oct 2005 07:29:18 -0700, john.orlando@gmail.com wrote:
>Looks like we got a race this year! As of 9:24 AM CST, here are the
>standings thus far:
>
Did anyone notice around noon PST yesterday all the standings were
revised to reflect fewer miles?
|
|
Posted by Brian Dean on October 15, 2005, 1:29 pm
Please log in for more thread options On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 01:01:25PM -0700, Ben wrote:
> Did anyone notice around noon PST yesterday all the standings were
> revised to reflect fewer miles?
I am on one of the teams and our chase vehicle guy said that the gas
company dug up a section of the course and it was too late to fill it
back in and/or the fill was too soft for the vehicles to cross or
something like that. This was all unexpected and so DARPA had to
scramble to short circuit an 11 mile section of the course to avoid
that area. But it appears that the vehicle tracking system did not
account of the 11 mile shorter section until later and that is the
discrepancy.
-Brian
--
Brian Dean
ATmega128 based MAVRIC controllers
http://www.bdmicro.com/
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | DARPA Grand Challenge will be on UK TV. | October 22, 2006, 2:19 pm |
| "grand challenge for the moon" ? | December 5, 2005, 2:20 pm |
| CMU wins the DARPA Urban Challenge | November 4, 2007, 7:46 pm |
| Darpa challenge qualifying round schedule.......??? | September 29, 2005, 11:01 pm |
| DARPA Urban Challenge for Autonomous Vechicles | June 24, 2006, 9:46 am |
| Who's working on the DARPA Little Dog project | July 17, 2006, 10:50 pm |
| Re: DARPA GC Killing Robotics | May 21, 2007, 3:35 am |
| Any San Diego area DARPA people? | May 22, 2006, 4:28 pm |
| DARPA legged robot competition | June 24, 2006, 11:57 pm |
| Re: Darpa legged robot competition | June 25, 2006, 2:21 am |
|
|
|
XML site map
> Your forgetting GPS data was a requirement last year and this year.
> A CD was given out with GPS data and you had to pass over the GPS points,
> at the required speed for that GPS data point.