Attending "One of Those" Robotics Training Sessions
Part of my job requires me to attend a two-day robotics class. I just finished day one and I won't mention the provider of this fairly popular robotics system but . . . what a collection of garbage (and I'm being as courteous as I can be). 
Today during the lengthy introduction to this system I frequently reflected upon my Boe-Bot and kept thinking "Gee, students would get so much higher value from investing in the Parallax educational offerings than working with this stuff" I could go on and on listing several specific examples justifying and explaining my opinions - what's the point?
Suffice to say I am truly grateful for what Parallax offers - THANK YOU PARALLAX!!!
Today during the lengthy introduction to this system I frequently reflected upon my Boe-Bot and kept thinking "Gee, students would get so much higher value from investing in the Parallax educational offerings than working with this stuff" I could go on and on listing several specific examples justifying and explaining my opinions - what's the point?
Suffice to say I am truly grateful for what Parallax offers - THANK YOU PARALLAX!!!
Comments
Even though it may not be a violation of forum rules, I don't feel comfortable mentioning the other company - it's not polite or really necessary - just stick with Parallax stuff and you'll be good to go.
I was in Ace Hardware today looking for a Father's day gift, it's depressing that everything is cheap 'Made in China' Smile. I'm sick of spending money on things that are built to sell and not built to last. Instead I decided to go buy some lumber and build something that will last a lifetime - for less money.
If you steer just one person from a bad purchasing choice, it will be a good thing.
Rich H
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
The Simple Servo Tester, a kit from Gadget Gangster.
So which was it: Lego or Microsoft?
-Phil
With that said, I'm not aware of any in person training that Microsoft does with Robotics Studio. I do know that there are outside companies that provide training and if it was one of those partners, I'd love to know which so we can help them do a better job.
Bill
It's good for kids and young teens because everything is enclosed in plastic and the wiring is goof proof while still being open ended. The NXT brick is an ARM chip with built in I2C, LCD, speaker, and multi threaded firmware. It's actually not half bad and I've seen people use it on non-Lego robots. Their servos are continuous rotation with encoder feedback and are a cool idea, but their shape makes tough to deal with. The mechanics of the Technic building system are frankly tough and there is a lot of play in the linkages. We've built some pretty funky looking and shaky robots.
The Scribbler GUI and LabView are both kid friendly, but Scribbler's GUI serves as a bridge to PBASIC which is a normal programming language. Originally I thought the LabView programming language was strictly for kids so I didn't judge it harshly. But then I found out that G (its name) is actually used for data acquisition, instrument control, and industrial automation. I feel sorry for people who have to program in it for real.
For my own robot I bought parts to hack Scribbler and then another BS2 robot. If it was Lego the kids would cannibalize it for parts in no time. Something propeller powered with tracks and the ability to climb stairs is on my wish list.
Post Edited (Martin_H) : 6/20/2010 11:41:25 PM GMT
Neither one but now, I'm curious who will be the first to guess correctly.
But that's only part of the story. Here's a very uber-brief review.
(although I used to be a technical writer, I have a zillion chores to do today, so, I am not going to logically organize this information, proof it, and so forth - but, I warned you so read at your own risk)
#1 --> Construction materials: [noparse][[/noparse]A] Plastic rivets? Yes, this robot uses plastic rivets to hold stuff together!!! No kidding!!! That in itself may not be such a bad idea, however these rivets were not high quality and often used where tension/compression would most likely create failures. (B) Bearings? There were numerous things spinning but I didn't find any sleeve or roller bearings. The idea of a square shaft rotating inside a square "hole" is kin to hearing someone scrape fingernails along a chalk board. [noparse][[/noparse]C] Snap, Crackle & Pop? The instructions require bending a 1.5 mm (?) thick metal strip into a shape that will be used to hold a ball. The flat strip of metal can only be bent as shown "so many" times before it breaks. This design does not apparently lend itself towards numerous successful modifications. "Snap" is usually not one of the desirable sounds an instructor wants to hear during robotics lab.
#2 --> Construction methods: Over decades, I have performed "substantial" car maintenance, I've built and rebuilt dozens of r/c cars, I used to work in a metal shop and "did everything" Even building the VEX contraptions following the procedures with exactness, the quality of the output is "marginal" at best. For example, the alignment of the rotating parts relies heavily on plastic spacers, and metal collars. There was, in my opinion, way too much slop which would ultimately result in less efficiency, more gear & motor wear, and so forth. This ultimately means parts will need to be replaced more frequently, and or the reliability of the machines in use will be jeopardized, never achieving what I would deem "acceptable" results. One tends to either end up with "wobbly" wheels or wheels too tight - this seems especially undesirable and a perfect recipe for frustration when teaching students who, as the instructor said "don't even know how to identify a Phillips-head screwdriver" On the other hand, I will use this as an example to show them "this is how it's done in real life" The tools used were "barely adequate" because when assembly instructions were followed, turning the short allen keys involved interfering with other components - I am convinced a better arrangement of components &/or building sequence is possible.
#3 --> Instruction manual: I'm being nice to say the manual was poor quality. From the very beginning of the manual, where parts were displayed, they should have been printed "full size" when possible to help in the identification process. Many of the illustrations were "really tiny" even though I have superb "up close" visibility with my left eye (my reading eye - I use a monovision contact lens to see w/my right eye). The instruction manual could also have been used to show how subassemblies (sp?) could be created simultaneously - instead, one turns the page to find out a mirrored sub assembly also needs to be created (a minor point but it's usually much easier to build "two of the same" simultaneously).
#4 --> Arrangement of Components: I thought the "final product" was sort of humorous. It seems as though the robot was created to instill a sense of frustration rather than logically and methodically locating items for reasonable use. For example, following the directions, the "box" housing the microcontroller various levels of difficulty were encountered in gaining access to the ports and power switch.
#5 --> Radio: I could not believe I was being provided with a "$900 robotic kit" that used the older FM technology. Instead of upgrading their systems, VEX has chosen to provide a $150 upgrade that apparently converts the older FM system to 2.4 GHz. I mean, for $45 I can order a six channel 2.4 GHz system that's far superior to the one VEX provides - and they want $150 to "convert" this to spread spectrum? That's a slap in the face to anyone in the know and instantly jeopardizes the perceived quality of the system provided.
#6 --> Software: In one way, I thought the software was good for new students because of the "dual interface" which showed the GUI in the left window, with the code generated on the right window. We didn't have time to program the robot so, we all just sat in class while the instructor reviewed the interface using sample code. I am not convinced that using a "drag-n-drop" interface by itself will provide enough information to teach students concepts such as PWM w/motor control and so forth. I wasn't impressed with the overall layout of the system which we were told, the VEX robotics competitions are designed to require approximately 60 seconds of r/c control while using only about 20 seconds of autonomous control.
#7 --> Accessories: During the training, two points were emphasized: (1), I am required to enter the robotics competition using the VEX kit I was provided, & (2), I can ONLY use VEX components during the competition. Of course, I was a bit dismayed when I perused the materials provided with my system listing the "upgrade" accessories. Where were the all the accessories I'm used to seeing? The list was dismal, at best. During my "training" experience, I was often questioning whether I was dealing with a viable educational robotics tool or merely a system designed to create a market for a profit-making "solution" for public education based r/c & robotics competition.
I could go on and on and on, however, to summarize, I wasn't at all impressed with this system (that's probably obvious, ha). One of my main shortcomings with my introduction to VEX involved what actually occurred during the class:
Day one
--> review the competition using VEX
--> build the robot
Day two
--> continue building the robot
--> review how the robot is programmed
I used to teach adults Pro/ENGINEER for years - I was expected to be a bona fide expert with everything I was presenting - and I was. I was trained to keep "small talk" to an absolute minimum in order to maximize "value" from what was said, read, and practiced in our labs. I highly question whether or not the presenter had any professional experience training adults prior to the position he currently held. I know that in professional practice, in "corporate America" (vs. educational realms), the quality of presentation provided would have been grounds for being fired. For example, in addition to way too much irrelevant information being presented, during the construction phase, the basic robot should have been created. This would have saved lots of time and allowed the group - those who were learning the VEX system - to practice USING the software with the robot instead of watching someone tell us about it (while interjecting many meaningless stories, opinions, and so forth).
If time would have permitted, then the basic robot could have been enhanced later with the additional components added, the program could have been updated accordingly, et cetera. Instead of having two, 90+ minute lunch sessions, I would have gotten much more out of the presentation if lunch had been delivered to the facility. Instead, after I finished my lunch, checking email and making calls (which took me less than 30 minutes), I wasted more than two hours waiting for everyone who went to lunch during the two day session. Because all of the radio systems were on the SAME FREQUENCY, none of us could even reasonably test the r/c functionality of our systems, let alone any programming of the autonomous capabilities - this completely blew me away.
One of the most basic, essential things an educator learns - or should learn - is that "hands on" is where most learning occurs. This was a wonderful opportunity for class participants to learn VEX robotics - regardless of the rather lousy quality of their systems. If I'd taught the class, everyone would have created a simple but functioning robot, they would have programmed it, and would have successfully used the system, gaining critical "hands-on" experience. As is, I spent two days listening to many stories that had NOTHING to do with the goal (which I believe was supposed to be "learning about VEX robotics"), I spent way too much time building a robot that was far too complex for simply learning how to use the system, I NEVER had an opportunity to use the robot because everyone used the same frequency, and I NEVER had the opportunity to actually use the software because we ran out of time (due to the really long lunch breaks and many outbreaks of irrelevant instructor babble and wasted time assembling a robot that was too complex).
And yes, I realize the balance between "quality vs. price" is essential in robotics learning tools, but in my honest opinion, to charge $900 for what I got was a joke. Unfortunately, I believe the reality to public educators involves only a choices when selecting providers offering a robotics competition package. I also believe that providing the market with robotics systems like the one I encountered is almost a guaranteed recipe for disaster for three reasons:
1 - The robotics system should be presented professionally to the teachers using the products with their students - this was clearly, not the case.
2 - The robotics system should provide a "reasonable" level of quality using parts that fit, are durable, are technologically mature, et cetra - this was, in my opinion, clearly not a system worthy of $900
3 - The robotics system should provide students with a more realistic approach to learning - this could be argued, however, I believe students need something different, something better to bridge the gap between a "cookie cutter" approach to learning robotics such as the VEX system and what actually occurs in real life. I would love to see a much more practical approach to learning robotics, with a higher quality system. Because the educational system that pays me is requiring me to use this system, I will do so, however, I cannot imagine recommending another VEX system for my students.
One of the most glaring problems with public educational decision making involves the decision makers themselves. In some cases, the decision makers have no clue what's "valid" and they buy into marketing schemes that claim to offer (claim is the key word) wonderful opportunities for learners. In my opinion, the VEX system was selected in a similar process and is much like a frozen dinner - microwave it and you're done but if you want a full course, healthy meal, one will be required to actually rinse carrots, grate them, and chop them before cooking. That food preparation process may be time consuming but it doesn't have to be expensive and the experience is vital when understanding foundations of culinary prowess. Give me $200 - that's all - and I can have my students creating a Propeller driven robot with arms and legs moving, motors spinning, lights flashing, speakers speaking, while accomplishing what I feel is a "leaps and bounds more valuable" educational experience.
And, I actually like carrots.
Thanks,
Scope, while eating a veggie burger -->
Post Edited (Scope) : 6/21/2010 2:10:19 PM GMT
I thought "VEX" was created for the FIRST league robotics. The initial robotics systems for FIRST were designed for College age students -- lots of power, lots of weight, lots of force, and lots of cost -- thousands of dollars. So they wanted a cheaper, smaller platform for high-school students -- thus the "First Vex Challenge" was created.
And an even smaller robotics FIRST Lego League was created for 9-14 year olds. Actually, the sequence was FIRST league, FIRST Lego League, then FIRST Vex Challenge to provide a transition between Lego and the full league.
I bought quite a lot of VEX robotics equipment when Radio Shack decided to quit carrying them, and sold them for 1/2 price. Even then, they were pricey for what you got. I thought the FIRST league had dropped VEX, and gone to the FIRST Technical Challenge using "Tetrix" http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/ftc/default.aspx?id=968
"Tetrix" is a metal hardware system which uses the Lego NXT brick as its "brain" -- looks much less flimsy than the VEX approach, and the software looks more capable.
Another good web-site to start with is the CMU site -- though I note they're still training on "VEX" which looks pretty useless at this point. http://www.education.rec.ri.cmu.edu/
I have quite a bit of the vex stuff that I got cheap when Radio Shack was dumping it. Note that this is the original Vex stuff. When Testors "took over" Vex they came out with a vastly simplified system (using many of the same components) but basically sold you a few modules you needed to bolt together (most were pre-assembled but you could take them apart). This seemed to die out pretty quickly. Vex in a form similar to its original form was always around (www.vexrobotics.com) and still is.
Overall, I think the metal parts are convenient for putting together a large structure. I have no idea why the class would use plastic pop-rivets instead of nuts and bolts. I assume it was mainly to make things go faster. (Plastic pop-rivets are nice if you use some of the Tamiya stuff, though). You can bolt together fairly strong structures using real nuts and bolts. From day one, the Vex people encouraged bending and cutting of the hardware components. I don't think they encouraged bending/unbending/rebending however.
For low-torque applications, the motors and gears work ok. But it's pretty easy to strip the gears if you are not careful.
Vex has always had bushings that you use when the square shafts go through the square holes. There's no real reason to not use them unless you can't fit them in place physically.
As an overall system I'm not sure how great Vex is. But, I do use the metal components to build frames for other things. They are fairly convenient to have around.
All of these things seem overpriced. Looking at the price of Tetrix components (some of the metal components look useful) makes a lot of the Vex stuff look cheaper.
Both!
Agreed - when using the bolts and nuts (not the plastic rivets), the metal components seem to offer lots of valuable opportunity.
Post Edited (Scope) : 6/21/2010 3:48:43 PM GMT
Scope,
Thanks a lot for this information! This kind of stuff is what you usually get only by paying the rather high tuition at the School of Hard Knocks (highest tuition, but best grads
I always like to see these kinds of criticisms, it helps to keep me on track with what I want my business to be.
Art
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Kemprof ,· Santa Ana High School
www.sahsrobotics.org
Regardless of how dismal the end product may turn out, I anticipate the document can't hurt my resume. Besides, the interviewer probably won't read the book anyway (hopefully - ha).
Not that it's essential to my goals but only Parallax microcontrollers will be used in the projects. I'm actually very excited about this venture. Now, if I can just wean myself from r/c helicopters for about six months then I could really get down to business and make this happen. [noparse];)[/noparse]