microtransat-wrsc-rules Mailing List for microtransat
Brought to you by:
colin_sauze,
rokasz
Menu
▾
▴
microtransat-wrsc-rules — List to discuss the rules for the World Robotic Sailing Championships.
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2015 |
Jan
|
Feb
(4) |
Mar
|
Apr
(5) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(10) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(5) |
Dec
(1) |
|
From: Colin S. [cos] <co...@ab...> - 2017-12-10 23:43:18
|
This mailing list is no longer in use and has been replaced with a google group. Sourceforge has recently changed their mailing list privacy policy so I can't see who is subscribed to the list and can't transfer people over. You'll have to sign yourselves up to the new group. Its address is https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/wrsc-discuss You don't need a google account to signup. The new group is also not just focused on rules but for any WRSC related discussions. The old microtransat-wrsc-tracking list has been deleted as nobody ever used it and I think we've now got a good solution for the tracking problems. Colin. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Prifysgol Aberystwyth www.aber.ac.uk Prifysgol y Flwyddyn ar gyfer Ansawdd Dysgu - The Times & The Sunday Times 2018. Aberystwyth University www.aber.ac.uk University of the Year for Teaching Quality - The Times & The Sunday Times 2018. |
|
From: Thomas K. <th...@kl...> - 2017-11-26 18:59:18
|
Colin kindly made us a new Google groups mailing list for general WRSC discussion: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/wrsc-discuss If you're on this mailing list, you probably want to be on that one as well! Thanks, Thomas |
|
From: Sophia M <sm...@gm...> - 2017-11-24 14:56:17
|
Dear All, whilst unable to officially confirm the date and location of the competition yet, it may be worth just adding something like the [draft text] given below to the existing social media channels? >From my experience in starting a new team, this would encourage new teams and help them winning more team members, funding, etc. [draft text] "WRSC and IRSC will return in August/September 2018! The rules will be an extension of the last competition rules, and as usually entry is open to everyone. If you are unsure about the measurements of your robot, please contact mic...@li.... More details will be published at the start of 2018." Cheers Sophia ps: as you can tell from the topic, I'm going a bit off the mailing list theme here. As far as I understand the restriction not strict, and this seems to me like the best place for general WRSC topics, so I hope you don't mind |
|
From: Sophia M <sm...@gm...> - 2017-11-24 14:34:22
|
Dear All, I agree with Anna, that an improvement in the scoring for the obstacle avoidance would be desirable. First of all just including any information: - Obstacle detected - Avoiding obstacle ( - Estimated distance to obstacle) - Obstacle avoidance completed I wonder if it is worth yet adding the distance in the challenge - my previous choice of challenge modifications was based on the current capabilities of vehicles. For the obstacle avoidance, I have yet to witness a successful avoidance, so adding a scoring for distance might be more confusing than helpful. Trying to draw a line to tasks from microtransat or scientific applications, something like 'avoiding while staying within a given area' might make more sense? For incremental scoring, the obstacle avoidance challenge could be improved by changing the following: - 1 point for remaining in the normal path area before the obstacle is added - 1 point for correctly detecting the obstacle - 1 point for leaving the normal path area after detecting the obstacle - 1 bonus point for leaving the normal path area whilst not increasing the distance to the obstacle by more than X m/whilst not leaving the avoidance area - 1 point for returning to the normal path area - 1 bonus point for returning to the normal path area whilst not increasing the distance to the obstacle by more than X m/whilst not leaving the avoidance area - 2 bonus points for not colliding with the obstacle during the entire mission - 1 point for recognising that obstacle avoidance is complete This is changed to the previous tasks in several regards, mostly the requirement for remaining in the normal path area before detecting the obstacle. However at the core I think the challenge stays the same. What do you all think of the distance scoring for the obstacle avoidance? Does the incremental scoring for the obstacle work like this, or is it missing something? Cheers Sophia On 17 November 2017 at 11:08, Anna Friebe <ann...@ha...> wrote: > Dear all, > > I like the situational awareness theme. > > I agree that it would be good to change to an incremental scoring, to > remove some of the chance involved. In fact, I like most of the suggestions. > > The addition of a buoy to the area scanning is a nice idea. > > The current obstacle avoidance challenge is somewhat dependent on > judgement. You could think of ways to change that. > - The boats could transmit information in a specified manner when (if) > they detect the obstacle, so there is a measure of the detection distance > - The boats could be instructed to attempt to keep a specified distance to > the obstacle, and the scoring could be adapted to the deviation from this > ideal track. > > We have previously discussed collaborative challenges. Possibly something > in this direction could be built in as a bonus challenge. > > Cheers, > Anna > > > Anna Friebe, MSc > PROJEKTLEDARE/ PROJECT MANAGER ÅLAND SAILING ROBOTS > > SJÖFARTSAKADEMIN > HÖGSKOLAN PÅ ÅLAND > ÅLAND UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES > Neptunig 17 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Neptunig+17&entry=gmail&source=g> > PB 1010, AX-22111 Mariehamn, Åland, Finland > +358 (0)457 344 9922 > > www.ha.ax > > > > > > On 7 November 2017 at 12:34, Sophia M <sm...@gm...> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> with WRSC 2018 in Southampton looking increasingly likely [*], I would >> like to kick off the theme and rule discussion, so with the announcement of >> the location and date, we can also publish the theme of the conference. >> >> Based on the suggestion at the last conference, to have a theme for the >> conference and competition, the following two themes come to mind: >> A) Situational awareness >> B) Reliability >> >> The rules would stay almost the same as the last competitions but I'd >> suggest some amendments: >> >> ## For both themes: >> - change the scoring so that scoring is incremental and no points can be >> lost e.g. by not crossing a line on time >> - add theme specific components that give bonus points for the normal >> challenges. Everyone can first focus on doing the challenges as usual, but >> advanced teams can then try to catch the bonus points. >> >> ## A) Situational awareness >> Two suggestions to deepen the theme >> - Add a small buoy to area scanning; boats can get bonus points by >> detecting it and giving an estimate position (full score if the correct >> quadrant is named, less points if it is mis-located in a box that touches >> the quadrant with the buoy) >> - Instead of ending the station keeping after n minutes, the boat is >> asked to station keep indefinitely, the first n minutes are used for >> scoring the station keeping. Then at an unknown time a safety boat takes >> the boat away. The boat has to detect this to get additional points >> >> ## B) Reliability >> Rather than multiple attempts, teams can register a combined attempt: The >> total score is the average of both attempts + 20% or x points bonus >> Maybe, to give a better incentive, the max of the first individual run >> and the combined attempt is taken; this way again no loss of points is >> ensured, and it becomes less of a gamble to try the more difficult >> challenge. >> >> Currently the most likely location in Southampton is tidal, so the >> reliability theme might be difficult to implement in a fair manner, >> guaranteeing all boats a chance for a reliability run. >> >> What do you think of these themes for the conference and the competition? >> Do you have any other theme or bonus challenge suggestions? >> >> Cheers, >> Sophia >> Southampton Sailing Robot Team >> >> [*] If you contact me in private I can give you access to the google >> drive we are working in. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> ------------------ >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot >> _______________________________________________ >> Microtransat-wrsc-rules mailing list >> Mic...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/microtransat-wrsc-rules >> >> > |
|
From: Anna F. <ann...@ha...> - 2017-11-17 11:35:40
|
Dear all, I like the situational awareness theme. I agree that it would be good to change to an incremental scoring, to remove some of the chance involved. In fact, I like most of the suggestions. The addition of a buoy to the area scanning is a nice idea. The current obstacle avoidance challenge is somewhat dependent on judgement. You could think of ways to change that. - The boats could transmit information in a specified manner when (if) they detect the obstacle, so there is a measure of the detection distance - The boats could be instructed to attempt to keep a specified distance to the obstacle, and the scoring could be adapted to the deviation from this ideal track. We have previously discussed collaborative challenges. Possibly something in this direction could be built in as a bonus challenge. Cheers, Anna Anna Friebe, MSc PROJEKTLEDARE/ PROJECT MANAGER ÅLAND SAILING ROBOTS SJÖFARTSAKADEMIN HÖGSKOLAN PÅ ÅLAND ÅLAND UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES Neptunig 17 PB 1010, AX-22111 Mariehamn, Åland, Finland +358 (0)457 344 9922 www.ha.ax On 7 November 2017 at 12:34, Sophia M <sm...@gm...> wrote: > Dear All, > > with WRSC 2018 in Southampton looking increasingly likely [*], I would > like to kick off the theme and rule discussion, so with the announcement of > the location and date, we can also publish the theme of the conference. > > Based on the suggestion at the last conference, to have a theme for the > conference and competition, the following two themes come to mind: > A) Situational awareness > B) Reliability > > The rules would stay almost the same as the last competitions but I'd > suggest some amendments: > > ## For both themes: > - change the scoring so that scoring is incremental and no points can be > lost e.g. by not crossing a line on time > - add theme specific components that give bonus points for the normal > challenges. Everyone can first focus on doing the challenges as usual, but > advanced teams can then try to catch the bonus points. > > ## A) Situational awareness > Two suggestions to deepen the theme > - Add a small buoy to area scanning; boats can get bonus points by > detecting it and giving an estimate position (full score if the correct > quadrant is named, less points if it is mis-located in a box that touches > the quadrant with the buoy) > - Instead of ending the station keeping after n minutes, the boat is asked > to station keep indefinitely, the first n minutes are used for scoring the > station keeping. Then at an unknown time a safety boat takes the boat away. > The boat has to detect this to get additional points > > ## B) Reliability > Rather than multiple attempts, teams can register a combined attempt: The > total score is the average of both attempts + 20% or x points bonus > Maybe, to give a better incentive, the max of the first individual run and > the combined attempt is taken; this way again no loss of points is ensured, > and it becomes less of a gamble to try the more difficult challenge. > > Currently the most likely location in Southampton is tidal, so the > reliability theme might be difficult to implement in a fair manner, > guaranteeing all boats a chance for a reliability run. > > What do you think of these themes for the conference and the competition? > Do you have any other theme or bonus challenge suggestions? > > Cheers, > Sophia > Southampton Sailing Robot Team > > [*] If you contact me in private I can give you access to the google drive > we are working in. > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------ > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > _______________________________________________ > Microtransat-wrsc-rules mailing list > Mic...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/microtransat-wrsc-rules > > |
|
From: Sophia M <sm...@gm...> - 2017-11-07 10:34:27
|
Dear All, with WRSC 2018 in Southampton looking increasingly likely [*], I would like to kick off the theme and rule discussion, so with the announcement of the location and date, we can also publish the theme of the conference. Based on the suggestion at the last conference, to have a theme for the conference and competition, the following two themes come to mind: A) Situational awareness B) Reliability The rules would stay almost the same as the last competitions but I'd suggest some amendments: ## For both themes: - change the scoring so that scoring is incremental and no points can be lost e.g. by not crossing a line on time - add theme specific components that give bonus points for the normal challenges. Everyone can first focus on doing the challenges as usual, but advanced teams can then try to catch the bonus points. ## A) Situational awareness Two suggestions to deepen the theme - Add a small buoy to area scanning; boats can get bonus points by detecting it and giving an estimate position (full score if the correct quadrant is named, less points if it is mis-located in a box that touches the quadrant with the buoy) - Instead of ending the station keeping after n minutes, the boat is asked to station keep indefinitely, the first n minutes are used for scoring the station keeping. Then at an unknown time a safety boat takes the boat away. The boat has to detect this to get additional points ## B) Reliability Rather than multiple attempts, teams can register a combined attempt: The total score is the average of both attempts + 20% or x points bonus Maybe, to give a better incentive, the max of the first individual run and the combined attempt is taken; this way again no loss of points is ensured, and it becomes less of a gamble to try the more difficult challenge. Currently the most likely location in Southampton is tidal, so the reliability theme might be difficult to implement in a fair manner, guaranteeing all boats a chance for a reliability run. What do you think of these themes for the conference and the competition? Do you have any other theme or bonus challenge suggestions? Cheers, Sophia Southampton Sailing Robot Team [*] If you contact me in private I can give you access to the google drive we are working in. |
|
From: David B. <Dav...@ol...> - 2015-07-09 15:12:00
|
Colin: Agreed to all. Safety should come first in a cluttered harbor environment, and small boats are inherently safer. In our other US robot contests, the organizers usually supply/require a separate remote kill switch that the race officials can use to bring the robot to a hard halt before it can damage anything. We routinely stop 1500lb, 70mph robot-cars that way, safely, but they all have good braking systems. Our WAM-V Robot-X race boat could pretty much remotely stop in a boat length from full speed, but it had dual props. Unfortunately, I'm not sure of a good way to safely stop a fast sailboat in the same short distance. Remotely operated sea-anchor? Hydro-brakes? Drop anchor and hope? Airbags on the bow? This isn't something most traditional sailboats ever needed. Although I've seen quite a few manned small sailboats hit another boat hard when maneuvering in a docking field, so perhaps they should! To get local US Coast Guard clearance for testing our current systems, we've added a small prop/water turbine to the hull so we can safely maneuver in harbors and restricted navigation channels, regardless of wind and without causing a safety hazard to other vessels or our boat. When run hard astern, it would brake well. It does make launch, recovery, chase-boat operations much safer/easier as well. Perhaps requiring the larger classes of robot boats to provide some similar form of self safety system, that could be remotely triggered by race officials, when operated in crowded harbors would be a reasonable step to discuss and consider. With a little fore-though, some operational planning and some good engineering, we can make safe larger robot boats. As a community, we will need to address this to get clearance to operate from our respective coastal maritime authorities, as these boats move off the race course and start doing useful work in the future. thanks, Dave ________________________________________ From: Colin Sauze [co...@ab...] Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 6:38 AM To: David Barrett; Paul Miller; Friebe Anna Cc: mic...@li...; Jorge Cabrera; Nuno A. Cruz; luc JAULIN; Schauman Sven Subject: Re: Changing LOA to LWL David, I'd agree that 4m+ boats have a lot of advantages for long distance offshore missions. However I think the safety concerns at the WRSC are enough that we need to keep the competition boats fairly small. The WRSC usually happens in places with other boats around and where a boat going out of control for a few minutes is going to result in a collision or it running aground. We often don't have a chase boat for every boat that competes and have lots of robots in the water at once. The boats competing are often very experimental and its not uncommon to see complete system failures where a boat will be left with no active control system. This is a much more dangerous environment than sailing with a single boat far offshore or even testing one boat close to shore with a dedicated chase boat. Colin. On 08/07/15 00:36, David Barrett wrote: > All: > > Let me make two practical arguments for the larger size boats. At Olin > we are working on very long duration, very long distance > sail-powered boats to track whales (travel with family group) as they > migrate down the U.S. East coast. These potential blue-water missions > would run 90-180 days, in some pretty awful weather. From a very > practical point of view: > > 1) there area lot of nice, low-cost, easily-available sailboat hulls in > the 4 to 4+ meter range that make excellent test beds for this kind of > work. Being able to use cheap, easily expendable hulls, really speeds > development, and for those groups that don't want to become a custom > boat yard in addition to a robotics group, this is a big plus. > 2) our boats need to both ocean energy harvest and be storm survivable > to stay out this long and run an oceanographic sensor payload. Let me > go out on a limb here (as one of you may prove me wrong by actually > doing it!) Our weather, energy, sailing, storm simulations indicate a > very low probability of long duration long distance survival for any > blue-water boat hull shorter than 4 m. You are just too slow and can't > carry enough payload to make it. > > I think the smaller boats are wonderful for contests and to explore > robot sailing in protected harbors, much can be learned from them, but > would hate to see the larger class of boats be ruled out of existence. > > Thanks, > Dave Barrett > Olin College > > > > *From:*Paul Miller > *Sent:* 7/7/15, 6:18 PM > *To:* Friebe Anna > *Cc:* Colin Sauze, mic...@li..., Jorge > Cabrera, Nuno A. Cruz, luc JAULIN, David Barrett, Schauman Sven > *Subject:* Re: Changing LOA to LWL > > Hi Anna, > > I think the main safety concerns are outside the WRSC event, except > for boats that may be in the vicinity. A 4 meter long boat will likely > weigh enough that it could have some serious kinetic energy that it > might pass along to another boat! > > Although I (unfortunately) won't be competing, so my opinion should > count for little, I would be amenable to not changing the rules, but > having the organizer give a "one time rule waiver on a case-by-case > basis" to allow existing boats to compete. > > Cheers, > Paul > Sent from my iPad > >> Ann...@ha...> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> We do agree with Paul and Colin that there are safety concerns with > the larger boats. Would it be a more suitable compromise to give an > exemption to the teams with slightly larger than 4 m boats (Vestfold and > ourselves) to take part in the races except the fleet race? The most > obvious safety issues are related to the fleet race, I believe. >> >> While Paul is right that we are allowed to set whatever rules we like, > we do see WRSC as a team project, and we much appreciate your input! >> >> Best wishes, >> Anna >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Colin Sauze [mailto:co...@ab...] >> Sent: den 6 juli 2015 14:42 >> To: Paul Miller; Friebe Anna >> Cc: mic...@li...; Jorge Cabrera; Nuno > A. Cruz; luc JAULIN; OlinRobot; Schauman Sven >> Subject: Re: Changing LOA to LWL >> >>> On 03/07/15 16:12, Paul Miller wrote: >>> Hi Anna, >>> >>> I think the most important consideration is that as the host you are >>> allowed to set whatever rules you like! >>> >>> Having said that, in the past (tradition? precedence?) we have >>> generally followed the 4 m is the LOA limit so that folks don't go >>> building bigger and bigger boats, and that sensors that do not >>> contribute to boat performance, or appendages that are temporary in >>> nature, are not included in the LOA requirement. >>> >>> I would not replace LOA with LWL as LWL is too difficult to measure as >>> it varies with weight and water density (if you were trying to be very >>> precise). LOA is very easy to measure and we switched to that as a >>> "lesson learned" from previous events. We should not take a step > backwards. >> >> >> I think making it LWL (or allowing appendages that aren't part of the > hull or rigging) for the 1 m class is fine. >> >> I don't think we should be extending beyond the 4 m limit or > encouraging anyone to make boats that big or bigger. Trying to handle a > 4 m boat from a RIB is difficult and potentially dangerous, especially > when the sea gets at all rough. An out of control 4 m boat can very > quickly become a problem and can cause serious problems to other boats > (robots and manned ones). >> >> In the Microtransat rules we are restricting the length to 2.4 m in > 2017 for safety reasons. I certainly don't think the WRSC should be > going in the opposite direction and increasing it. >> >> Colin. >> >>> >>> All the best, >>> Paul >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> Ann...@ha... >>> <mailto:Ann...@ha...>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> For WRSC 2015, we were asked from one team with a sensor extending a >>>> few cm from a 1 m sailboat if they are allowed to compete in the MS >>>> category. We also were asked from one team with a sailboat with LOA >>>> 4,20 m if they could be allowed in the race. In fact, our own >>>> sailboat is also slightly longer than 4 m LOA. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> We are considering to replace LOA with LWL in the rules for WRSC 2015. >>>> Do you have objections regarding this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Anna Friebe, MSc >>>> >>>> <image001.png> >>>> >>>> Project Manager – Åland Sailing Robots >>>> >>>> Åland University of Applied Sciences >>>> >>>> +358 457 344 99 22 >>>> >>>> mailto:ann...@ha...> >>>> >>>> www.sailingrobots.ax <http://www.sailingrobots.ax> > <http://www.sailingrobots.ax/> >>>> >>>> http://www.ha.ax/> >> >> |
|
From: Colin S. <co...@ab...> - 2015-07-08 10:38:57
|
David, I'd agree that 4m+ boats have a lot of advantages for long distance offshore missions. However I think the safety concerns at the WRSC are enough that we need to keep the competition boats fairly small. The WRSC usually happens in places with other boats around and where a boat going out of control for a few minutes is going to result in a collision or it running aground. We often don't have a chase boat for every boat that competes and have lots of robots in the water at once. The boats competing are often very experimental and its not uncommon to see complete system failures where a boat will be left with no active control system. This is a much more dangerous environment than sailing with a single boat far offshore or even testing one boat close to shore with a dedicated chase boat. Colin. On 08/07/15 00:36, David Barrett wrote: > All: > > Let me make two practical arguments for the larger size boats. At Olin > we are working on very long duration, very long distance > sail-powered boats to track whales (travel with family group) as they > migrate down the U.S. East coast. These potential blue-water missions > would run 90-180 days, in some pretty awful weather. From a very > practical point of view: > > 1) there area lot of nice, low-cost, easily-available sailboat hulls in > the 4 to 4+ meter range that make excellent test beds for this kind of > work. Being able to use cheap, easily expendable hulls, really speeds > development, and for those groups that don't want to become a custom > boat yard in addition to a robotics group, this is a big plus. > 2) our boats need to both ocean energy harvest and be storm survivable > to stay out this long and run an oceanographic sensor payload. Let me > go out on a limb here (as one of you may prove me wrong by actually > doing it!) Our weather, energy, sailing, storm simulations indicate a > very low probability of long duration long distance survival for any > blue-water boat hull shorter than 4 m. You are just too slow and can't > carry enough payload to make it. > > I think the smaller boats are wonderful for contests and to explore > robot sailing in protected harbors, much can be learned from them, but > would hate to see the larger class of boats be ruled out of existence. > > Thanks, > Dave Barrett > Olin College > > > > *From:*Paul Miller > *Sent:* 7/7/15, 6:18 PM > *To:* Friebe Anna > *Cc:* Colin Sauze, mic...@li..., Jorge > Cabrera, Nuno A. Cruz, luc JAULIN, David Barrett, Schauman Sven > *Subject:* Re: Changing LOA to LWL > > Hi Anna, > > I think the main safety concerns are outside the WRSC event, except > for boats that may be in the vicinity. A 4 meter long boat will likely > weigh enough that it could have some serious kinetic energy that it > might pass along to another boat! > > Although I (unfortunately) won't be competing, so my opinion should > count for little, I would be amenable to not changing the rules, but > having the organizer give a "one time rule waiver on a case-by-case > basis" to allow existing boats to compete. > > Cheers, > Paul > Sent from my iPad > >> Ann...@ha...> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> We do agree with Paul and Colin that there are safety concerns with > the larger boats. Would it be a more suitable compromise to give an > exemption to the teams with slightly larger than 4 m boats (Vestfold and > ourselves) to take part in the races except the fleet race? The most > obvious safety issues are related to the fleet race, I believe. >> >> While Paul is right that we are allowed to set whatever rules we like, > we do see WRSC as a team project, and we much appreciate your input! >> >> Best wishes, >> Anna >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Colin Sauze [mailto:co...@ab...] >> Sent: den 6 juli 2015 14:42 >> To: Paul Miller; Friebe Anna >> Cc: mic...@li...; Jorge Cabrera; Nuno > A. Cruz; luc JAULIN; OlinRobot; Schauman Sven >> Subject: Re: Changing LOA to LWL >> >>> On 03/07/15 16:12, Paul Miller wrote: >>> Hi Anna, >>> >>> I think the most important consideration is that as the host you are >>> allowed to set whatever rules you like! >>> >>> Having said that, in the past (tradition? precedence?) we have >>> generally followed the 4 m is the LOA limit so that folks don't go >>> building bigger and bigger boats, and that sensors that do not >>> contribute to boat performance, or appendages that are temporary in >>> nature, are not included in the LOA requirement. >>> >>> I would not replace LOA with LWL as LWL is too difficult to measure as >>> it varies with weight and water density (if you were trying to be very >>> precise). LOA is very easy to measure and we switched to that as a >>> "lesson learned" from previous events. We should not take a step > backwards. >> >> >> I think making it LWL (or allowing appendages that aren't part of the > hull or rigging) for the 1 m class is fine. >> >> I don't think we should be extending beyond the 4 m limit or > encouraging anyone to make boats that big or bigger. Trying to handle a > 4 m boat from a RIB is difficult and potentially dangerous, especially > when the sea gets at all rough. An out of control 4 m boat can very > quickly become a problem and can cause serious problems to other boats > (robots and manned ones). >> >> In the Microtransat rules we are restricting the length to 2.4 m in > 2017 for safety reasons. I certainly don't think the WRSC should be > going in the opposite direction and increasing it. >> >> Colin. >> >>> >>> All the best, >>> Paul >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> Ann...@ha... >>> <mailto:Ann...@ha...>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> For WRSC 2015, we were asked from one team with a sensor extending a >>>> few cm from a 1 m sailboat if they are allowed to compete in the MS >>>> category. We also were asked from one team with a sailboat with LOA >>>> 4,20 m if they could be allowed in the race. In fact, our own >>>> sailboat is also slightly longer than 4 m LOA. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> We are considering to replace LOA with LWL in the rules for WRSC 2015. >>>> Do you have objections regarding this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Anna Friebe, MSc >>>> >>>> <image001.png> >>>> >>>> Project Manager – Åland Sailing Robots >>>> >>>> Åland University of Applied Sciences >>>> >>>> +358 457 344 99 22 >>>> >>>> mailto:ann...@ha...> >>>> >>>> www.sailingrobots.ax <http://www.sailingrobots.ax> > <http://www.sailingrobots.ax/> >>>> >>>> http://www.ha.ax/> >> >> |
|
From: Colin S. <co...@ab...> - 2015-07-08 10:14:25
|
On 07/07/15 23:18, Paul Miller wrote: > Hi Anna, > > I think the main safety concerns are outside the WRSC event, except > for boats that may be in the vicinity. A 4 meter long boat will likely > weigh enough that it could have some serious kinetic energy that it > might pass along to another boat! > > Although I (unfortunately) won't be competing, so my opinion should > count for little, I would be amenable to not changing the rules, but > having the organizer give a "one time rule waiver on a case-by-case > basis" to allow existing boats to compete. I think i'd agree with this idea. Keep the rules as they are but allow some flexibility at the discretion of the organisers. What worries me is teams intentionally making bigger and bigger boats and pushing this further to gain a speed advantage for themselves. Colin. |
|
From: David B. <Dav...@ol...> - 2015-07-07 23:49:34
|
All: Let me make two practical arguments for the larger size boats. At Olin we are working on very long duration, very long distance sail-powered boats to track whales (travel with family group) as they migrate down the U.S. East coast. These potential blue-water missions would run 90-180 days, in some pretty awful weather. From a very practical point of view: 1) there area lot of nice, low-cost, easily-available sailboat hulls in the 4 to 4+ meter range that make excellent test beds for this kind of work. Being able to use cheap, easily expendable hulls, really speeds development, and for those groups that don't want to become a custom boat yard in addition to a robotics group, this is a big plus. 2) our boats need to both ocean energy harvest and be storm survivable to stay out this long and run an oceanographic sensor payload. Let me go out on a limb here (as one of you may prove me wrong by actually doing it!) Our weather, energy, sailing, storm simulations indicate a very low probability of long duration long distance survival for any blue-water boat hull shorter than 4 m. You are just too slow and can't carry enough payload to make it. I think the smaller boats are wonderful for contests and to explore robot sailing in protected harbors, much can be learned from them, but would hate to see the larger class of boats be ruled out of existence. Thanks, Dave Barrett Olin College From: Paul Miller Sent: 7/7/15, 6:18 PM To: Friebe Anna Cc: Colin Sauze, mic...@li..., Jorge Cabrera, Nuno A. Cruz, luc JAULIN, David Barrett, Schauman Sven Subject: Re: Changing LOA to LWL Hi Anna, I think the main safety concerns are outside the WRSC event, except for boats that may be in the vicinity. A 4 meter long boat will likely weigh enough that it could have some serious kinetic energy that it might pass along to another boat! Although I (unfortunately) won't be competing, so my opinion should count for little, I would be amenable to not changing the rules, but having the organizer give a "one time rule waiver on a case-by-case basis" to allow existing boats to compete. Cheers, Paul Sent from my iPad > Ann...@ha...> wrote: > > Hi all, > > We do agree with Paul and Colin that there are safety concerns with the larger boats. Would it be a more suitable compromise to give an exemption to the teams with slightly larger than 4 m boats (Vestfold and ourselves) to take part in the races except the fleet race? The most obvious safety issues are related to the fleet race, I believe. > > While Paul is right that we are allowed to set whatever rules we like, we do see WRSC as a team project, and we much appreciate your input! > > Best wishes, > Anna > > -----Original Message----- > From: Colin Sauze [mailto:co...@ab...] > Sent: den 6 juli 2015 14:42 > To: Paul Miller; Friebe Anna > Cc: mic...@li...; Jorge Cabrera; Nuno A. Cruz; luc JAULIN; OlinRobot; Schauman Sven > Subject: Re: Changing LOA to LWL > >> On 03/07/15 16:12, Paul Miller wrote: >> Hi Anna, >> >> I think the most important consideration is that as the host you are >> allowed to set whatever rules you like! >> >> Having said that, in the past (tradition? precedence?) we have >> generally followed the 4 m is the LOA limit so that folks don't go >> building bigger and bigger boats, and that sensors that do not >> contribute to boat performance, or appendages that are temporary in >> nature, are not included in the LOA requirement. >> >> I would not replace LOA with LWL as LWL is too difficult to measure as >> it varies with weight and water density (if you were trying to be very >> precise). LOA is very easy to measure and we switched to that as a >> "lesson learned" from previous events. We should not take a step backwards. > > > I think making it LWL (or allowing appendages that aren't part of the hull or rigging) for the 1 m class is fine. > > I don't think we should be extending beyond the 4 m limit or encouraging anyone to make boats that big or bigger. Trying to handle a 4 m boat from a RIB is difficult and potentially dangerous, especially when the sea gets at all rough. An out of control 4 m boat can very quickly become a problem and can cause serious problems to other boats (robots and manned ones). > > In the Microtransat rules we are restricting the length to 2.4 m in 2017 for safety reasons. I certainly don't think the WRSC should be going in the opposite direction and increasing it. > > Colin. > >> >> All the best, >> Paul >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> Ann...@ha... >> <mailto:Ann...@ha...>> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> >>> >>> For WRSC 2015, we were asked from one team with a sensor extending a >>> few cm from a 1 m sailboat if they are allowed to compete in the MS >>> category. We also were asked from one team with a sailboat with LOA >>> 4,20 m if they could be allowed in the race. In fact, our own >>> sailboat is also slightly longer than 4 m LOA. >>> >>> >>> >>> We are considering to replace LOA with LWL in the rules for WRSC 2015. >>> Do you have objections regarding this? >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> Anna Friebe, MSc >>> >>> <image001.png> >>> >>> Project Manager – Åland Sailing Robots >>> >>> Åland University of Applied Sciences >>> >>> +358 457 344 99 22 >>> >>> mailto:ann...@ha...> >>> >>> www.sailingrobots.ax<http://www.sailingrobots.ax> <http://www.sailingrobots.ax/> >>> >>> http://www.ha.ax/> > > |
|
From: Paul M. <phm...@us...> - 2015-07-07 22:18:28
|
Hi Anna, I think the main safety concerns are outside the WRSC event, except for boats that may be in the vicinity. A 4 meter long boat will likely weigh enough that it could have some serious kinetic energy that it might pass along to another boat! Although I (unfortunately) won't be competing, so my opinion should count for little, I would be amenable to not changing the rules, but having the organizer give a "one time rule waiver on a case-by-case basis" to allow existing boats to compete. Cheers, Paul Sent from my iPad > On Jul 7, 2015, at 2:08 AM, Friebe Anna <Ann...@ha...> wrote: > > Hi all, > > We do agree with Paul and Colin that there are safety concerns with the larger boats. Would it be a more suitable compromise to give an exemption to the teams with slightly larger than 4 m boats (Vestfold and ourselves) to take part in the races except the fleet race? The most obvious safety issues are related to the fleet race, I believe. > > While Paul is right that we are allowed to set whatever rules we like, we do see WRSC as a team project, and we much appreciate your input! > > Best wishes, > Anna > > -----Original Message----- > From: Colin Sauze [mailto:co...@ab...] > Sent: den 6 juli 2015 14:42 > To: Paul Miller; Friebe Anna > Cc: mic...@li...; Jorge Cabrera; Nuno A. Cruz; luc JAULIN; OlinRobot; Schauman Sven > Subject: Re: Changing LOA to LWL > >> On 03/07/15 16:12, Paul Miller wrote: >> Hi Anna, >> >> I think the most important consideration is that as the host you are >> allowed to set whatever rules you like! >> >> Having said that, in the past (tradition? precedence?) we have >> generally followed the 4 m is the LOA limit so that folks don't go >> building bigger and bigger boats, and that sensors that do not >> contribute to boat performance, or appendages that are temporary in >> nature, are not included in the LOA requirement. >> >> I would not replace LOA with LWL as LWL is too difficult to measure as >> it varies with weight and water density (if you were trying to be very >> precise). LOA is very easy to measure and we switched to that as a >> "lesson learned" from previous events. We should not take a step backwards. > > > I think making it LWL (or allowing appendages that aren't part of the hull or rigging) for the 1 m class is fine. > > I don't think we should be extending beyond the 4 m limit or encouraging anyone to make boats that big or bigger. Trying to handle a 4 m boat from a RIB is difficult and potentially dangerous, especially when the sea gets at all rough. An out of control 4 m boat can very quickly become a problem and can cause serious problems to other boats (robots and manned ones). > > In the Microtransat rules we are restricting the length to 2.4 m in 2017 for safety reasons. I certainly don't think the WRSC should be going in the opposite direction and increasing it. > > Colin. > >> >> All the best, >> Paul >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Jul 3, 2015, at 4:49 AM, Friebe Anna <Ann...@ha... >> <mailto:Ann...@ha...>> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> >>> >>> For WRSC 2015, we were asked from one team with a sensor extending a >>> few cm from a 1 m sailboat if they are allowed to compete in the MS >>> category. We also were asked from one team with a sailboat with LOA >>> 4,20 m if they could be allowed in the race. In fact, our own >>> sailboat is also slightly longer than 4 m LOA. >>> >>> >>> >>> We are considering to replace LOA with LWL in the rules for WRSC 2015. >>> Do you have objections regarding this? >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> Anna Friebe, MSc >>> >>> <image001.png> >>> >>> Project Manager – Åland Sailing Robots >>> >>> Åland University of Applied Sciences >>> >>> +358 457 344 99 22 >>> >>> ann...@ha... <mailto:ann...@ha...> >>> >>> www.sailingrobots.ax <http://www.sailingrobots.ax/> >>> >>> www.ha.ax <http://www.ha.ax/> > > |
|
From: <Fab...@en...> - 2015-07-07 13:02:35
|
Hi all, An option could be also to keep the rules as they are but just add a tolerance of e.g. 5%. This would show that the limits should be the one already defined, but that we do understand that there could be approximations, errors or other events in the boat life that could change the initial desired length... Best regards, Fabrice LE BARS De : Friebe Anna <Ann...@ha...> A : Colin Sauze <co...@ab...>, Paul Miller <phm...@us...> Cc : Sch...@im..., OlinRobot <dav...@ol...>, "Nuno A. Cruz" <na...@fe...>, "mic...@li..." <mic...@li...>, luc JAULIN <luc...@en...> Date : 07/07/2015 10:09 Objet : Re: [Microtransat-wrsc-rules] Changing LOA to LWL Hi all, We do agree with Paul and Colin that there are safety concerns with the larger boats. Would it be a more suitable compromise to give an exemption to the teams with slightly larger than 4 m boats (Vestfold and ourselves) to take part in the races except the fleet race? The most obvious safety issues are related to the fleet race, I believe. While Paul is right that we are allowed to set whatever rules we like, we do see WRSC as a team project, and we much appreciate your input! Best wishes, Anna -----Original Message----- From: Colin Sauze [mailto:co...@ab...] Sent: den 6 juli 2015 14:42 To: Paul Miller; Friebe Anna Cc: mic...@li...; Jorge Cabrera; Nuno A. Cruz; luc JAULIN; OlinRobot; Schauman Sven Subject: Re: Changing LOA to LWL On 03/07/15 16:12, Paul Miller wrote: > Hi Anna, > > I think the most important consideration is that as the host you are > allowed to set whatever rules you like! > > Having said that, in the past (tradition? precedence?) we have > generally followed the 4 m is the LOA limit so that folks don't go > building bigger and bigger boats, and that sensors that do not > contribute to boat performance, or appendages that are temporary in > nature, are not included in the LOA requirement. > > I would not replace LOA with LWL as LWL is too difficult to measure as > it varies with weight and water density (if you were trying to be very > precise). LOA is very easy to measure and we switched to that as a > "lesson learned" from previous events. We should not take a step backwards. I think making it LWL (or allowing appendages that aren't part of the hull or rigging) for the 1 m class is fine. I don't think we should be extending beyond the 4 m limit or encouraging anyone to make boats that big or bigger. Trying to handle a 4 m boat from a RIB is difficult and potentially dangerous, especially when the sea gets at all rough. An out of control 4 m boat can very quickly become a problem and can cause serious problems to other boats (robots and manned ones). In the Microtransat rules we are restricting the length to 2.4 m in 2017 for safety reasons. I certainly don't think the WRSC should be going in the opposite direction and increasing it. Colin. > > All the best, > Paul > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jul 3, 2015, at 4:49 AM, Friebe Anna <Ann...@ha... > <mailto:Ann...@ha...>> wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> For WRSC 2015, we were asked from one team with a sensor extending a >> few cm from a 1 m sailboat if they are allowed to compete in the MS >> category. We also were asked from one team with a sailboat with LOA >> 4,20 m if they could be allowed in the race. In fact, our own >> sailboat is also slightly longer than 4 m LOA. >> >> >> >> We are considering to replace LOA with LWL in the rules for WRSC 2015. >> Do you have objections regarding this? >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Anna Friebe, MSc >> >> <image001.png> >> >> Project Manager – Åland Sailing Robots >> >> Åland University of Applied Sciences >> >> +358 457 344 99 22 >> >> ann...@ha... <mailto:ann...@ha...> >> >> www.sailingrobots.ax <http://www.sailingrobots.ax/> >> >> www.ha.ax <http://www.ha.ax/> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Don't Limit Your Business. Reach for the Cloud. GigeNET's Cloud Solutions provide you with the tools and support that you need to offload your IT needs and focus on growing your business. Configured For All Businesses. Start Your Cloud Today. https://www.gigenetcloud.com/ _______________________________________________ Microtransat-wrsc-rules mailing list Mic...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/microtransat-wrsc-rules |
|
From: Friebe A. <Ann...@ha...> - 2015-07-07 08:08:19
|
Hi all, We do agree with Paul and Colin that there are safety concerns with the larger boats. Would it be a more suitable compromise to give an exemption to the teams with slightly larger than 4 m boats (Vestfold and ourselves) to take part in the races except the fleet race? The most obvious safety issues are related to the fleet race, I believe. While Paul is right that we are allowed to set whatever rules we like, we do see WRSC as a team project, and we much appreciate your input! Best wishes, Anna -----Original Message----- From: Colin Sauze [mailto:co...@ab...] Sent: den 6 juli 2015 14:42 To: Paul Miller; Friebe Anna Cc: mic...@li...; Jorge Cabrera; Nuno A. Cruz; luc JAULIN; OlinRobot; Schauman Sven Subject: Re: Changing LOA to LWL On 03/07/15 16:12, Paul Miller wrote: > Hi Anna, > > I think the most important consideration is that as the host you are > allowed to set whatever rules you like! > > Having said that, in the past (tradition? precedence?) we have > generally followed the 4 m is the LOA limit so that folks don't go > building bigger and bigger boats, and that sensors that do not > contribute to boat performance, or appendages that are temporary in > nature, are not included in the LOA requirement. > > I would not replace LOA with LWL as LWL is too difficult to measure as > it varies with weight and water density (if you were trying to be very > precise). LOA is very easy to measure and we switched to that as a > "lesson learned" from previous events. We should not take a step backwards. I think making it LWL (or allowing appendages that aren't part of the hull or rigging) for the 1 m class is fine. I don't think we should be extending beyond the 4 m limit or encouraging anyone to make boats that big or bigger. Trying to handle a 4 m boat from a RIB is difficult and potentially dangerous, especially when the sea gets at all rough. An out of control 4 m boat can very quickly become a problem and can cause serious problems to other boats (robots and manned ones). In the Microtransat rules we are restricting the length to 2.4 m in 2017 for safety reasons. I certainly don't think the WRSC should be going in the opposite direction and increasing it. Colin. > > All the best, > Paul > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jul 3, 2015, at 4:49 AM, Friebe Anna <Ann...@ha... > <mailto:Ann...@ha...>> wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> For WRSC 2015, we were asked from one team with a sensor extending a >> few cm from a 1 m sailboat if they are allowed to compete in the MS >> category. We also were asked from one team with a sailboat with LOA >> 4,20 m if they could be allowed in the race. In fact, our own >> sailboat is also slightly longer than 4 m LOA. >> >> >> >> We are considering to replace LOA with LWL in the rules for WRSC 2015. >> Do you have objections regarding this? >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Anna Friebe, MSc >> >> <image001.png> >> >> Project Manager – Åland Sailing Robots >> >> Åland University of Applied Sciences >> >> +358 457 344 99 22 >> >> ann...@ha... <mailto:ann...@ha...> >> >> www.sailingrobots.ax <http://www.sailingrobots.ax/> >> >> www.ha.ax <http://www.ha.ax/> >> >> >> >> >> |
|
From: Colin S. <co...@ab...> - 2015-07-06 11:42:10
|
On 03/07/15 16:12, Paul Miller wrote: > Hi Anna, > > I think the most important consideration is that as the host you are > allowed to set whatever rules you like! > > Having said that, in the past (tradition? precedence?) we have generally > followed the 4 m is the LOA limit so that folks don't go building bigger > and bigger boats, and that sensors that do not contribute to boat > performance, or appendages that are temporary in nature, are not > included in the LOA requirement. > > I would not replace LOA with LWL as LWL is too difficult to measure as > it varies with weight and water density (if you were trying to be very > precise). LOA is very easy to measure and we switched to that as a > "lesson learned" from previous events. We should not take a step backwards. I think making it LWL (or allowing appendages that aren't part of the hull or rigging) for the 1 m class is fine. I don't think we should be extending beyond the 4 m limit or encouraging anyone to make boats that big or bigger. Trying to handle a 4 m boat from a RIB is difficult and potentially dangerous, especially when the sea gets at all rough. An out of control 4 m boat can very quickly become a problem and can cause serious problems to other boats (robots and manned ones). In the Microtransat rules we are restricting the length to 2.4 m in 2017 for safety reasons. I certainly don't think the WRSC should be going in the opposite direction and increasing it. Colin. > > All the best, > Paul > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jul 3, 2015, at 4:49 AM, Friebe Anna <Ann...@ha... > <mailto:Ann...@ha...>> wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> For WRSC 2015, we were asked from one team with a sensor extending a >> few cm from a 1 m sailboat if they are allowed to compete in the MS >> category. We also were asked from one team with a sailboat with LOA >> 4,20 m if they could be allowed in the race. In fact, our own sailboat >> is also slightly longer than 4 m LOA. >> >> >> >> We are considering to replace LOA with LWL in the rules for WRSC 2015. >> Do you have objections regarding this? >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Anna Friebe, MSc >> >> <image001.png> >> >> Project Manager – Åland Sailing Robots >> >> Åland University of Applied Sciences >> >> +358 457 344 99 22 >> >> ann...@ha... <mailto:ann...@ha...> >> >> www.sailingrobots.ax <http://www.sailingrobots.ax/> >> >> www.ha.ax <http://www.ha.ax/> >> >> >> >> >> |
|
From: Paul M. <phm...@us...> - 2015-07-03 15:12:23
|
Hi Anna, I think the most important consideration is that as the host you are allowed to set whatever rules you like! Having said that, in the past (tradition? precedence?) we have generally followed the 4 m is the LOA limit so that folks don't go building bigger and bigger boats, and that sensors that do not contribute to boat performance, or appendages that are temporary in nature, are not included in the LOA requirement. I would not replace LOA with LWL as LWL is too difficult to measure as it varies with weight and water density (if you were trying to be very precise). LOA is very easy to measure and we switched to that as a "lesson learned" from previous events. We should not take a step backwards. All the best, Paul Sent from my iPad On Jul 3, 2015, at 4:49 AM, Friebe Anna <Ann...@ha...> wrote: Dear all, For WRSC 2015, we were asked from one team with a sensor extending a few cm from a 1 m sailboat if they are allowed to compete in the MS category. We also were asked from one team with a sailboat with LOA 4,20 m if they could be allowed in the race. In fact, our own sailboat is also slightly longer than 4 m LOA. We are considering to replace LOA with LWL in the rules for WRSC 2015. Do you have objections regarding this? Best regards, Anna Friebe, MSc <image001.png> Project Manager – Åland Sailing Robots Åland University of Applied Sciences +358 457 344 99 22 ann...@ha... www.sailingrobots.ax www.ha.ax |
|
From: Friebe A. <Ann...@ha...> - 2015-07-03 10:50:33
|
Dear all, For WRSC 2015, we were asked from one team with a sensor extending a few cm from a 1 m sailboat if they are allowed to compete in the MS category. We also were asked from one team with a sailboat with LOA 4,20 m if they could be allowed in the race. In fact, our own sailboat is also slightly longer than 4 m LOA. We are considering to replace LOA with LWL in the rules for WRSC 2015. Do you have objections regarding this? Best regards, Anna Friebe, MSc Project Manager - Åland Sailing Robots Åland University of Applied Sciences +358 457 344 99 22 ann...@ha...<mailto:ann...@ha...> www.sailingrobots.ax<http://www.sailingrobots.ax/> www.ha.ax<http://www.ha.ax/> |
|
From: Friebe A. <Ann...@ha...> - 2015-04-07 09:42:40
|
Dear all, I added the missing information about the fleet race course length in the rules. Thank you, Colin, for pointing that out. For the remaining questions I hope that we have answered them separately. In principle we agree with most of Colin's views, but in practice we ended up with these rules for 2015. I hope to see all of you in Mariehamn in August/ September! Best regards, Anna -----Original Message----- From: Colin Sauze [mailto:co...@ab...] Sent: den 2 april 2015 16:21 To: Friebe Anna; jca...@iu...; na...@fe...; phm...@us...; luc...@en...; OlinRobot; mic...@li... Cc: Eriksson Ronny; Schauman Sven Subject: Re: Rules for WRSC 2015 published - with link to rules Anna, Thank you for preparing this. Would it be possible for you to put the source file for the document onto a webpage so that next year's hosts can use it? I have a few comments: I'm not sure I see the point in the AIS bonus. Nobody has ever used one at a previous event and its difficult to register an autonomous boat to get one. What is being done about tracking? Are you intending to provide each team with some kind of tracking device? Is there going to be any infrastructure to integrate data from a team's own telemetry systems into this (possibly as an alternative to supplying tracking devices?). Area scanning: "The course will be divided into 10x10 square sections, each with a width of about 31 m." Why 31 m???? Why not 30? Fleet race: How long will the course be? It feels like we've lost most of the more ambitious contests from previous years. Why is there no collision avoidance, multi-robot co-operation, long distance race (unless the fleet race is long distance?) or anything that will evaluate power management. I feel that we are only testing about half of the scientific area's we've identified as being important. The fleet race and triangular course are basically testing the same thing. I do like the replacement of the navigation challenge with an area scan task and the idea of a standardised format to return data in. Colin. On 02/04/15 13:46, Friebe Anna wrote: > Dear all, > > > > The rules can be found here: > > http://wrsc2015.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/RulesWRSC2015.pdf > > > > Best regards, > > Anna > > > > *From:*Friebe Anna > *Sent:* den 2 april 2015 15:44 > *To:* 'co...@ab...'; 'jca...@iu...'; > 'na...@fe...'; 'phm...@us...'; > 'luc...@en...'; 'OlinRobot'; 'mic...@li...' > *Cc:* Eriksson Ronny; Schauman Sven > *Subject:* Rules for WRSC 2015 published > > > > Dear all, > > > > Thank you for your feedback on the rules proposal. The rules for > WRSC2015 are now published, and thanks to you they are improved > compared to our initial proposal. We have some comments here on our > decisions. In many cases we have to weigh pros and cons, and it will > likely be impossible to satisfy all opinions. > > > > *AIS* > > We recognize that there are problems with registering the AIS, and > that it is not very useful in these short races. There is also some > cost involved. However, AIS is a standard tool to be visible and see > others at sea. We consider the work with AIS registration to be an > achievement, and a way to move towards a more standard way of communication at sea. > We have changed the additional score for AIS to one extra point per > day, to decrease its significance while still keeping it in the rules. > > > > *Slot times* > > We clarified the fact that the Race Committee can issue new slot > times, and added a possibility for a team to request a new slot time. > We will try to accommodate requests, but depending on weather and > other circumstances new times are not guaranteed. > > > > We also realize that the weather conditions may differ somewhat in > different slot times, but we believe that the advantages of a distinct > time schedule are more important. > > > > *Tracking system for automatic scoring* > > We will use the tracking system developed within the community for the > race. We hope that we will be able to use it for automatic scoring, > and if it proves to work well this will be the main information source > for any assessments. > > > > However, at this stage we are not sufficiently certain that the > tracking system will work as intended. We need visual judges as > back-up, and we need the races to be constructed so that it is > possible to implement them even in the case of technical issues. We > hope that the tracking system will work well, and when this has been > proven perhaps next year's competitions can be constructed differently. > > > > *Change 40m x 40m to 45m x 45m for Station Keeping* > > The Station keeping course has been changed from 40m x 40m to 45m x > 45m for two reasons. We intend to use it as triangular course for the > MS race, and therefore it is slightly longer. For practical reasons > when placing buoys 45 m is about 0.025 degrees or 1,5 minutes of > degrees, which simplifies matters. > > > > *Area scanning* > > We added a few extra options for measurements in the area scanning > contest > > > > *Endurance race/ power management, collision avoidance* > > We agree that these are important factors for autonomous sailboats, > but we find it difficult to construct meaningful competitions and > scoring systems. For this year these races are paused, but we hope > that they will return soon. Also the suggested cooperation contest was > a very interesting idea, that we wish to see realized the coming years. > > > > Best regards, and happy Easter, > > > > Anna > > > > Anna Friebe, MSc > > asrlogo > > Project Manager - Åland Sailing Robots > > Åland University of Applied Sciences > > +358 457 344 99 22 > > ann...@ha... <mailto:ann...@ha...> > > www.sailingrobots.ax <http://www.sailingrobots.ax/> > > www.ha.ax <http://www.ha.ax/> > > > > > -- Dr. Colin Sauze Research Associate Department of Computer Science Aberystwyth University Ceredigion, UK, SY23 3DB Tel: +44 (0)1970 628470 Webpage: http://users.aber.ac.uk/cos |
|
From: Colin S. <co...@ab...> - 2015-04-02 13:22:28
|
Sorry, only just saw this email and realise that it addresses many of the questions I just asked! On 02/04/15 13:43, Friebe Anna wrote: > Dear all, > > > > Thank you for your feedback on the rules proposal. The rules for > WRSC2015 are now published, and thanks to you they are improved compared > to our initial proposal. We have some comments here on our decisions. In > many cases we have to weigh pros and cons, and it will likely be > impossible to satisfy all opinions. > > > > *AIS* > > We recognize that there are problems with registering the AIS, and that > it is not very useful in these short races. There is also some cost > involved. However, AIS is a standard tool to be visible and see others > at sea. We consider the work with AIS registration to be an achievement, > and a way to move towards a more standard way of communication at sea. > We have changed the additional score for AIS to one extra point per day, > to decrease its significance while still keeping it in the rules. > > > > *Slot times* > > We clarified the fact that the Race Committee can issue new slot times, > and added a possibility for a team to request a new slot time. We will > try to accommodate requests, but depending on weather and other > circumstances new times are not guaranteed. > > > > We also realize that the weather conditions may differ somewhat in > different slot times, but we believe that the advantages of a distinct > time schedule are more important. > > > > *Tracking system for automatic scoring* > > We will use the tracking system developed within the community for the > race. We hope that we will be able to use it for automatic scoring, and > if it proves to work well this will be the main information source for > any assessments. > > > > However, at this stage we are not sufficiently certain that the tracking > system will work as intended. We need visual judges as back-up, and we > need the races to be constructed so that it is possible to implement > them even in the case of technical issues. We hope that the tracking > system will work well, and when this has been proven perhaps next year’s > competitions can be constructed differently. > > > > *Change 40m x 40m to 45m x 45m for Station Keeping* > > The Station keeping course has been changed from 40m x 40m to 45m x 45m > for two reasons. We intend to use it as triangular course for the MS > race, and therefore it is slightly longer. For practical reasons when > placing buoys 45 m is about 0.025 degrees or 1,5 minutes of degrees, > which simplifies matters. > > > > *Area scanning* > > We added a few extra options for measurements in the area scanning contest > > > > *Endurance race/ power management, collision avoidance* > > We agree that these are important factors for autonomous sailboats, but > we find it difficult to construct meaningful competitions and scoring > systems. For this year these races are paused, but we hope that they > will return soon. Also the suggested cooperation contest was a very > interesting idea, that we wish to see realized the coming years. > > > > Best regards, and happy Easter, > > > > Anna > > > > Anna Friebe, MSc > > asrlogo > > Project Manager – Åland Sailing Robots > > Åland University of Applied Sciences > > +358 457 344 99 22 > > ann...@ha... <mailto:ann...@ha...> > > www.sailingrobots.ax <http://www.sailingrobots.ax/> > > www.ha.ax <http://www.ha.ax/> > > > > > -- Dr. Colin Sauze Research Associate Department of Computer Science Aberystwyth University Ceredigion, UK, SY23 3DB Tel: +44 (0)1970 628470 Webpage: http://users.aber.ac.uk/cos |
|
From: Colin S. <co...@ab...> - 2015-04-02 13:20:43
|
Anna, Thank you for preparing this. Would it be possible for you to put the source file for the document onto a webpage so that next year's hosts can use it? I have a few comments: I'm not sure I see the point in the AIS bonus. Nobody has ever used one at a previous event and its difficult to register an autonomous boat to get one. What is being done about tracking? Are you intending to provide each team with some kind of tracking device? Is there going to be any infrastructure to integrate data from a team's own telemetry systems into this (possibly as an alternative to supplying tracking devices?). Area scanning: "The course will be divided into 10x10 square sections, each with a width of about 31 m." Why 31 m???? Why not 30? Fleet race: How long will the course be? It feels like we've lost most of the more ambitious contests from previous years. Why is there no collision avoidance, multi-robot co-operation, long distance race (unless the fleet race is long distance?) or anything that will evaluate power management. I feel that we are only testing about half of the scientific area's we've identified as being important. The fleet race and triangular course are basically testing the same thing. I do like the replacement of the navigation challenge with an area scan task and the idea of a standardised format to return data in. Colin. On 02/04/15 13:46, Friebe Anna wrote: > Dear all, > > > > The rules can be found here: > > http://wrsc2015.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/RulesWRSC2015.pdf > > > > Best regards, > > Anna > > > > *From:*Friebe Anna > *Sent:* den 2 april 2015 15:44 > *To:* 'co...@ab...'; 'jca...@iu...'; 'na...@fe...'; > 'phm...@us...'; 'luc...@en...'; 'OlinRobot'; > 'mic...@li...' > *Cc:* Eriksson Ronny; Schauman Sven > *Subject:* Rules for WRSC 2015 published > > > > Dear all, > > > > Thank you for your feedback on the rules proposal. The rules for > WRSC2015 are now published, and thanks to you they are improved compared > to our initial proposal. We have some comments here on our decisions. In > many cases we have to weigh pros and cons, and it will likely be > impossible to satisfy all opinions. > > > > *AIS* > > We recognize that there are problems with registering the AIS, and that > it is not very useful in these short races. There is also some cost > involved. However, AIS is a standard tool to be visible and see others > at sea. We consider the work with AIS registration to be an achievement, > and a way to move towards a more standard way of communication at sea. > We have changed the additional score for AIS to one extra point per day, > to decrease its significance while still keeping it in the rules. > > > > *Slot times* > > We clarified the fact that the Race Committee can issue new slot times, > and added a possibility for a team to request a new slot time. We will > try to accommodate requests, but depending on weather and other > circumstances new times are not guaranteed. > > > > We also realize that the weather conditions may differ somewhat in > different slot times, but we believe that the advantages of a distinct > time schedule are more important. > > > > *Tracking system for automatic scoring* > > We will use the tracking system developed within the community for the > race. We hope that we will be able to use it for automatic scoring, and > if it proves to work well this will be the main information source for > any assessments. > > > > However, at this stage we are not sufficiently certain that the tracking > system will work as intended. We need visual judges as back-up, and we > need the races to be constructed so that it is possible to implement > them even in the case of technical issues. We hope that the tracking > system will work well, and when this has been proven perhaps next year’s > competitions can be constructed differently. > > > > *Change 40m x 40m to 45m x 45m for Station Keeping* > > The Station keeping course has been changed from 40m x 40m to 45m x 45m > for two reasons. We intend to use it as triangular course for the MS > race, and therefore it is slightly longer. For practical reasons when > placing buoys 45 m is about 0.025 degrees or 1,5 minutes of degrees, > which simplifies matters. > > > > *Area scanning* > > We added a few extra options for measurements in the area scanning contest > > > > *Endurance race/ power management, collision avoidance* > > We agree that these are important factors for autonomous sailboats, but > we find it difficult to construct meaningful competitions and scoring > systems. For this year these races are paused, but we hope that they > will return soon. Also the suggested cooperation contest was a very > interesting idea, that we wish to see realized the coming years. > > > > Best regards, and happy Easter, > > > > Anna > > > > Anna Friebe, MSc > > asrlogo > > Project Manager – Åland Sailing Robots > > Åland University of Applied Sciences > > +358 457 344 99 22 > > ann...@ha... <mailto:ann...@ha...> > > www.sailingrobots.ax <http://www.sailingrobots.ax/> > > www.ha.ax <http://www.ha.ax/> > > > > > -- Dr. Colin Sauze Research Associate Department of Computer Science Aberystwyth University Ceredigion, UK, SY23 3DB Tel: +44 (0)1970 628470 Webpage: http://users.aber.ac.uk/cos |
|
From: Friebe A. <Ann...@ha...> - 2015-04-02 12:46:43
|
Dear all, The rules can be found here: http://wrsc2015.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/RulesWRSC2015.pdf Best regards, Anna From: Friebe Anna Sent: den 2 april 2015 15:44 To: 'co...@ab...'; 'jca...@iu...'; 'na...@fe...'; 'phm...@us...'; 'luc...@en...'; 'OlinRobot'; 'mic...@li...' Cc: Eriksson Ronny; Schauman Sven Subject: Rules for WRSC 2015 published Dear all, Thank you for your feedback on the rules proposal. The rules for WRSC2015 are now published, and thanks to you they are improved compared to our initial proposal. We have some comments here on our decisions. In many cases we have to weigh pros and cons, and it will likely be impossible to satisfy all opinions. AIS We recognize that there are problems with registering the AIS, and that it is not very useful in these short races. There is also some cost involved. However, AIS is a standard tool to be visible and see others at sea. We consider the work with AIS registration to be an achievement, and a way to move towards a more standard way of communication at sea. We have changed the additional score for AIS to one extra point per day, to decrease its significance while still keeping it in the rules. Slot times We clarified the fact that the Race Committee can issue new slot times, and added a possibility for a team to request a new slot time. We will try to accommodate requests, but depending on weather and other circumstances new times are not guaranteed. We also realize that the weather conditions may differ somewhat in different slot times, but we believe that the advantages of a distinct time schedule are more important. Tracking system for automatic scoring We will use the tracking system developed within the community for the race. We hope that we will be able to use it for automatic scoring, and if it proves to work well this will be the main information source for any assessments. However, at this stage we are not sufficiently certain that the tracking system will work as intended. We need visual judges as back-up, and we need the races to be constructed so that it is possible to implement them even in the case of technical issues. We hope that the tracking system will work well, and when this has been proven perhaps next year's competitions can be constructed differently. Change 40m x 40m to 45m x 45m for Station Keeping The Station keeping course has been changed from 40m x 40m to 45m x 45m for two reasons. We intend to use it as triangular course for the MS race, and therefore it is slightly longer. For practical reasons when placing buoys 45 m is about 0.025 degrees or 1,5 minutes of degrees, which simplifies matters. Area scanning We added a few extra options for measurements in the area scanning contest Endurance race/ power management, collision avoidance We agree that these are important factors for autonomous sailboats, but we find it difficult to construct meaningful competitions and scoring systems. For this year these races are paused, but we hope that they will return soon. Also the suggested cooperation contest was a very interesting idea, that we wish to see realized the coming years. Best regards, and happy Easter, Anna Anna Friebe, MSc [asrlogo] Project Manager - Åland Sailing Robots Åland University of Applied Sciences +358 457 344 99 22 ann...@ha...<mailto:ann...@ha...> www.sailingrobots.ax<http://www.sailingrobots.ax/> www.ha.ax<http://www.ha.ax/> |
|
From: Friebe A. <Ann...@ha...> - 2015-04-02 12:43:47
|
Dear all, Thank you for your feedback on the rules proposal. The rules for WRSC2015 are now published, and thanks to you they are improved compared to our initial proposal. We have some comments here on our decisions. In many cases we have to weigh pros and cons, and it will likely be impossible to satisfy all opinions. AIS We recognize that there are problems with registering the AIS, and that it is not very useful in these short races. There is also some cost involved. However, AIS is a standard tool to be visible and see others at sea. We consider the work with AIS registration to be an achievement, and a way to move towards a more standard way of communication at sea. We have changed the additional score for AIS to one extra point per day, to decrease its significance while still keeping it in the rules. Slot times We clarified the fact that the Race Committee can issue new slot times, and added a possibility for a team to request a new slot time. We will try to accommodate requests, but depending on weather and other circumstances new times are not guaranteed. We also realize that the weather conditions may differ somewhat in different slot times, but we believe that the advantages of a distinct time schedule are more important. Tracking system for automatic scoring We will use the tracking system developed within the community for the race. We hope that we will be able to use it for automatic scoring, and if it proves to work well this will be the main information source for any assessments. However, at this stage we are not sufficiently certain that the tracking system will work as intended. We need visual judges as back-up, and we need the races to be constructed so that it is possible to implement them even in the case of technical issues. We hope that the tracking system will work well, and when this has been proven perhaps next year's competitions can be constructed differently. Change 40m x 40m to 45m x 45m for Station Keeping The Station keeping course has been changed from 40m x 40m to 45m x 45m for two reasons. We intend to use it as triangular course for the MS race, and therefore it is slightly longer. For practical reasons when placing buoys 45 m is about 0.025 degrees or 1,5 minutes of degrees, which simplifies matters. Area scanning We added a few extra options for measurements in the area scanning contest Endurance race/ power management, collision avoidance We agree that these are important factors for autonomous sailboats, but we find it difficult to construct meaningful competitions and scoring systems. For this year these races are paused, but we hope that they will return soon. Also the suggested cooperation contest was a very interesting idea, that we wish to see realized the coming years. Best regards, and happy Easter, Anna Anna Friebe, MSc [asrlogo] Project Manager - Åland Sailing Robots Åland University of Applied Sciences +358 457 344 99 22 ann...@ha...<mailto:ann...@ha...> www.sailingrobots.ax<http://www.sailingrobots.ax/> www.ha.ax<http://www.ha.ax/> |
|
From: <Fab...@en...> - 2015-02-28 15:18:16
|
Dear all, FYI, I was asked to present what we did for the WRSC 2013 by the organizers of the special session "Education and Competitions Initiatives in Marine Robotics" for OCEANS 2015. In the paper, we point out the results as well as some problems we noticed and possible improvements (see http://www.ensta-bretagne.fr/lebars/paper_OCEANS_2015.pdf ), which are more or less in accordance with what is said in the current discussion for the next competitions. Best regards, Fabrice LE BARS De : Colin Sauze <co...@ab...> A : mic...@li... Date : 26/02/2015 14:45 Objet : Re: [Microtransat-wrsc-rules] Some notes on the WRSC rules On 24/02/15 14:28, Jose Carlos Alves wrote: > Dear all, > > We have been looking at the document with the preliminary proposal of > rules and contests, and we prefer to write down our comments in a > sparate document, instead of messing up the google doc with too many notes. > > About AIS: > To be able to use AIS transmitter in a marine craft it is required to > register for a MMSI (Maritime Mobile Service Identity) number. We don't > believe this can be done for unmanned boats, at least through the normal > procedures. There is a possibility of feeding simulated AIS data in > marinetraffic.com, using only a GPS enabled smartphone with Internet > access, but we don't know about the reliability of this, neither the > effective update rate of the position displayed in marinetraffic.com. > Besides, true AIS-B uses a transmit period between 30 secs and 3 mins, > what is a very low update rate for short courses and would not be of > practical use for real-time tracking during WRSC. Has anyone experience > in registering an AIS transmitter for an autonomous sailboat? Jose, At Sailbot last year there was a presentation from Sail Drone who have managed to register their boat as a buoy and got an AIS registration for it that way. I don't think we should be using AIS transmitters in the WRSC though, but should implement our own system with AIS like behaviour. See my comments below about the tracking system. > > Scoring system, tracking devices, etc: > We are developing unmanned sailing boats. When evaluating them and > comparing performance, we should remove people from the loop as most as > possible. Visual registration and manual time stamp should only be used > as a very last resource or in specific situations as crossing an arrival > line. Controlling visually/manually the passage of virtual buoys, the > time of entry/exit the square usually used for the "station keeping" > contest or the maneuvering for collision avoidance always introduces an > unacceptable uncertainty. > > In as much as possible, the performance of the boats should be evaluated > using objective measurements, instead of uncertain "visual" assessment. > We've had many examples of dubious assessment from the jury in many > cases that a simple GPS log file from a tracking device could dissipate > any doubt. > > Using data provided by the teams always raises the problem of the > correctness of the position data. Also, the accidental losses of the log > data reported in the past inevitably leads to the visual/manual > observation taken by a person. > > In our opinion, there is only a solution to overcome this: enforcing the > use of a standalone tracking device, small enough to attach to any boat. > Any basic Android smartphone with GPS and a simple app could do the job, > without the need to build hardware. But this would only work if using a > "certified" app provided by the organization. But this would need to be > fully autonomous, independent from the boat's system and controlled only > by the race committee. > > We have talked recently with a Portuguese sailmaker that has developed a > real-time tracking system for (real) sailing competitions. This has been > used for several regattas, some with 100+ boats, and provides real-time > tracking, 1 position/second, with ~5 secs latency. The device size is > approximately as tobacco pack, in a watertight case, guarantees more > than 24h autonomy and communicates through the local mobile network. > They rent the devices for events and the reference price is around > 10€/device/day, including the setup and management of the webpage and > database that stores the logged positions. This only needs to be under a > good coverage of the mobile network, but we think this would not be an > issue in Aland. You can see examples of recent regattas in > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beasRDZe_ok > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOKs1Bs0VTY > > With a reliable tracking device we don't even need to have physical > buoys placed on the water. We can actually evaluate the results of the > contests only after the "race", with the position/time logged data. This > also reduces the risk of any cheating attempt, as it makes much more > complicated for a human controller to drive the boat than the computer. > Naturally this only applies if the physical "buoys" are not used as > visual marks for any kind of navigation aid (as rounding physical buoys). > > Probably the main drawback of this removal of the physical buoys is to > reduce the visual impact to any people attending the event. However, > this number has been quite reduced in the past, also because the races > have been quite far from any observation point on shore. In any case, > maybe this can be replaced by a large screen with the display of the > virtual buoys together with the boats positions, in real time. > Naturally, this could also be repeated in a website exhibiting real time > data of the event. I think that any tracking device we use must: 1. Be cheap enough that every boat has one, in the past some of the tracking devices chosen have been too expensive and there haven't been enough of them. I'm concerned that a €300 device has been suggested for this year's event. Are we really going to spend €3000 if 10 boats compete? 2. Be small enough to fit inside the smallest boats. I'm guessing this will probably be a 1 metre long model boat, e.g. an IOM hull. 3. Have a big enough battery to work for an entire day's worth of events 4. Should log GPS positions at a high frequency 5. Should transmit GPS positions as frequently as possible back to the race committee But it should also try to: 1. Give teams access to the position data of all boats. This way we can use it for the collision avoidance event and general collision avoidance. This could mean we either have an interface (e.g. a USB cable or bluetooth link) directly from the tracking unit to the boat or we let teams receive the information on shore and give them the responsibility for sending the data back to the boat. 2. Use a direct short range radio system as well as a mobile phone network, so that any coverage problems are overcome. 3. Be the same from one year to the next, this will make it easier to establish procedures and software that deal with the trackers. We've tried to do some kind of centralised tracking system at every WRSC, every year the system is different from the previous year and every time its failed to work as well as it should (or needs to). This also makes it much easier for teams to develop software which deals with the data and any hardware interfacing. I don't think we'll fulfill all of these criteria this year, but lets start working towards it and stop reinventing the wheel every year. I know there has been a lot of good work on this area by ENSTA Bretagne, Aaland and Galway but we need to combine this into a single fully working solution, not 3 partially working solutions. I actually made a separate list of discuss the design and creation of a device which fulfils these criteria, if you want to join it then go to https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/microtransat-wrsc-tracking > > The contests/races: > In our opinion, the WRSC events should highlight the main capabilities > of these vehicles in terms of navigation accuracy, performance and > endurance. The "station keeping" event, as it has been developed, is > interesting as demonstrating the capability to make decisions in > specific time instants, but for us the name is somehow misleading. > “Station keeping” is usually understood as the ability to hold a > specific position, behaving like a virtual buoy. In that case, we > propose an additional or alternative event: the boat has to stay as > close as possible to a virtual "anchor point" and the score can be > automatically measured as the number/percentage of GPS fixes within a > certain radius, or the average of the distance to the anchor point > during a 2-3 minute period. For this event, all competing boats should > be given different anchor points, but at the same time to face similar > wind conditions. I think in terms of practically running this event it might be easier to have teams go up one at a time to the course. This means that you only need one or two chase boats to run this event instead of one per competitor. It also means you can attempt this event when you're ready. As we always see a lot of boats suffer from technical problems and this event is always a good one that can be done when your boat is working. > > One other event that would be very interesting in terms of performance > is trajectory accuracy, both upwind and downwind. This is a major aspect > of sailboat navigation and, once again, it would be really easy to > assess automatically, as the average distance to the virtual lines > connecting the virtual marks, for example following a triangular course. > This could replace the first proposed event (upwind/downwind), since its > objectives are relatively similar as the fleet race. Could we not assess the same things during the fleet race? > > The collision avoidance is also an important challenge but quite > difficult to implement as we have seen in the past. Using fixed > obstacles in the middle of a course does not work, unless the navigation > performance towards the obstacle is assessed in some way. The more > realistic situation, in terms of real collision avoidance scenarios, is > placing another boat in front of the sailboat, but we all agree it is > very difficult to evaluate the real performance of the process to detect > the obstacle and avoiding it. Besides, if this is done for one sailboat > at a time, the competitors will face different wind conditions. > > Although this was not considered in the rules proposal, one idea for > this challenge could be as this, considering we have only a few boats > entering this contest: setup one short reaching course for each boat, in > the same region, and place a fixed and large obstacle (at least 10m > long) right in the middle of the course but in varying distances in the > start-end path; all sailboats start at the same time, in courses > assigned randomly to each one just before the contest; to enforce the > navigation close to the start-end straight line where the obstacle is > placed, the scoring should be based on the average/maximum deviation > from the start-end line, according to the GPS fixes. This would give a > clear advantage to the boats deviating from the obstacle in the last > minute, and then returning as soon as possible to the initial track. The > “large” obstacles could be set inexpensively as arrays of large party > balloons or any other kind of float, with a predefined color (or not!). That sounds like a good way to do the fixed obstacle avoidance. I still think we need to try and do moving obstacle avoidance too, its such a key area to future use of sailing robots that we shouldn't be ignoring it. Perhaps we should require everyone to produce a collision avoidance log for this event which shows when the boat made an avoidance manoeuvre, what that manoeuvre was and when it returned to the previous course. Colin. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ _______________________________________________ Microtransat-wrsc-rules mailing list Mic...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/microtransat-wrsc-rules |
|
From: Colin S. <co...@ab...> - 2015-02-26 13:45:13
|
On 24/02/15 14:28, Jose Carlos Alves wrote: > Dear all, > > We have been looking at the document with the preliminary proposal of > rules and contests, and we prefer to write down our comments in a > sparate document, instead of messing up the google doc with too many notes. > > About AIS: > To be able to use AIS transmitter in a marine craft it is required to > register for a MMSI (Maritime Mobile Service Identity) number. We don't > believe this can be done for unmanned boats, at least through the normal > procedures. There is a possibility of feeding simulated AIS data in > marinetraffic.com, using only a GPS enabled smartphone with Internet > access, but we don't know about the reliability of this, neither the > effective update rate of the position displayed in marinetraffic.com. > Besides, true AIS-B uses a transmit period between 30 secs and 3 mins, > what is a very low update rate for short courses and would not be of > practical use for real-time tracking during WRSC. Has anyone experience > in registering an AIS transmitter for an autonomous sailboat? Jose, At Sailbot last year there was a presentation from Sail Drone who have managed to register their boat as a buoy and got an AIS registration for it that way. I don't think we should be using AIS transmitters in the WRSC though, but should implement our own system with AIS like behaviour. See my comments below about the tracking system. > > Scoring system, tracking devices, etc: > We are developing unmanned sailing boats. When evaluating them and > comparing performance, we should remove people from the loop as most as > possible. Visual registration and manual time stamp should only be used > as a very last resource or in specific situations as crossing an arrival > line. Controlling visually/manually the passage of virtual buoys, the > time of entry/exit the square usually used for the "station keeping" > contest or the maneuvering for collision avoidance always introduces an > unacceptable uncertainty. > > In as much as possible, the performance of the boats should be evaluated > using objective measurements, instead of uncertain "visual" assessment. > We've had many examples of dubious assessment from the jury in many > cases that a simple GPS log file from a tracking device could dissipate > any doubt. > > Using data provided by the teams always raises the problem of the > correctness of the position data. Also, the accidental losses of the log > data reported in the past inevitably leads to the visual/manual > observation taken by a person. > > In our opinion, there is only a solution to overcome this: enforcing the > use of a standalone tracking device, small enough to attach to any boat. > Any basic Android smartphone with GPS and a simple app could do the job, > without the need to build hardware. But this would only work if using a > "certified" app provided by the organization. But this would need to be > fully autonomous, independent from the boat's system and controlled only > by the race committee. > > We have talked recently with a Portuguese sailmaker that has developed a > real-time tracking system for (real) sailing competitions. This has been > used for several regattas, some with 100+ boats, and provides real-time > tracking, 1 position/second, with ~5 secs latency. The device size is > approximately as tobacco pack, in a watertight case, guarantees more > than 24h autonomy and communicates through the local mobile network. > They rent the devices for events and the reference price is around > 10€/device/day, including the setup and management of the webpage and > database that stores the logged positions. This only needs to be under a > good coverage of the mobile network, but we think this would not be an > issue in Aland. You can see examples of recent regattas in > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beasRDZe_ok > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOKs1Bs0VTY > > With a reliable tracking device we don't even need to have physical > buoys placed on the water. We can actually evaluate the results of the > contests only after the "race", with the position/time logged data. This > also reduces the risk of any cheating attempt, as it makes much more > complicated for a human controller to drive the boat than the computer. > Naturally this only applies if the physical "buoys" are not used as > visual marks for any kind of navigation aid (as rounding physical buoys). > > Probably the main drawback of this removal of the physical buoys is to > reduce the visual impact to any people attending the event. However, > this number has been quite reduced in the past, also because the races > have been quite far from any observation point on shore. In any case, > maybe this can be replaced by a large screen with the display of the > virtual buoys together with the boats positions, in real time. > Naturally, this could also be repeated in a website exhibiting real time > data of the event. I think that any tracking device we use must: 1. Be cheap enough that every boat has one, in the past some of the tracking devices chosen have been too expensive and there haven't been enough of them. I'm concerned that a €300 device has been suggested for this year's event. Are we really going to spend €3000 if 10 boats compete? 2. Be small enough to fit inside the smallest boats. I'm guessing this will probably be a 1 metre long model boat, e.g. an IOM hull. 3. Have a big enough battery to work for an entire day's worth of events 4. Should log GPS positions at a high frequency 5. Should transmit GPS positions as frequently as possible back to the race committee But it should also try to: 1. Give teams access to the position data of all boats. This way we can use it for the collision avoidance event and general collision avoidance. This could mean we either have an interface (e.g. a USB cable or bluetooth link) directly from the tracking unit to the boat or we let teams receive the information on shore and give them the responsibility for sending the data back to the boat. 2. Use a direct short range radio system as well as a mobile phone network, so that any coverage problems are overcome. 3. Be the same from one year to the next, this will make it easier to establish procedures and software that deal with the trackers. We've tried to do some kind of centralised tracking system at every WRSC, every year the system is different from the previous year and every time its failed to work as well as it should (or needs to). This also makes it much easier for teams to develop software which deals with the data and any hardware interfacing. I don't think we'll fulfill all of these criteria this year, but lets start working towards it and stop reinventing the wheel every year. I know there has been a lot of good work on this area by ENSTA Bretagne, Aaland and Galway but we need to combine this into a single fully working solution, not 3 partially working solutions. I actually made a separate list of discuss the design and creation of a device which fulfils these criteria, if you want to join it then go to https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/microtransat-wrsc-tracking > > The contests/races: > In our opinion, the WRSC events should highlight the main capabilities > of these vehicles in terms of navigation accuracy, performance and > endurance. The "station keeping" event, as it has been developed, is > interesting as demonstrating the capability to make decisions in > specific time instants, but for us the name is somehow misleading. > “Station keeping” is usually understood as the ability to hold a > specific position, behaving like a virtual buoy. In that case, we > propose an additional or alternative event: the boat has to stay as > close as possible to a virtual "anchor point" and the score can be > automatically measured as the number/percentage of GPS fixes within a > certain radius, or the average of the distance to the anchor point > during a 2-3 minute period. For this event, all competing boats should > be given different anchor points, but at the same time to face similar > wind conditions. I think in terms of practically running this event it might be easier to have teams go up one at a time to the course. This means that you only need one or two chase boats to run this event instead of one per competitor. It also means you can attempt this event when you're ready. As we always see a lot of boats suffer from technical problems and this event is always a good one that can be done when your boat is working. > > One other event that would be very interesting in terms of performance > is trajectory accuracy, both upwind and downwind. This is a major aspect > of sailboat navigation and, once again, it would be really easy to > assess automatically, as the average distance to the virtual lines > connecting the virtual marks, for example following a triangular course. > This could replace the first proposed event (upwind/downwind), since its > objectives are relatively similar as the fleet race. Could we not assess the same things during the fleet race? > > The collision avoidance is also an important challenge but quite > difficult to implement as we have seen in the past. Using fixed > obstacles in the middle of a course does not work, unless the navigation > performance towards the obstacle is assessed in some way. The more > realistic situation, in terms of real collision avoidance scenarios, is > placing another boat in front of the sailboat, but we all agree it is > very difficult to evaluate the real performance of the process to detect > the obstacle and avoiding it. Besides, if this is done for one sailboat > at a time, the competitors will face different wind conditions. > > Although this was not considered in the rules proposal, one idea for > this challenge could be as this, considering we have only a few boats > entering this contest: setup one short reaching course for each boat, in > the same region, and place a fixed and large obstacle (at least 10m > long) right in the middle of the course but in varying distances in the > start-end path; all sailboats start at the same time, in courses > assigned randomly to each one just before the contest; to enforce the > navigation close to the start-end straight line where the obstacle is > placed, the scoring should be based on the average/maximum deviation > from the start-end line, according to the GPS fixes. This would give a > clear advantage to the boats deviating from the obstacle in the last > minute, and then returning as soon as possible to the initial track. The > “large” obstacles could be set inexpensively as arrays of large party > balloons or any other kind of float, with a predefined color (or not!). That sounds like a good way to do the fixed obstacle avoidance. I still think we need to try and do moving obstacle avoidance too, its such a key area to future use of sailing robots that we shouldn't be ignoring it. Perhaps we should require everyone to produce a collision avoidance log for this event which shows when the boat made an avoidance manoeuvre, what that manoeuvre was and when it returned to the previous course. Colin. |
|
From: Jose C. A. <jc...@fe...> - 2015-02-24 14:28:32
|
Dear all, We have been looking at the document with the preliminary proposal of rules and contests, and we prefer to write down our comments in a sparate document, instead of messing up the google doc with too many notes. About AIS: To be able to use AIS transmitter in a marine craft it is required to register for a MMSI (Maritime Mobile Service Identity) number. We don't believe this can be done for unmanned boats, at least through the normal procedures. There is a possibility of feeding simulated AIS data in marinetraffic.com, using only a GPS enabled smartphone with Internet access, but we don't know about the reliability of this, neither the effective update rate of the position displayed in marinetraffic.com. Besides, true AIS-B uses a transmit period between 30 secs and 3 mins, what is a very low update rate for short courses and would not be of practical use for real-time tracking during WRSC. Has anyone experience in registering an AIS transmitter for an autonomous sailboat? Scoring system, tracking devices, etc: We are developing unmanned sailing boats. When evaluating them and comparing performance, we should remove people from the loop as most as possible. Visual registration and manual time stamp should only be used as a very last resource or in specific situations as crossing an arrival line. Controlling visually/manually the passage of virtual buoys, the time of entry/exit the square usually used for the "station keeping" contest or the maneuvering for collision avoidance always introduces an unacceptable uncertainty. In as much as possible, the performance of the boats should be evaluated using objective measurements, instead of uncertain "visual" assessment. We've had many examples of dubious assessment from the jury in many cases that a simple GPS log file from a tracking device could dissipate any doubt. Using data provided by the teams always raises the problem of the correctness of the position data. Also, the accidental losses of the log data reported in the past inevitably leads to the visual/manual observation taken by a person. In our opinion, there is only a solution to overcome this: enforcing the use of a standalone tracking device, small enough to attach to any boat. Any basic Android smartphone with GPS and a simple app could do the job, without the need to build hardware. But this would only work if using a "certified" app provided by the organization. But this would need to be fully autonomous, independent from the boat's system and controlled only by the race committee. We have talked recently with a Portuguese sailmaker that has developed a real-time tracking system for (real) sailing competitions. This has been used for several regattas, some with 100+ boats, and provides real-time tracking, 1 position/second, with ~5 secs latency. The device size is approximately as tobacco pack, in a watertight case, guarantees more than 24h autonomy and communicates through the local mobile network. They rent the devices for events and the reference price is around 10€/device/day, including the setup and management of the webpage and database that stores the logged positions. This only needs to be under a good coverage of the mobile network, but we think this would not be an issue in Aland. You can see examples of recent regattas in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beasRDZe_ok https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOKs1Bs0VTY With a reliable tracking device we don't even need to have physical buoys placed on the water. We can actually evaluate the results of the contests only after the "race", with the position/time logged data. This also reduces the risk of any cheating attempt, as it makes much more complicated for a human controller to drive the boat than the computer. Naturally this only applies if the physical "buoys" are not used as visual marks for any kind of navigation aid (as rounding physical buoys). Probably the main drawback of this removal of the physical buoys is to reduce the visual impact to any people attending the event. However, this number has been quite reduced in the past, also because the races have been quite far from any observation point on shore. In any case, maybe this can be replaced by a large screen with the display of the virtual buoys together with the boats positions, in real time. Naturally, this could also be repeated in a website exhibiting real time data of the event. The contests/races: In our opinion, the WRSC events should highlight the main capabilities of these vehicles in terms of navigation accuracy, performance and endurance. The "station keeping" event, as it has been developed, is interesting as demonstrating the capability to make decisions in specific time instants, but for us the name is somehow misleading. “Station keeping” is usually understood as the ability to hold a specific position, behaving like a virtual buoy. In that case, we propose an additional or alternative event: the boat has to stay as close as possible to a virtual "anchor point" and the score can be automatically measured as the number/percentage of GPS fixes within a certain radius, or the average of the distance to the anchor point during a 2-3 minute period. For this event, all competing boats should be given different anchor points, but at the same time to face similar wind conditions. One other event that would be very interesting in terms of performance is trajectory accuracy, both upwind and downwind. This is a major aspect of sailboat navigation and, once again, it would be really easy to assess automatically, as the average distance to the virtual lines connecting the virtual marks, for example following a triangular course. This could replace the first proposed event (upwind/downwind), since its objectives are relatively similar as the fleet race. The collision avoidance is also an important challenge but quite difficult to implement as we have seen in the past. Using fixed obstacles in the middle of a course does not work, unless the navigation performance towards the obstacle is assessed in some way. The more realistic situation, in terms of real collision avoidance scenarios, is placing another boat in front of the sailboat, but we all agree it is very difficult to evaluate the real performance of the process to detect the obstacle and avoiding it. Besides, if this is done for one sailboat at a time, the competitors will face different wind conditions. Although this was not considered in the rules proposal, one idea for this challenge could be as this, considering we have only a few boats entering this contest: setup one short reaching course for each boat, in the same region, and place a fixed and large obstacle (at least 10m long) right in the middle of the course but in varying distances in the start-end path; all sailboats start at the same time, in courses assigned randomly to each one just before the contest; to enforce the navigation close to the start-end straight line where the obstacle is placed, the scoring should be based on the average/maximum deviation from the start-end line, according to the GPS fixes. This would give a clear advantage to the boats deviating from the obstacle in the last minute, and then returning as soon as possible to the initial track. The “large” obstacles could be set inexpensively as arrays of large party balloons or any other kind of float, with a predefined color (or not!). Best regards, Jose Nuno |
|
From: WRSC2015 Å. U. <wrs...@ua...> - 2015-02-23 13:33:46
|
I am sorry for the duplicates, this email should obviously have reached the entire WRSC Rules Committee. Best regards, WRSC2015 committee through Anna Friebe ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: WRSC2015 Åland UAS <wrs...@ua...> Date: 17 February 2015 at 12:57 Subject: Preliminary rules, WRSC2015 To: ann...@ha... You are welcome to view the preliminary rules for WRSC2015 below and add your comments. If you wish to provide comments, please do so no later than February 26th. https://docs.google.com/document/d/12NT4XBzmu9bTo_QWytWF2cr06Q_Uh36GV4_Sj6SbiDk/edit?usp=sharing Best regards, WRSC2015 committee |