jRIO
 

I was wondering... are there any teams using Java that are currently afflicted with the trouble of having to wait for the manufacturing or electrical team to finish with putting on appropriate motors, relays, camera, mounts, etc? Well I have your solution! Hopefully (a common phrase in release stage) I will post up a library to use that allow one to simulate the cRIO and all common hardware including live camera and still image support for public use. I decided that since I am in this waiting stage I might as well show coopertition and gracious professionalism and help out my fellow teammates... I'll put up screenshots soon of jRIO running a version of our current robot code.. what you will see, camera support isn't finished but joysticks, relays, all speedcontrollers, and robot framework is finished. Autonomous, teleop, and disabled modes supported and the cRIO updates at the documented rate of 50hz... anyway... Look for it tonight! (like 2 EST tomorrow lol)

Re: jRIO
 

Here's a poorly captured screenshot... thanks linux...

Re: jRIO
 

If this ends up being less buggy than other solutions (not to mention better supported), this will make me very happy.

Re: jRIO
 

I'd love this too, if you get it up and it works! Looking forward to the release

Re: jRIO
 

We're plagued by this every year. I look forward to trying the simulator.

Re: jRIO
 

I shall be making documentation on how to implement the library for testing code. Remember that this is just to test the expected hardware output, physical resistance due to slope, design, gearboxes, etc. are not taken into account.

Re: jRIO
 

I would also like to note that most of the API of each of the currently included classes are included... It is quite an endeavor and I have been working on it in my spare time for about a week now attempting to preserve the original code design of the FRC java API. If a team needs a certain method to be included or class or something like that, please shoot a message here and I will be more than happy to include it into the project for release. I do plan on keeping this alive for future years :)

Re: jRIO
 

Well.... I'm tired xD so tomorrow, at our meeting I'll work on it and hopefully have the simulator minus camera support by the end of the day. Sorry! (Deadlines... am I right?)

Re: jRIO
 

I haven't seen it but this is a keen application for open source communities like Github. Teams/people could make their own extensions to the codebase and submit them as pull requests to you for integration.

Re: jRIO
 

Okay! I have the solenoid class left to make and then some minor documentation for people's use then I will put the library up for use!... this does not include camera support and unfortunately I did NOT include command based robots in here... yet.. only iterative and simple robot types are supported at the moment.

Re: jRIO
 

Alrightie! I have finished with the library! (excluding camera and command based robot support).. Now all i have to do is right some preliminary documentation..

Re: jRIO
 

Within the next 2 hours I will finally post the Library jar file and documentation on how to use the library, right here! I had work so I didn't have a lot of time to write this documentation but it should suffice.. If you have any questions I will be up working on the next update for the library, Realistic pressure sensing and CAMERA SUPPORT W00T

Re: jRIO
 

Here.... we.... go!

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3mO...owSU5LNU0/edit

just download this zip file and inside is the jRIO.jar file and the documentation in .html and .odt file formats...

(i run linux so i included the odt just in case anyone else would appreciate it)

Re: jRIO
 

I wish that teams that try this out please give some feedback as to some suggestions or changes they would like to see...

What changes are already on their way?

• Command based robot support
• Still image camera support
• Live feed camera support
• Compressor Pressure Emulation

Please inform me of some other things you want!

Re: jRIO
 

Is there any reason this is necessary?
It would be 100X easier without having to do this every time I port my code. I can't think of a good reason not to just use the same package names.