Project

General

Profile

Atividade #517

Revisar TDP #42

Added by Onias Castelo Branco about 3 years ago. Updated about 3 years ago.

Status:
Fechada
Priority:
Normal
Target version:
Start date:
01/31/2018
Due date:
02/06/2018

Description

Revisar o TDP da equipe NEUISlanders

Critérios a serem levados:

What are the most prominent positive and negative aspects of the paper?

Is the work clearly presented?

Is there sufficient detail provided to reproduce the results / implement the algorithms?

Did you notice any errors?

What are the major contributions of the paper to the SSL community?

Do you find the proposed work innovative?

Is the overlap in content between this TDP and the team's last TDP, if one exists, major, moderate or minor?

robocupssl2018-paper42.pdf (421 KB) Preview Onias Castelo Branco, 01/31/2018 01:08 AM

History

#1 Updated by Onias Castelo Branco about 3 years ago

  • Due date set to 02/06/2018

#2 Updated by Luciano Barreira about 3 years ago

Por cima, pela parte do software:

What are the most prominent positive and negative aspects of the paper?

  • lorem ipsum ( essa parte deve ser respondida em conjunto, não olhei pra mec e elo )

Is the work clearly presented?

  • Some sentences are a bit difficult to understand and no detail is provided to explain some important presented issues, such as the problem of non-deterministic delays. There could be put more effort on explaining the solution of the team's problems since it can help other teams that might have the same issue. Overall, the didactic intent is clear throughout the paper.

Is there sufficient detail provided to reproduce the results / implement the algorithms?

  • Regarding the previous TDP, yes. The paper focuses on an overview of the team's software architecture and explanation of their project decisions rather than of the algorithms solely.

Did you notice any errors?

  • Apart from some minor punctuation errors, confusing sentences (minor grammar issues) and use of the first person in many sentences, I couldn't spot any conceptual errors, which are more relevant.

What are the major contributions of the paper to the SSL community?

  • The well presented introduction of a hybrid approach for solving the robots' movement control issue, which is the most common bottleneck problem for new teams.

Do you find the proposed work innovative?

  • Yes. The use of multiple known algorithms for solving one particular problem, such as using both PID and Fuzzy controllers for controlling the robots' speeds, as well as the software design solution for the implementations of these algorithms. Especially the use of fuzzy logic control system.

Is the overlap in content between this TDP and the team's last TDP, if one exists, major, moderate or minor?

  • minor

#4 Updated by Yugo Nihari about 3 years ago

Considerações sobre a parte mecânica:
As NEUIslanders stated on their TDP, there were minor changes on the mechanical components. However, it could have been explained which improvements had been made so far on the kicking and dribbling mechanism. Figure 9 doesn’t point out what changed from last year’s version.
It was mentioned that one of the four changes occurred on the omni-wheel. However it wasn’t described any changes about it. Section 4.3 is missing so probably that section was supposed to be about the omni-wheels.
Changing the material of the cover from acrylic glass to polypropylene was interesting, as it will probably make the robot sturdier.

#5 Updated by Gustavo Claudio Karl Couto about 3 years ago

What are the most prominent positive and negative aspects of the paper?

The kick board was very clearly presented with it's schematic and layout, and can help other teams that have also not stabilized their systems, also there was a very clearly presentation of the software main archtecture, performance analyses and implemantation details instead of only focusing in algorithms theory.

There were minor changes on the mechanical components. However, it could have been explained which improvements had been made so far on the kicking and dribbling mechanism. Figure 9 doesn’t point out what changed from last year’s version.

It was mentioned that one of the four changes occurred on the omni-wheel. However it wasn’t described any changes about it. Section 4.3 is missing so probably that section was supposed to be about the omni-wheels.

Is the work clearly presented?

Some sentences are a bit difficult to understand and no detail is provided to explain some important presented issues, such as the problem of non-deterministic delays. There could be put more effort on explaining the solution of the team's problems since it can help other teams that might have the same issue. Overall, the didactic intent is clear throughout the paper.

Is there sufficient detail provided to reproduce the results / implement the algorithms?

Regarding the previous TDP, yes. The paper focuses on an overview of the team's software architecture and explanation of their project decisions rather than of the algorithms solely, the electronic is also presented with full details with images and description of schematics and layout.

Did you notice any errors?

Apart from some minor punctuation errors, confusing sentences (minor grammar issues) and use of the first person in many sentences, I couldn't spot any conceptual errors, which are more relevant.

What are the major contributions of the paper to the SSL community?

The well presented introduction of a hybrid approach for solving the robots' movement control issue, which is the most common bottleneck problem for new teams.

Do you find the proposed work innovative?

Yes. The use of multiple known algorithms for solving one particular problem, such as using both PID and Fuzzy controllers for controlling the robots' speeds, as well as the software design solution for the implementations of these algorithms. Especially the use of fuzzy logic control system.

Is the overlap in content between this TDP and the team's last TDP, if one exists, major, moderate or minor?

Minor, only in some parts that introducing the project.

#6 Updated by Gustavo Claudio Karl Couto about 3 years ago

  • Status changed from Em andamento to Feedback

#7 Updated by Gustavo Claudio Karl Couto about 3 years ago

  • Status changed from Feedback to Fechada

Also available in: Atom PDF

Go to top
Add picture from clipboard (Maximum size: 500 MB)