Nearly Officially Official: cRIO Control System To Be Reused

[Billfred]

I didn't see a thread on the matter, so I figured this was worth starting one.

A quote from Bill Miller, FRC Director, on his blog (http://frcdirector.blogspot.com/2008/09/more-information-on-new-control-system.html):

FRC has decided to make parts of the New Control System reusable. That's right. If all goes well, teams will be able to reuse the cRIO, the modules, the bumpers, the digital side car, the power distribution board, the drivers station and a number of other items. We hope to keep costs down and reduce the impact manufacturing, shipping and scrapping these items has on our environment. With more than 1700 teams expected to participate this year, we can make a big difference with this small change in policy.Interesting questions are raised in the comments of the aforementioned post; only time will tell how they are answered.

[Madison]

I didn't see a thread on the matter, so I figured this was worth starting one.

A quote from Bill Miller, FRC Director, on his blog (http://frcdirector.blogspot.com/2008/09/more-information-on-new-control-system.html):

Interesting questions are raised in the comments of the aforementioned post; only time will tell how they are answered.


It's good to see that this issue is going to get a little bit of traction. I've been curious about how reusing the control system will affect entry fees since it was announced.

It's also interesting to see how FIRST is trying spin this positively as, unless entry fees are drastically reduced, I don't see how this is good for many, many teams. Sure, we won't have to buy new Victors each year or similar, but that expense was far, far lesser than that of an entirely new control system.

[EricVanWyk]

I came from a "rich" team and then mentored a "poor" team. As a rich team, it was really nice to have all sorts of old robots kicking around. We used them for demos, training, you name it. As a poor team, we really could have better used the money elsewhere.

I hope what this means is that poor teams no longer have to shell out the cash for a system they already have. This could help with the retention problem.

On the other hand, I also hope there is a way for rich teams to buy extras. I'd like it even more if those purchases helped to subsidize the less fortunate teams.

[artdutra04]

So much for keeping old robots operational for demos and presentations about FIRST in the community, teaching new students about different types of manipulators and drive trains on operational old robots, and having a second robot around for driver practice and programming. :-/

So exactly how is only giving teams a single control system good again?

[waialua359]

I have some issues in terms of not being able to receive a new RC and OI the following season.
With all of the hard work and efforts that go into creating a robot, stripping parts off of it for a newer robot seems like a waste of the efforts put into the stripped robot.
Every school has their own uses/non-use of their older robots once the current seasons are over. We certainly use ours for a variety of fundraising/public events and for robot driver training. As pointed out earlier, I hope that if this becomes standard practice, that registration fees would be adjusted accordingly, to give teams an option to obtain a "spare" one for the current season. This would make more sense and gives teams the flexibility to save on cost if they choose to reuse their old control system.
I highly doubt it as we all know that many of the parts are either donated or subsidized by donors. I wonder just how much these a la carte prices will be.
I realize that cost is a major issue for this whole situation, but I think its a step backwards from the progress made by teams who now are able to incorporate prototyping, driver training, and other creative ideas in their program when it comes to having a new control system every year in the kit.

[Cory]

I fail to see any possible way this is a good thing.

Does anyone think we will see reduced entry fees from this? No, we will see the same entry fee as always, and us not receiving a new system every year will allow FIRST to subsidize the vastly increased cost of the cRIO relative to the IFI system. In the end we pay the same as we did for the IFI system, but get less.

So much for all the teams who like to have multiple operational robots (or make practice robots).

Pretty poor attempt at a spin job, if you ask me.

[Karthik]

So much for keeping old robots operational for demos and presentations about FIRST in the community, teaching new students about different types of manipulators and drive trains on operational old robots, and having a second robot around for driver practice and programming. :-/

So exactly how is only giving teams a single control system good again?

Realistically there are many teams who do none of the types of things that you describe. To me it makes the most sense to offer two registration costs for 2010 and beyond. A full $6000 for those teams who want to receive a new controller for the season, and a reduced rate in the $3000-$3500 ballpark for those teams who are fine with re-using their old cRIO and associated parts. This would provide an affordable avenue for those teams who are struggling to make ends meet year after year.

Of course if they're going to charge $6000 and not give teams a control system, we would have a very different story on our hands. I'm not sure how it would be possible to justify keeping costs the same while providing teams with a significantly diminished KOP.

[EricVanWyk]

Does anyone think we will see reduced entry fees from this? No, we will see the same entry fee as always, and us not receiving a new system every year will allow FIRST to subsidize the vastly increased cost of the cRIO relative to the IFI system. In the end we pay the same as we did for the IFI system, but get less.

We do not yet know what will happen with the pricing structure. Assuming the worst and passing it as fact is inappropriate and not helpful.

[AdamHeard]

We do not yet know what will happen with the pricing structure. Assuming the worst and passing it as fact is inappropriate and not helpful.

Reread Cory's post, he was not passing off anything as fact.

If all goes well, teams will be able to reuse the cRIO, the modules, the bumpers, the digital side car, the power distribution board, the drivers station and a number of other items.

If all goes well? This is clearly PR BS. How could they even possibly make a system that isn't reusable? And as far as I remember, the IFI system was always "reusable", it'd be almost impossible for it to not be.

The sugarcoating and PR BS really ruin Bill's place for me. At first, I had hopes it would be a place where FIRST might actually communicate to teams without BS, and maybe possibly listen. This is clearly not the case, it's just a new face.

If someone offered me a brand new Porsche at the expense of amputating my legs, I'd decline.

[waialua359]

Cory's hit it on the nail.
The cost of having the new cRIO system is probably a substantial amount more and this would be FIRST's attempt to keep the registration costs to, my guess, about the same. It was clearly made public that the cRIO system would be quite expensive, but the subsidized costs were still to be determined.
As justified as this may be, the harsh reality is that most teams struggle to meet the current costs and now have this additional hurdle to overcome if they want to improve and expand their programs.
With the way our world/US economies are, its not going to help teams this year also.

[Cory]

For anyone who didn't navigate through to the linked page, here are the comments on the page, all of which are very relevant to the discussion at hand. We should all be very interested in FIRST's response to them.

Greg Needel said...

"We hope to keep costs down and reduce the impact manufacturing, shipping and scrapping these items has on our environment."


Does this mean that we are going to see reduced kit costs passed along to the teams in future years? Also what will the price be for extra control systems for teams that wish to buy them to avoid dismantling old robots every year. What will the policy be in regards to fixing control systems that break; similar to the $100 cost to fix the old one from IFI?

September 19, 2008 6:37 AM
William "Billfred" Leverette said...

If I recall my FRC history, it looks like we're gonna party like it's 1999.

Reusing components on this scale conflicts with the mantra a lot of teams share with rookies: never take apart a robot. On my team, we draw the line at modifying old robots' mechanisms to make them better (or, more commonly, work in the first place). I could see it making sense if the other option was to raise entry fees in the present economy, but I still find myself less than enthused by this announcement.

September 19, 2008 9:26 AM
Greg Marra said...

How will teams demonstrate old robots if they have to cannibalize them year to year? Given that the cRio and other components are being heavily subsidized to FIRST teams, how much will purchasing additional parts of the control system cost?

What happens if my cRio breaks in year two? Are all of the new control system components covered by a lifetime warranty?

[SamC]

[We hope to]...reduce the impact manufacturing, shipping and scrapping these items has on our environment.
save the environment one control system at a time! :)

Can't hurt to try I guess...

[DonRotolo]

On the other hand, I also hope there is a way for rich teams to buy extras. I'd like it even more if those purchases helped to subsidize the less fortunate teams.
A very noble thought with which I agree. We all want everyone to be able to participate.
So exactly how is only giving teams a single control system good again?Perhaps it saves money on entry fees?
Does anyone think we will see reduced entry fees from this? No, we will see the same entry fee as always, and us not receiving a new system every year will allow FIRST to subsidize the vastly increased cost of the cRIO relative to the IFI system. In the end we pay the same as we did for the IFI system, but get less.
I disagree, I think a two-tiered cost structure is inevitable. However, neither of us should be speculating, especially highly negative speculation.

Don

[Richard Wallace]

... Of course if they're going to charge $6000 and not give teams a control system, we would have a very different story on our hands. I'm not sure how it would be possible to justify keeping costs the same while providing teams with a significantly diminished KOP.... What happens if my cRio breaks in year two? Are all of the new control system components covered by a lifetime warranty?Perhaps FIRST (and the supplier) intend to cover the cost of warranting control system components for multi-season use in FRC by charging all teams the same entry fees, whether veterans or rookies?

It's moot this year because all teams will be controls system rookies. We all have a season to figure out how this should work.

Since my daughter will have to live with the mess I leave behind on earth, I support re-use of things that can be built to last. The cRio seems to fit that description from what I've seen so far, but much more experience is needed.

[ATannahill]

what i see is that if a team wants to keep it for their old robots it does not hurt the environment, if we threw it on the ground that would be different.

[Nate Smith]

If all goes well? This is clearly PR BS. How could they even possibly make a system that isn't reusable? And as far as I remember, the IFI system was always "reusable", it'd be almost impossible for it to not be.
Looking at this page (http://www.ifirobotics.com/first-legacy.shtml), and going somewhat off of my memory, it looks like there were three generations of the IFI controllers, each non-compatible with the previous one. And something that has to be remembered is that FIRST is not designing these controllers in-house, but rather someone(read: NI) is taking existing hardware, and customizing it to some degree for FIRST to use. Because of this, FIRST may have little to no say in some aspects of the design that would warrant a new system in the event of a change to the system's design. After all, not everything can be handled in software...

The sugarcoating and PR BS really ruin Bill's place for me. At first, I had hopes it would be a place where FIRST might actually communicate to teams without BS, and maybe possibly listen. This is clearly not the case, it's just a new face.

Ignoring my position for a moment, I would have to disagree with you on this. I think the important thing to keep in mind in this case is who is the "new face" who is communicating this information. Bill is the Program Director for the entire FRC program. For his own sanity, I can almost guarantee that he does not follow every minute detail of every part of the program. I'm pretty sure that because of his position, he is involved with the implemention of the new control system on only a basic level, leaving the Engineering group, the project team at NI, and everyone else involved with the '09 controls to work out the details. One of those details may end up being that future component X will not be compatible with the generation of cRIO teams will be getting for '09. In the context of the most recent blog post, I would say that
"if all goes well" should be translated as, "this is our plan now, but changes we make 2,5,or 10 years down the road may require us to change our plan."

Now, I have not talked to anyone at FIRST about the new system, nor have I had the opportunity to see the system first hand to know what it's limitations might be that would prevent reuse from one year to another. But we all have to remember that the system is still "young," and we may find out down the road that our best intentions in its design for whatever purpose(reuse, flexibility of design, etc, etc.) may not work out long term.

[neoshaakti]

Wouldn't it be possible for teams to reuse older controllers sitting around for demonstrations? I mean, it might be a little more work but it can serve as a fun off-season project.

Isn't NI donating the cRio to FIRST teams anyways? I dont know if I have my facts straight there, so if I don't, I apologize.

[Cory]

Isn't NI donating the cRio to FIRST teams anyways? I dont know if I have my facts straight there, so if I don't, I apologize.

No, most definitely not.

[R.C.]

I was just pondering on this fact since I saw the post go up. The crio will probably sell around $4000 at the MOST. I don't know the pricing, just throwing a number out there. It should be that if your team wants to fundraise extra hard or they have a supply of money, buy an extra set of controllers from year to year. We fundraised an extra $6,000 seperate from the our $40,000 budget in order to buy broaches and a really nice toolbox along with CNC tooling. So my main point is that teams should fundraise more to keep their robots going. I love our 08 robot more than the 07 because their so no maintainence on the 08. It works at any time of day and it doesn't have severe problems. And I do agree with Cory about IFI, they are solid and I prefer to use stuff that works. So guys, rememember that anything made can be bought but it might cost ya.

[dtengineering]

Having competed for five seasons now, I have to say that I was pretty comfortable with the way things were going with the IFI controller, and getting a new control system every year. So part of me is coming from the "if it aint' broke, don't fix it camp" and is saying, "Why change?"

On the other hand, I do know that sometimes it is precisely when things are going well and systems are established that it is time to change. "If you aren't moving, you aren't moving forward." after all.

So, yeah, its going to be different... but I'm not so sure it's going to be bad. I suspect if we need to keep a cRio robot running we'll just pull out the cRio and plug in an IFI system.

Jason

[R.C.]

So, yeah, its going to be different... but I'm not so sure it's going to be bad. I suspect if we need to keep a cRio robot running we'll just pull out the cRio and plug in an IFI system.

Jason

I agreee

[Leav]

Re: putting in an IFI controller when you need the NI.

What about Rookie teams?
They won't have any demo bots left over from 2008!

they will only have the 2009 robot, no spare control system, and will have to cannibalize the 2009 robot for the sake of the 2010 one.

this means that for teams starting in 2009 onwards, they will only ever have one working robot at a time, while gathering a growing pile of robot shells.

I don't like this idea one bit, not even if there are two registration fees (with cRio and without).

-Leav

[Greg Marra]

I don't like this idea one bit, not even if there are two registration fees (with cRio and without).

Really? Why not even then?

[thefro526]

My teacher and I were talking about this the other day and he thought and I thought it would be a good idea if FIRST were to charge one registration/KOP fee for when you want a new OI and another if you wish to reuse your old one. IE, check box a box on the application if you want a new CRIO and it adds XXXX to your application fee if your team has received one the previous year.

[EricH]

As a note, I have seen NOTHING saying that the control system won't be available for teams to purchase. What's that have to do with this discussion? Well, if you are able to purchase a controller, without the KOP tagging along, then it just might be that you can get a second one and rotate. Or, you can get a spare.

Then again, the dual-price registration works too. You just have to keep track of a) which teams are rookies and b) which teams want a second (third, fourth, fifth) controller, which can easily be done by sending them as soon as the team pays up, as is being done this year.

[Greg McKaskle]

A portion of this discussion brought up whether NI was donating the cRIOs to teams.

The press release from April deals with that aspect of the discussion. The complete post is at --http://digital.ni.com/worldwide/bwcontent.nsf/websearch/f70c10117567bbf18625742b00737df5

The third paragraph --

NI is granting a multimillion dollar in-kind donation over the next five years to FIRST to provide the CompactRIO system to participating teams. Several key technology suppliers have collaborated with NI to provide in-kind donations of components required to build the CompactRIO control system. These industry-leading technology companies include Altera, Analog Devices, Boston Engineering, ChipX, Dove Electronics, Freescale, MSI, Texas Instruments, TTI, Westak, Wind River, Worcester Polytechnic Institute and Xilinx. Their support is helping NI to supply a leading-edge, highly sophisticated embedded platform equivalent to the most advanced industrial systems.

An in-kind donations is not cash, more like coupons, and it isn't just NI, but many other companies donations that are allowing this to take place.

Concerning reuse, the cRIO connectors are quite different from the friction fit of the previous system. The chassis is held by at most two fasteners, and the modules are clipped in. Disconnecting the chassis and leaving the modules attached to the robot is very quick. The next layer of connects, on the modules, are mostly D-sub based, and also quick to reconnect. Over the coming months, I assume many teams will come up with strategies for quickly putting the computing "engine" back into the robot with little to no rewiring. A backup of code images to install over enet is another important piece needed to put a robot into a different robot.

Anyway, I'm not trying to lobby one way or the other about the reuse. I'm pointing out that the cRIO mechanical design does make reuse much easier to accomplish, though.

Greg McKaskle

[Kevin Sevcik]

What distresses me most about moving to the cRIO and not recieving a new system every year is the sheer amount of abuse teams often put their control systems through. Yes, I know, 4 foot drops onto concrete and all that jazz. I realized it's a hardened industrial controller meant to stand up to some pretty harsh environments. But I don't think it's actually design to withstand people intentionally trying to damage it, as so often happens with our rookies.

I'm seriously doubting that the cRIO is going to fair any better than the IFI controller did if a robot runs away at full speed with a tether cord attached to it. Nor do I think it will react well to metal shavings inside the case when the mechanical team is doing something while the cRIO isn't properly sealed. I can think of a dozen ways for the thing to get damaged, and extending its service life over several years isn't going to help. As for all the sidecars and bumpers and such.... Well I think their names were aptly chosen. So while it's a good policy to not trash things that don't need to be, things get trashed quite often in our competitions. Our robots are typically designed for ridiculousy short service lives and then horribly abused during said life. A semi-inexpensive controller that's replaceable seems to fit right in. If anyone in the thread competes in BEST, they already know the beating high school students can put on electronics reusing them year after year.

[Libby K]

I'm choosing not to state any opinion on this.
Why? Because I refuse to form an opinion before I know all the facts and I've heard them from FIRST.

Seriously, y'all. I loved IFI too, and I'm going to miss the system- it was truly fantastic. But this doesn't mean everything FIRST does from here on out is wrong, "BS", or that FIRST doesn't listen to teams. Yes, they have their faults; there are a lot of changes going on, and I'm sure they're hard to deal with from an HQ level just like they are for us here on teams and in the community.

What's with all the negativity? I'm becoming really disappointed in the ChiefDelphi community. Why is it impossible for us to see what happens and try to enjoy the season ahead without freaking out about the price for registration in 2010?

I, for one, am fully committed to not judge ANYTHING about the upcoming season until I've experienced it firsthand. I want to have fun my senior year, and that's what's going to matter to me. If I work with the new system, and I don't like it, O.K. So I don't like it, but that's what we have to work with. If I work with it and I end up liking it, that's great too. I want to go to a Michigan event to see the competition for myself- then I'll form my opinion. I'm not going to figure it out now. I hope more people have this attitude, but I'm certainly not seeing it in any of the discussions I've read so far.

It's life. Get over it, and stop whining until you actually know there's something to whine about.

That's my two cents, my opinion, take it as you wish. It's not meant to offend anyone, and if it does I'm truly sorry.
I wish I didn't have to apologize for stating my opinion on CD, but that's unfortunately what this forum is turning into.

[Billfred]

I'm choosing not to state any opinion on this.
Why? Because I refuse to form an opinion before I know all the facts and I've heard them from FIRST.

...

It's life. Get over it, and stop whining until you actually know there's something to whine about.
Coming from the background most of us have (some number of years--five in my case--of receiving a new IFI control system each season), I'd deem the announcement* of no plan to continue the practice of receiving a new control system something to at least grumble about. It's a change, and changes tend to induce grumbles/whining/outrage for better or worse.

*I'm considering a blog by the FRC Director linked to from usfirst.org with no disclaimer an official channel of communication from FIRST.

That said, Libby has a point--keeping an open mind is important. Greg raises the point that a controller transplant might not be as painful as we expect from our past experiences with the IFI system. The beta test teams may be able to expand on that, and I'm sure that FIRST is looking to make sure that switching doesn't involve an expletive-laden Saturday of work. We'll see in 106 days. In the meantime, I'm not sweating it. I'm sure everyone has plenty of other things to worry about as well.

[Akash Rastogi]

So, yeah, its going to be different... but I'm not so sure it's going to be bad. I suspect if we need to keep a cRio robot running we'll just pull out the cRio and plug in an IFI system.

Jason

Def. agree. I don't see this as a bad thing except we won't get new toys to run our classes every year :p

[Leav]

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=766307&postcount=23

This is why I don't like this idea (no new controller) even if there is a two tier paying system:

basically it's a pretty silly reason, which might even be stupid...

let the difference between the entry fees be marked as X...

A team needs much more than X each season and from my experience the difference between $10,000 and $(10,000+X) isn't that much when you are fund raising.

so basically it boils down to this:
"rich" teams will always get a new controller
"poor" teams will have a rough time raising money and will choose to not buy a new control system, putting them at a disadvantage
the gap grows with time since not having a controller affects your performance which in most cases affects your fund raising ability (sad, but true).
from two tier paying system the gap widens into a two tier league where some teams do not even consider winning the regional an option.


don't judge this on the conclusion about the "two tier league", it's just the apocalyptic scenario...

in summary, choice is normally good, but in this case will leave "poor" teams much much more behind.

I think it is so important that teams must even be forced to buy a new controller (kind of like eating your vegetables.... you don't like it now, but someone who knows better is forcing you and in the long run you agree)

does that make any sense?

What do you think about this?

-Leav

[skimoose]

Concerning reuse, the cRIO connectors are quite different from the friction fit of the previous system. The chassis is held by at most two fasteners, and the modules are clipped in. Disconnecting the chassis and leaving the modules attached to the robot is very quick. The next layer of connects, on the modules, are mostly D-sub based, and also quick to reconnect. Over the coming months, I assume many teams will come up with strategies for quickly putting the computing "engine" back into the robot with little to no rewiring. A backup of code images to install over enet is another important piece needed to put a robot into a different robot.

Greg McKaskle

First, can we safely assume that teams will receive additional I/O modules in the KOP each year? Or will we need to purchase additional modules just to keep robots in a relatively usable state?

I don't think anyone is questioning whether the cRio can easily be swapped into and out of robots. The issue being stated is that with only one controller the scenario you describe here won't work if our current competition robot (with controller) is in a distant corner of the country waiting for a competition. I can't hold a demonstration when the controller is one thousand miles away.

As for the mentors that mentioned pulling old controllers, our old controllers are already installed in older robots. Yes, we can pull one, but if a former-student-turned-engineer showed up thinking about mentoring, how are you going to explain that the robot they helped design, build, drive, and sweat over is an unusable pile of parts because you needed the controller for different robot. It's been hard enough explaining why we had to dismantle several of our early robots because the former school we worked out of wouldn't allow us to store them any longer.

While this may not be a big issue, one that will be is compatibility. Several documents are showing an ethernet camera with the new system. Anyone want to field an easy (simple and low cost) way utilize this feature with an older controller? What other future FIRST developments will cause further compatibility problems when utilizing older controllers with new robots? Do you also want to waste time rebuilding an older OI to use with the new robot?

How many mentors who mentioned using older controllers, have actually taken one of much older basic programmed RC's and put them into a new robot successfully? I know we have those controllers in storage, but they predate me and most of the current mentors on the team. I'm not even sure if we could find the basic IDE and compilers now. Could we get it to work? Yes, if we can find everything, but why should we waste vital mentor man-hours when the robot was functioning just fine with the original controller.

A two tier registration system is acceptable, but once again it opens the divide between the "have" and "have not" teams. The "have" teams can and will buy additional controllers if given the opportunity. Also, what happens if purchasing additional cRio controllers is prohibited or more expensive than current registration fees? Will "have" teams register a new "rookie" team and disband it after one season just to harvest a low cost controller?

I applaud FIRST for trying to find cost savings, but is this really a cost savings to teams?

[Joe Ross]

Concerning reuse, the cRIO connectors are quite different from the friction fit of the previous system. The chassis is held by at most two fasteners, and the modules are clipped in. Disconnecting the chassis and leaving the modules attached to the robot is very quick. The next layer of connects, on the modules, are mostly D-sub based, and also quick to reconnect. Over the coming months, I assume many teams will come up with strategies for quickly putting the computing "engine" back into the robot with little to no rewiring. A backup of code images to install over enet is another important piece needed to put a robot into a different robot.

Anyway, I'm not trying to lobby one way or the other about the reuse. I'm pointing out that the cRIO mechanical design does make reuse much easier to accomplish, though.

Greg McKaskle

Having looked at pictures, I agree that just changing the cRIO and modules are very easy. However, Bill specifically mentioned the power distribution board and digital side car as being reused as well. Those would be considerably harder to remove, as each would have many connections.

[Zflash]

Team 1319 currently has all five of our robots fully assembled. We use them in the community, to teach new students, and for driving practice. We will always have these resources whether or not the new control system is given to us each year. If a rookie team this year does not get a controller thier second year we have an advantage over them both in community outreach and driver training. If FIRST decides not to allow teams to purchase a second controller in 2010 then 2009 rookies will not have a chance to become one of the "have's" they will by default be a have not. If in 2010 and on then they have a choice on what you get in the kit then a rookie has a fighting chance to become a "have". Theoretically a team can get a long with a miniumum of 2 controllers. Although we have been known to show off three robots at a time.

On a side note on the Survey for FIRST they did ask if teams would like to decide what they got in thier kit so that they would not get things that they did not use. Maybe thier plans are already to provide tailored kits to each teams needs.

[ayeckley]

I refuse to form an opinion before I know all the facts

Don't you find that incapacitating? In Real Life, we are forced to form opinions without having "all the facts". That's the nature of Experience and Judgement. If you happen to pursue a career in Engineering, you might be surprised at how often you have to make decisions (based on your opinions) having only limited data. <Insert your own Apollo 13-ish example here>

C'mon FIRST and NI - it's been long enough! Tell us what the bill for this new contraption is going to be.

[Elgin Clock]

The following is just simple case study of pro's & cons of keeping vs getting a new controller every year based on quotes of CD users, mainly because I haven't made a long post in like forever on these boards, & seeing 3 pages of varying opinions on one topic often makes me think too hard until I comment about it here. LOL :yikes:

what i see is that if a team wants to keep it for their old robots it does not hurt the environment, if we threw it on the ground that would be different.

Even though something is not being dumped in a landfill, making more of one thing & using natural resources for the products (re: oils & petroleum for the plastics along with precious metals for the rest of it) still impacts the environment.
Stand: Pro for reusing controllers depending on your true balance of nature & environmentalist stand I guess.

I don't like this idea one bit, not even if there are two registration fees (with cRio and without).

Really? Why not even then?
My teacher and I were talking about this the other day and he thought and I thought it would be a good idea if FIRST were to charge one registration/KOP fee for when you want a new OI and another if you wish to reuse your old one. IE, check box a box on the application if you want a new CRIO and it adds XXXX to your application fee if your team has received one the previous year.

FIRST has always been about giving teams the most fair playing field they can give you & then it's up to you after kickoff. If right from Day 1 of kickoff you have a brand new shiny part while your competitor is using an old (probably competition worthy beat-up component), then your new parts have an advantage over that used part any day. This is not fair at all even with a price decrease of registration. Are you willing to take that gamble to save enough in registration/ kit fees to send one more student to a competition, or pay another team bill that is piling up? That's a harsh reality if that road is taken with this two tier pricing system IF that is implemented as suggested.
Stand:
Pro for reusing controllers for "rich" teams because of the "buy a new one" option.
Con for reusing controller for "poor" teams who have to make that decision & sacrifice the "level playing field" to save a bit of cash.

If anyone in the thread competes in BEST, they already know the beating high school students can put on electronics reusing them year after year.
It seems after the beginning of Build season '08 that FIRST didn't even expect teams to break the Trackballs & that was just a rather simple albeit, fairly expensive ball. In industry these controllers are used every day, this is true, but they aren't mobile in most applications with other robots working along side it trying to ram them.
Point being: You can make the most durable control system in the world, & it could work perfectly everytime mechanically, & also software wise, & never need servicing if left alone to do it's task, but give that system to a bunch of High Schoolers (or to be fair: give that to people in general) with the idea that it's going into a competition, & it's going to take a beating. Guaranteed.
Stand: Con for reusing controller

As for the mentors that mentioned pulling old controllers, our old controllers are already installed in older robots. Yes, we can pull one, but if a former-student-turned-engineer showed up thinking about mentoring, how are you going to explain that the robot they helped design, build, drive, and sweat over is an unusable pile of parts because you needed the controller for different robot. It's been hard enough explaining why we had to dismantle several of our early robots because the former school we worked out of wouldn't allow us to store them any longer.

That is a sad fact & pain felt by more & more teams the longer the competition exists unfortunately.
^That wasn't a stand on this issue, I just sympathize with that one & felt the need to comment on that quote.


Anyways, as we all know there are pros & cons to everything, & I'm sure you, reading this right now, may not really be in tune with everyone else's similar thoughts. Whether you are a team member, mentor, student, parent of a student, FIRST employee, FIRST supplier, sponsor, technical industry professional, or even just someone who may want to start a team & by reading this is on the verge of being scared off of joining FIRST as a rookie because of all the "the sky is falling next year" kind comments in this thread alone - everyone is feeling some kind of stress at this point in time for the upcoming season just because of sooo many changes.

My thoughts while reading this is that every one of you, (in that small & very focused group I listed that doesn't even begin to cover the kinds of people we have participating in this competition) is to chill out, & remember everyone else on that list, & think of them & how equally (or excessively) stressed they are becoming getting ready for 2009 when you start to worry how "crazy" 2009 will be with the addition of a new control system.

Change is coming. And like every other year, something will get unveiled that will lead someone to say "That's it, I'm quitting FIRST for good" but is that really necessary??

Let's not over react about how umm.. interesting this year will be - yet...

Let's stand back in this very defining moment in your FIRST "careers", take a couple of deep breaths (my health news letter says 10 is a good number of deep breaths to take when stressed - LOL) & let's all be able to say 2, 5, or even 10 years down the road from now, "Hey, remember when FIRST changed the controller in 2009 to the "new" way?? I was there. And I survived it, & life went on.. (And the sky actually didn't fall!!!)

Imagine that one for just a minute if you will, then go ahead & add some more 2 cent thoughts. :)
(Because I know this thread will still go on with more thoughts & concerns, & complaints, & suggestions after this post. That is a certainty.)


Oh, & one more comment. The only thing that Bill's blog has done (because some have complained on it's true nature) is shift that nervous, apprehensive, & excited feeling about the coming year (we usually get all at once usually during the "hint" communications in December) from December back a couple of months to September.
I'm still looking forward to 2009, no matter what the subject of the announcements I see here or on Bill's blog are - maybe even more so now than a typical year because of the teasers from his blog postings.
Aren't you? ;)

[GeorgeTheEng]

There's a point that I haven't seen raised in this thread. (or I missed in which case I apologize)

In the last few years we've seen the economy take a significant downturn. (I'm starting to lose count of the banks and mortgage firms needing "bail outs") Costs of most consumer items have gotten higher. (most of us pay double or triple what we did for gas just 2 or 3 years ago) In some sectors, corporate profits have declined. Through all this, FIRST has managed to keep the entry fee/ KOP fee constant. Even while growing and asking suppliers for more and more items.

It is entirely possible that FIRST is being faced with a simple choice... Reuse the control system or raise the KOP fees in 2010 and beyond. If that is the case, then I support reuse. Keep more teams in the game. Let the "rich teams" buy additional controlers. Or maybe get a few teams together to share the cost and have one that can be passed around for demos and such (of course then your electronics need to be designed to be easily accessible and the wiring well documented).

There is always a design to question change and worry about it's implications. Personally I think like would be boring if everything stayed static. Enjoy the change, learn something new, adapt.

[Greg Needel]

There's a point that I haven't seen raised in this thread. (or I missed in which case I apologize)

In the last few years we've seen the economy take a significant downturn. (I'm starting to lose count of the banks and mortgage firms needing "bail outs") Costs of most consumer items have gotten higher. (most of us pay double or triple what we did for gas just 2 or 3 years ago) In some sectors, corporate profits have declined. Through all this, FIRST has managed to keep the entry fee/ KOP fee constant. Even while growing and asking suppliers for more and more items.

It is entirely possible that FIRST is being faced with a simple choice... Reuse the control system or raise the KOP fees in 2010 and beyond. If that is the case, then I support reuse. Keep more teams in the game. Let the "rich teams" buy additional controlers. Or maybe get a few teams together to share the cost and have one that can be passed around for demos and such (of course then your electronics need to be designed to be easily accessible and the wiring well documented).

There is always a design to question change and worry about it's implications. Personally I think like would be boring if everything stayed static. Enjoy the change, learn something new, adapt.


I am aware of the economic situation as well as everyone else is and at this point would be understanding if FIRST had to make these tough choices but the issue I have with that is the fact that they didn't say that. FIRST claims that they are doing it for "environmental" reason not financial ones. That is what caused this uproar in the first place. Yes if faced with the reality of having to re-use the control system teams will adapt but I would want a real justification for the change beyond the facade that first is trying to play off. If it is financial they should say it, if it is because they can't manufacture that many every year they should say it. When will FIRST learn that we all care about this organization and they will gain way more points with the community if they are just upfront with us.


On another note has FIRST announced the registration fees yet this year? Do we know if they are going to go up THIS year?

[Andy Brockway]

On another note has FIRST announced the registration fees yet this year? Do we know if they are going to go up THIS year?

It has not changed except for Michigan.

http://www.usfirst.org/community/frc/content.aspx?id=460

[AdamHeard]

There's a point that I haven't seen raised in this thread. (or I missed in which case I apologize)

In the last few years we've seen the economy take a significant downturn. (I'm starting to lose count of the banks and mortgage firms needing "bail outs") Costs of most consumer items have gotten higher. (most of us pay double or triple what we did for gas just 2 or 3 years ago) In some sectors, corporate profits have declined. Through all this, FIRST has managed to keep the entry fee/ KOP fee constant. Even while growing and asking suppliers for more and more items.

It is entirely possible that FIRST is being faced with a simple choice... Reuse the control system or raise the KOP fees in 2010 and beyond. If that is the case, then I support reuse. Keep more teams in the game. Let the "rich teams" buy additional controlers. Or maybe get a few teams together to share the cost and have one that can be passed around for demos and such (of course then your electronics need to be designed to be easily accessible and the wiring well documented).

There is always a design to question change and worry about it's implications. Personally I think like would be boring if everything stayed static. Enjoy the change, learn something new, adapt.

I don't think the economy has anything to do with it. If it did, FIRST would have been incredibly foolish to switch to a new, substantially more expensive system.

[Leav]

I'm just going to guess that the NI system is sooooooo expensive that they just can't afford to sponsor so many systems each year.
Theyere going to do 1700 the first year, and then only about 200-300 every year after that, which is I guess much more reasonable...

In which case I wish the switch wasn't made in the first place.
(ofcourse there were a 10^(10^10) other considerations.. blah blah blah... :) )

how many teams were really getting limited by the old controller?
I am going to guess around 10, if any at all.

Any way, there is the chance the the NI controller is 90% depleted uranium (which would explain the weight....) and so the enviormental issue is real :P

FIRST, Please don't hurt the teams from economic motives, or for the sake of looking foolish for going back to IFI... Thanks! :)

-Leav

[,4lex S.]

All designers should take this as a challenge,

Why not design all future robots, and reconfigure all past robots to run with an easy install cRio based control board? Sort of like how you can yank a hard drive out of one computer and put it in another without much problem (and have it work). Design solutions should be how we solve this problem (although I wouldn't mind having at least 2 floating around anyways).

[Cory]

All designers should take this as a challenge,

Why not design all future robots, and reconfigure all past robots to run with an easy install cRio based control board? Sort of like how you can yank a hard drive out of one computer and put it in another without much problem (and have it work). Design solutions should be how we solve this problem (although I wouldn't mind having at least 2 floating around anyways).

Because it would be a physical impossibility for us to fit a cRIO in our 2006, 2007, or 2008 robots.

We shouldn't see this as a challenge, we should see this as a step taken backwards, simply for progress' sake, where none was particularly needed.

[waialua359]

I don't think the economy has anything to do with it. If it did, FIRST would have been incredibly foolish to switch to a new, substantially more expensive system.

Unfortunately, the only economic factors that apply is us buying the new system. Hopefully, its status quo or cheaper than before, but I doubt it.:(

[Bob Steele]

What distresses me most about moving to the cRIO and not recieving a new system every year is the sheer amount of abuse teams often put their control systems through. Yes, I know, 4 foot drops onto concrete and all that jazz. I realized it's a hardened industrial controller meant to stand up to some pretty harsh environments. But I don't think it's actually design to withstand people intentionally trying to damage it, as so often happens with our rookies.

I'm seriously doubting that the cRIO is going to fair any better than the IFI controller did if a robot runs away at full speed with a tether cord attached to it. Nor do I think it will react well to metal shavings inside the case when the mechanical team is doing something while the cRIO isn't properly sealed. I can think of a dozen ways for the thing to get damaged, and extending its service life over several years isn't going to help. As for all the sidecars and bumpers and such.... Well I think their names were aptly chosen. So while it's a good policy to not trash things that don't need to be, things get trashed quite often in our competitions. Our robots are typically designed for ridiculousy short service lives and then horribly abused during said life. A semi-inexpensive controller that's replaceable seems to fit right in. If anyone in the thread competes in BEST, they already know the beating high school students can put on electronics reusing them year after year.

I have competed in BEST and those components are NOTHING like the cRIO.
I have seen a working cRIO dropped from a two story building and land and keep working. (as a demonstration). This controller is nothing like anything we have ever used in FIRST before ... or ANY other robotics competition has ever used. It is made to take abuse.

From what I understand if you purchased this control system on the free market you would be paying $8-10,000. NI is giving us the opportunity this coming year of purchasing a second unit for $1000 ...

Our team uses our demo robots also and never takes them apart.
I think there are many ways to skin this cat though... Those teams that have last year's (2008 controller) or previous could probably figure out a way to make it operate an old robot. We might not be able to do autonomous... but we could certainly use it to operate the robot.

Another cheap way to do this would be by using a VEX controller.
A vex controller can pretty easily control most of what any FIRST robot has done for the past 4 years..if not all...

Now, if you build a LABVIEW based robot in 2009 you will have a tougher time retrofitting it to a VEX or previous IFI controller but it might be an interesting engineering assignment for the off season too.

I think that NI and their partners are providing something here that is going to be a critical turning point in FIRST robotics. The possibilities of this controller are incredible. Who knows... it may even make autonomous TOO easy to do... AND we are teaching students to use INDUSTRY STANDARD hardware and software.

This is an incredible opportunity for FIRST teams all over.
Let's wait and see before we start crying about spilled controllers.

This is going to be a great ride this year....

Good luck to everyone...
I hope you are doing your homework!!!

[Cory]

From what I understand if you purchased this control system on the free market you would be paying $8-10,000. NI is giving us the opportunity this coming year of purchasing a second unit for $1000 ...

Bob, do you have a link to where this is stated?

[Dave Flowerday]

AND we are teaching students to use INDUSTRY STANDARD hardware and software.
Are you saying that we weren't using industry standard hardware and software before? I can't believe that anyone would claim, with a straight face, that Labview is more of an industry standard than C.

[Bob Steele]

Are you saying that we weren't using industry standard hardware and software before? I can't believe that anyone would claim, with a straight face, that Labview is more of an industry standard than C.

I am not denying that using C is an industry standard. I do suggest that the hardware we were using was not something that a young engineer is going to run into in the form we were using it. Certainly the limitations of the IFI interface had to be worked around and one could say that this is a good exercise for any student. I don't know anyone that was using the IFI controller in a real application other than perhaps in a Battlebot or other simple robot.

I have seen Labview/cRIO used in a number of aerospace applications here in the Pac North West... I have not, to date, seen it used in a robotics application in person although I have seen it used in robotics applications on the web.

Even though, to this point, no one has been programming the cRIO with C or its variants... I have to believe that the ease we will be able to use C on this piece of hardware will be much greater than with the older microcontrollers.

Cory,
As far as the purchase of another unit. This is information I gleaned from a conversation with our NI rep here in Seattle. I believe it was also discussed in Atlanta. I don't know much more than that at this point. I would certainly suggest that teams squirrel away an extra grand for this purpose.

I certainly don't know whether this will continue into future years or not.
I know that NI and its partners are investing a great deal of money into FIRST and that our rep here in Seattle is very excited about working with FIRST.

[dlavery]

We need to be kind of careful here (and elsewhere) not to let the hyperbole overwhelm the discusion. When extreme statements are made that are unsupported by verifiable fact or sources, or even just completely wrong, all they do is weaken an otherwise cogent argument.

This controller is nothing like anything we have ever used in FIRST before ... or ANY other robotics competition has ever used.
Actually, the cRIO has been used in robotics competitions before, as well as in many other applications. For example, the cRIO was used as the central processing resource by some of the DARPA Grand Challenge teams - and the Grand Challenge certainly qualifies as a robotics competition. Most notably, the Virginia Tech team used the system in "Rocky," their entry in the 2005 competition, and "Victor Tango," their entry in the 2006 competition (which won third place and $500,000).

From what I understand if you purchased this control system on the free market you would be paying $8-10,000. NI is giving us the opportunity this coming year of purchasing a second unit for $1000 ...
Like Cory, I am not sure where these numbers are coming from - either the high or low numbers. They are inconsistent with all the other values I have seen or heard reported. Can you cite a documented source?

Who knows... it may even make autonomous TOO easy to do...
Somehow, I doubt that. :) Making autonomous easier will just mean that FIRST will have to increase the difficulty of the autonomous tasks to maintain the "balance of complexity."
Certainly the limitations of the IFI interface had to be worked around and one could say that this is a good exercise for any student. I don't know anyone that was using the IFI controller in a real application other than perhaps in a Battlebot or other simple robot.
Again, that would not be the case. For example, NASA has used the IFI hardware in the development of several prototype applications. A careful perusal of this Gigapan image (http://www.gigapan.org/viewGigapan.php?id=3094) will reveal one example.

The purpose here is not to throw stones at a particular series of messages. Rather, it is to make the point that unsupported extreme statements and/or overstatement of facts can be damaging to the discussion. They weaken the arguments we are trying to make, and decrease our ability to be effective communicators.

-dave


.

[Richard Wallace]

... NASA has used the IFI hardware in the development of several prototype applications. A careful perusal of this Gigapan image (http://www.gigapan.org/viewGigapan.php?id=3094) will reveal one example.OK, Dave. That thing is just cool.

Care to enlighten us about its purpose? What is a Spidernaut, and what can it do? Clearly its control (or at least the control of two of its legs) is within the capability of an IFI RC.

Is that a wireless AP that I see mounted next to the wheel on the right?

[Elgin Clock]

From what I understand if you purchased this control system on the free market you would be paying $8-10,000. NI is giving us the opportunity this coming year of purchasing a second unit for $1000 ...Like Cory, I am not sure where these numbers are coming from - either the high or low numbers. They are inconsistent with all the other values I have seen or heard reported. Can you cite a documented source?

-dave


.
Since nobody else stepped up to answer that question or query yet, here is a link to a post of mine with a link to a price on NI's website which is a little more realistic than 8-10k or 1k the original poster Dave quoted had written that above response to.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=758323&postcount=34
As far as a discount for FIRST teams, I'm sorry, but I don't see anything official (re: on paper, or announced in an official FIRST newsletter) about that yet, so basically, that means as far as I'm concerned, it's not happening.
(Yet, if ever... - but one can always hope.:))



Oh, btw Dave, where can I get my hands on a Gigapan camera? (I'm only half kidding. lol) :cool:

[dlavery]

OK, Dave. That thing is just cool.

Care to enlighten us about its purpose? What is a Spidernaut, and what can it do? Clearly its control (or at least the control of two of its legs) is within the capability of an IFI RC.

Is that a wireless AP that I see mounted next to the wheel on the right?

Check the Spidernaut web site (http://spidernaut.jsc.nasa.gov/) for some of the details on this project. Yeah, it is kind of cool. :)

-dave


.

[Greg Needel]

Oh, btw Dave, where can I get my hands on a Gigapan camera? (I'm only half kidding. lol) :cool:

off topic, dave I would love the answer to this question. I signed up for the info newsletter on charmedlabs like a year ago and still haven't heard anything. I would suspect that they are not terribly expensive to make and I would buy one.

[AustinSchuh]

off topic, dave I would love the answer to this question. I signed up for the info newsletter on charmedlabs like a year ago and still haven't heard anything. I would suspect that they are not terribly expensive to make and I would buy one.

I was perusing the Charmed Labs website recently (looking for info on the new version of the Qwerk...) and I ran across an announcement that says more info is now available at http://www.gigapansystems.com/ The announcement is still on their homepage.

[Kevin Sevcik]

I have competed in BEST and those components are NOTHING like the cRIO.
I have seen a working cRIO dropped from a two story building and land and keep working. (as a demonstration). This controller is nothing like anything we have ever used in FIRST before ... or ANY other robotics competition has ever used. It is made to take abuse.
Bob,

I realize the cRIO isn't like the BEST components, but you must admit that BEST students and robots are much less capable of inflicting damage than FIRST students and robots. I'm primarily worried about what it's going to be subjected to in the pits when people are working on robots, and what it's going to be subjected to during installation and assembly, as most teams have had to worry about ESD damage to their electronics before. I'm also worried about the various bumpers and sidecars. I doubt they're being built to the same specifications, but it sounds like we're planning on reusing them as well. Finally, the cRIO isn't going to protect people from themselves. Miswiring, misinstalling, and mistreating the connectors are all going to occur and I don't think the lan port on the cRIO is rated for using a CAT6 ethernet cable as a leash for a 150lb runaway robot.

I'm not saying the IFI controller would fare any better, but veteran teams had a fair number of spares hanging about to help themselves and rookies, and replacement units were $450 or so, depending on what you broke. We still don't know the replacement cost of the cRIO or the various other components, but we do know that there will be far fewer spares hanging about than in years past.

[Tom Line]

Bob Steele Wrote: I am not denying that using C is an industry standard. I do suggest that the hardware we were using was not something that a young engineer is going to run into in the form we were using it.

I have seen Labview/cRIO used in a number of aerospace applications here in the Pac North West... I have not, to date, seen it used in a robotics application in person although I have seen it used in robotics applications on the web.

Cory,
As far as the purchase of another unit. This is information I gleaned from a conversation with our NI rep here in Seattle. I believe it was also discussed in Atlanta. I don't know much more than that at this point. I would certainly suggest that teams squirrel away an extra grand for this purpose.

First, I would like to point out that the old IFI system, as built, could be applied as an example to an enormous amount of the equipment in any one of the hundreds of manufacturing plants in the US. Embedded systems with very limited memory are extremely common on shop floors. As is C programming.

Second, my initial opposition to this change was that NI is not a standard in use anywhere. This is their way of trying to become one. The same way that MS subsidized their software in schools, and Apple subsidized their computers in schools. Get to kids early so that they'll continue use down the road.

Finally, I guess the point of this discussion is to let First and NI how we feel. I wonder if they have considered what is going to happen to a low budget team when their one and only C-RIO system fries in the first or second match of a regional. Having more money is always an advantage. Now a critical component of the robot is going to hinge on having extra money to buy a backup.

Perhaps we can make a suggestion that during the rookie year a team be charged an extra $1k or something, and get TWO c-rio's.

[EricH]

Seeing as this has turned into a discussion of spares, etc., I have a suggestion. This is merely a thought exercise; I highly doubt it will happen in practice.

Here is how distribution/spares could work. Every year, the new components for the year (if any) are sent out as soon as possible to fully-paid teams. Rookie teams, of course, get the full system.

Now, every year, there is a "window of opportunity" to get spares at a discount. Between two dates, teams can order extra cRIOs for less. The catch? Each team only gets x discounted cRIOs total. So once they reach that number, they can't get another at the lower cost, unless they can demonstrate that they no longer have one or more for some reason. (N.B. The trouble is figuring out a good way of enforcing the limit.)

Now, what about replacements? Provide proof that a cRIO broke and get a new one. Better yet, provide HOW it broke so that the NI engineers can further idiot-proof the system. (Intentional breaking does not count--full price.) Or, send the unit in for repair/replacement.

And, at any time, any FIRST team can get a new unit, but outside of a) the window and b) broken controllers, they must pay full price.

[Bob Steele]

Since obviously my comments are unsupported. I will not continue making them.

Return to this thread after we get to the competition and we will all see what happens. We will check on prices then too..

My numbers on costs came from an NI rep... and the high end included the entire control system and not just the cRIO. Many of these components are custom for FIRST.

I do have to worry when we look a gift horse in the mouth...

Sometimes I think that the influence the FIRST community has on the industrial control community in general is not quite what we think.

i would like FIRST to become a greater influence... but to think that NI is doing this in order to make a significant gain in the real market is a not realistic.

I am not going to say more... whether you like the change or not... NI is providing equipment because they also believe in FIRST. Not for advertising.

Believe it or not..

R

[waialua359]

Not to steer too off-tangent, but being able to reuse the cRIO is a benefit in terms of, if you buy a spare in 2009 and being able to use it in 2010 and beyond.
We talk so much about spares, yet under the old system, we were not allowed to use a 2006 or 2007 RC this year on our robot. Inspectors looked at the bar code info on the side and told us to remove the RC, borrow a 2008 one from the spare booth, and return it at the end of the competition. I thought that was petty since there was no competitive advantage to having one. Its not like we ran an older version of the software.

[artdutra04]

Sometimes I think that the influence the FIRST community has on the industrial control community in general is not quite what we think.

i would like FIRST to become a greater influence... but to think that NI is doing this in order to make a significant gain in the real market is a not realistic.

I am not going to say more... whether you like the change or not... NI is providing equipment because they also believe in FIRST. Not for advertising.// These are just some casual observations...

I have a hard time believing NI would invest $10 Million dollars in a FRC-specific cRIO just from the goodness of their hearts.

Just as was pointed out above, NI is getting students used to NI hardware and software at a young age. As they get more familiar with it, they will be more likely to use it with future projects in college and beyond - in other words, creating a larger market share for NI.

While NI (and every other FIRST sponsor) may like the goals of FIRST, they all stand to gain financially in the long run from success in FIRST - whether through more available engineers or through larger market share of their components. And that's most likely the only way they can justify spending millions of dollars in donations to their shareholders.

[JaneYoung]

While NI (and every other FIRST sponsor) may like the goals of FIRST, they all stand to gain financially in the long run from success in FIRST - whether through more available engineers or through larger market share of their components. And that's most likely the only way they can justify spending millions of dollars in donations to their shareholders.

That's pretty much how I understand the mission of FIRST regarding developing partnerships with sponsors. It can be a win/win situation for the sponsors and the students whose futures are impacted by the sponsors. The students are also impacted by working with engineers who may be employed by FIRST sponsors or associated with them.

Jane

[GaryVoshol]

One of the biggest reasons any company sponsors FIRST (or similar organizations) is to spur interest in their fields of subject matter. That way they will have people inspired (ooo, there's that word!) to take classes, research and internships in college, and there will be a pool of candidates to hire when jobs are open.

[Greg McKaskle]

Whenever the price of the cRIO comes up, wildly different numbers get tossed around. I'm not trying to defend Mr. Steele or NI sales folks, but shed light on the different numbers given.

To find the upper bound on the price, you visit the NI site and spec out the cRIO and modules. The closest off-shelf unit goes for 3K, modules add to 1.5K, this is street price with no educational discounts or volume discounts. But what about the software? LabVIEW FDS plus Realtime plus Vision is 8.5K. These aren't apples to apples comparisons since the cRIO for FRC is somewhat custom, and technically only part of Vision is being installed, but then add the Control portion of the Control and Simulation module, etc. I'm not going to try and estimate the value of the Wind River Workbench product and VxWorks license, but they are highly valued on the street as well.

To find the lower bound, you assume that software is free, no, its worth fifty cents for the silver disk, right? Gotta love it when your time is so easily discounted. You then look at the cost to build and ship the controllers. In part because of supplier donations, this number is of course well below the street price. I have not seen anything in writing, and I'm not speaking on behalf of FIRST, but in Atlanta, I believe the statement was that the costs for extra units and replacement units would be similar in price to previous years. I have no further details, and no idea if anything has changed.

So, it is very easy to make up big numbers and small numbers, and depending on your accounting system, both are valid. Good thing it is all funny money, eh.

A quick comment about NI's motivations. The leadership of NI has been looking for ways to affect overall interest in science and engineering education for many years. They have been lobbying politicians and beating the drum, and when you do that, pretty soon you bump into FIRST and realize you have very similar goals. Perhaps you should join them instead of trying to replicate their success. NI assisted Tufts and LEGO in producing RoboLab about a decade ago, and has been upping the ante as opportunities arise. This is of course not pure philanthropy since a world where engineering and science are celebrated is a world to look forward to.

Finally, a donation of products to FIRST grants exposure. If the products are lame, then everyone exposed will know just how lame -- not a good investment. If the products rock, ..., so any supplier to FIRST is risking far more than a bit of coin.

Greg McKaskle

[Kevin Sevcik]

As Greg pointed out, the excessively large figure would result from buying everything you needed to use a cRIO like you would with the new control system, assuming no discounts whatsoever. NI heavily discounts software for academic institutions, however. To the tune of 50-75%, so it wouldn't be quite that prohibitively expensive for a team to buy everything, provided they convinced the school district to buy it and the team provided the funds. This also goes to art's comment on NI's motives. They "lose" gobs and gobs of money every year selling software to universities, but I'm certain they pretty easily recoup those costs from convincing less programming savvy mechies and chemies that LabView is the way to go.

[Ellery]

Again, that would not be the case. For example, NASA has used the IFI hardware in the development of several prototype applications. A careful perusal of this Gigapan image (http://www.gigapan.org/viewGigapan.php?id=3094) will reveal one example.

.


Dave,

:yikes: I must say I am jealous of your lab. Mine is so not photogenically interesting. Just a couple of big boxes with paper and Images flying by at 2 mph.

Ellery