This is the form for team X.
Simulated Hardware
Basic design includes robot base chosen (assuming a
standard robot base was chosen, otherwise items such as the number and
position of drive wheels, number and position of drive motors, and
transmission configuration should be considered); the number, type, and
position of sensors added; and the type of manipulation device used. Note
that the manipulation device could be a standard type (the Pioneer 2
gripper) or a custom device (e.g., a plow made from simple solids).
No response
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Appropriate for implementation:
(How well does the basic design lend itself to
being implemented with the Player and Gazebo software?)
No response
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Appropriate for software development:
(How well does the basic design lend itself to
straightforward software development using a behavior-based approach?)
No response
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Suited to task:
(How well suited is the basic design to the
task the robot is to accomplish?)
No response
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Design Realization:
(How well was the basic design translated into
the configuration files and world models in Player and Gazebo?)
No response
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Overall Score for Simulated Hardware:
(The overall score is not intended to be
a mere average of the above scores. You are encouraged to weight these
factors and others as you choose. If you use factors not considered above,
please comment on them below.)
Comments on Simulated Hardware (at least one):
Software
Basic design includes items such as programming
paradigm chosen (functional, procedural, object-oriented, logic, etc.),
selection of appropriate behaviors, approach to sensor and behavior
division and combination, abstract data structures, etc. It does not
include realization of these design items in code.
No response
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Appropriate for implementation:
(How well does the basic design lend itself to
being implemented in code using the simulation environment that you were
provided?)
No response
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Appropriate for simulated hardware development:
(How well does the basic design lend itself to
straightforward simulated hardware development using Player and Gazebo ?)
No response
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Suited to task:
(How well suited is the basic design to the
task the robot is to accomplish?)
No response
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Design Realization:
(How well was the basic design translated into
code?)
No response
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Overall Score for Software:
(The overall score is not intended to be
a mere average of the above scores. You are encouraged to weight these
factors and others as you choose. If you use factors not considered above,
please comment on them below.)
Comments on Software (at least one):
Integration
No response
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Software and Simulated Hardware Appropriately Matched:
(Did the approach pursued in simulated hardware
match well with the approach pursued in software?)
No response
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Appropriate Testing
(Does the testing seem appropriate?)
No response
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Successful Performance
(How successful is the robot in the arena
provided by the team?)
No response
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Overall Score for Integration:
(The overall score is not intended to be
a mere average of the above scores. You are encouraged to weight these
factors and others as you choose. If you use factors not considered above,
please comment on them below.)
Comments on Integration (at least one):
Documentation
No response
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Simulated Hardware Documentation:
(Was the simulated hardware documentation complete,
well-organized, understandable, etc.?)
No response
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Software Documentation
(Was the software documentation complete,
well-organized, understandable, etc., including comments and formatting of
code?)
No response
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Team Organization Evaluation and Plans Documentation
(Was the team organization evaluation and plans
documentation complete, well-organized, understandable, etc.?)
No response
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Presentation Documentation
(Was the presentation documentation complete,
well-organized, understandable, etc.?)
No response
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Overall Score for Documentation:
(The overall score is not intended to be
a mere average of the above scores. You are encouraged to weight these
factors and others as you choose. If you use factors not considered above,
please comment on them below.)
Comments on Documentation (at least one):