Updated TDM Scores/Multipliers
27 views
Skip to first unread message
Raymond Sheh
Jul 15, 2025, 9:52:54 PMJul 15
to The Open Academic Robot Kit, raymo...@gmail.com, rmrc-co...@googlegroups.com
Hi All!
Tremendous thanks to all of the folks on the RMRC Committee for
reviewing the submitted Updated Team Description Materials! Due to their
efforts, each TDM has been reviewed by between 4 and 6 reviewers. (There
is some variation because of abstentions to avoid perceived conflicts of
interest, I did also do some analysis of the potential variation caused
by this difference in number of scores and found it to be negligible.)
As previously discussed, each Updated TDM was evaluated based on how
useful it would be for teaching a new team something interesting and
useful. To provide more consistency in emphasis, reviewers were asked to
focus on the following categories, based on the overall published goals
of RMRC:
Presentation:
- Readability, how easy is the document to read?
- Basic grading, referring to overall quality of the document,
grammar, layout, standard copy-editing/proofreading stuff.
Design and content:
- Open source, how useful are the open source resources created by the
team? (This isn't just code, it could also be documentation, designs, etc.)
- Resources, how useful are the other resources in the document, such as
diagrams, references, guides, videos, lists, links to blog posts, and
so-on?
Commentary:
- Lessons learned, basically what is expected in a discussion/conclusion
of any report - how well does the document allow the reader to determine
how well the robot worked, pitfalls, things to do differently, etc.
Here are the scores, normalized to the highest. This will be your
multiplier on your preliminary score to determine finals qualification.
Bits X Mis Venas 0.80
CJTec 1.00
Cloud 0.87
Creative Town 0.86
HelloVerse 0.76
MakerLab ResQ 0.93
Mechatronics Rescue Team 0.97
It is remarkable how close everyone is, all of the TDMs were quite
readable and undeniably useful to new teams. They only differed in how
exceptional they were.
Most of the reviewers also provided feedback in the form of comments.
I'm going to hold on publishing those right now, just because some
reviewers (including me!) want a little bit more time to write more
useful feedback. Expect this soon.
Once again great work and good luck everyone!
Cheers!
- Raymond
--
https://raymondsheh.org
Tremendous thanks to all of the folks on the RMRC Committee for
reviewing the submitted Updated Team Description Materials! Due to their
efforts, each TDM has been reviewed by between 4 and 6 reviewers. (There
is some variation because of abstentions to avoid perceived conflicts of
interest, I did also do some analysis of the potential variation caused
by this difference in number of scores and found it to be negligible.)
As previously discussed, each Updated TDM was evaluated based on how
useful it would be for teaching a new team something interesting and
useful. To provide more consistency in emphasis, reviewers were asked to
focus on the following categories, based on the overall published goals
of RMRC:
Presentation:
- Readability, how easy is the document to read?
- Basic grading, referring to overall quality of the document,
grammar, layout, standard copy-editing/proofreading stuff.
Design and content:
- Open source, how useful are the open source resources created by the
team? (This isn't just code, it could also be documentation, designs, etc.)
- Resources, how useful are the other resources in the document, such as
diagrams, references, guides, videos, lists, links to blog posts, and
so-on?
Commentary:
- Lessons learned, basically what is expected in a discussion/conclusion
of any report - how well does the document allow the reader to determine
how well the robot worked, pitfalls, things to do differently, etc.
Here are the scores, normalized to the highest. This will be your
multiplier on your preliminary score to determine finals qualification.
Bits X Mis Venas 0.80
CJTec 1.00
Cloud 0.87
Creative Town 0.86
HelloVerse 0.76
MakerLab ResQ 0.93
Mechatronics Rescue Team 0.97
It is remarkable how close everyone is, all of the TDMs were quite
readable and undeniably useful to new teams. They only differed in how
exceptional they were.
Most of the reviewers also provided feedback in the form of comments.
I'm going to hold on publishing those right now, just because some
reviewers (including me!) want a little bit more time to write more
useful feedback. Expect this soon.
Once again great work and good luck everyone!
Cheers!
- Raymond
--
https://raymondsheh.org
Erick Sanchez
Jul 15, 2025, 11:48:50 PMJul 15
to Raymond Sheh, The Open Academic Robot Kit, rmrc-co...@googlegroups.com
Hello everyone
Hi Raymond, Today Amy and I were working on the field, trying to fix several assembly details. For example, the crossing walls on the gravel and sand court were incorrectly positioned. By the way, there's no gravel or sand. They said they'll get it for us tomorrow. In hurdles, the combined height of the base wood and the plywood adds up to 60 mm in height, which is why the team made that comment. We mentioned it to the carpenter, but he didn't fix it because he's fixing things for other categories in the competition.
Tomorrow I'll try to fix it by cutting some wood and screwing it together at the correct height.
Also, regarding the problem with the thin plastic walls on some of the courts, we'll try to fix them tomorrow with wooden bases so the walls don't move.
Also, we don't have any crates yet. They said they would give them to us this afternoon, but they never arrived, so we're hoping to get them early tomorrow.
We also don't have the small foam paint rollers for Dexterity; they said they would get them tomorrow.
Another problem I noticed is that the Labyrinth track has already been assembled like a krail. The floorboards are screwed to the floor from the bottom up, so it will require flipping the track to remove the boards to make it flat.
We've already moved tables to accommodate the operators' tables and marked the tables with the team names. We've also marked each track with the names on both sides.
I'm sharing photos of how the setup looks and the general areas.
Regards
Erick
Hi Raymond, Today Amy and I were working on the field, trying to fix several assembly details. For example, the crossing walls on the gravel and sand court were incorrectly positioned. By the way, there's no gravel or sand. They said they'll get it for us tomorrow. In hurdles, the combined height of the base wood and the plywood adds up to 60 mm in height, which is why the team made that comment. We mentioned it to the carpenter, but he didn't fix it because he's fixing things for other categories in the competition.
Tomorrow I'll try to fix it by cutting some wood and screwing it together at the correct height.
Also, regarding the problem with the thin plastic walls on some of the courts, we'll try to fix them tomorrow with wooden bases so the walls don't move.
Also, we don't have any crates yet. They said they would give them to us this afternoon, but they never arrived, so we're hoping to get them early tomorrow.
We also don't have the small foam paint rollers for Dexterity; they said they would get them tomorrow.
Another problem I noticed is that the Labyrinth track has already been assembled like a krail. The floorboards are screwed to the floor from the bottom up, so it will require flipping the track to remove the boards to make it flat.
We've already moved tables to accommodate the operators' tables and marked the tables with the team names. We've also marked each track with the names on both sides.
I'm sharing photos of how the setup looks and the general areas.
Regards
Erick
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Academic Robot Kit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to oarkit+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/oarkit/76c384d5-be35-4d33-a728-685167f9cf12%40gmail.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages