IFI Critique
 

I noticed in another thread that other people and myself were saying what they should do and how they should change the RC and OI. So post any critique or changes you have about the Control system in general, victors, radios, OI/RC, power issues, connections, joysticks.

Re: IFI Critique
 

Higher current ratings on the spikes would be nice, not even much higher. Just enough so you don't have to have a fuse and can just rely on the circuit breaker.

Re: IFI Critique
 

Definitely a new hook up for the joysticks, or an adapter in the kit to convert common joystick types to a gameport connection.

I would like the ability to control the LED outputs from the OI while the OI's LCD display is set to userbyte. We used the userbyte to display our shooter speed on the OI, and ran into a problem that the LEDs on the OI (including the ones you wire up yourself) don't work while the OI display is in userbyte mode.

Re: IFI Critique
 

I assume you mean video game types, because there's no way the OI will ever support USB joysticks. Just too complex. (At least with the current stuff.)

The problem with that is that the user byte is in the same data block as the first 8 LEDs. To fix this, they would have to break backwards compatibility.

Re: IFI Critique
 

I don't really use joysticks so I don't know what current types they come in. If they could make converters to convert any type of easily available joystick to the required hook up for the OI it would be nice.

I wasn't aware that was the problem, I'll keep that in mind next year.

Re: IFI Critique
 

One of my ideas this year (and I really wish I got a chance to talk to someone at IFI personally who would have some swing in this area as far as getting it implemented) was to have the program and tether ports on the RC be board mountable snap on types.

In essence, It would allow the option of a right angle port coming off the side as is coming off the RC (and OI I guess too) now, but also leave an option to have the ports come straight off the board as well. In other words, 90 degrees rotated to where they come off the board now.

This would allow more space to mount other things next to the RC/OI on your robot/controller box and not have to deal with leaving a channel open next to the ports to slide the cables in and out of.

I can sketch up something quick if anyone is interested in the basic concept of what I mean.

I know that where I work, we make surface mount (single) connectors that get soldered on a circuit board, and then another connector snaps on it rather than screws on. It still maintains a tight fit though. I'm thinking this basic use, but in terms of the ports for the cables on the RC/OI.

I forget what the easy snap interfaces are called though (SLB maybe?)
I'll have to check and show an example of what I mean.

Re: IFI Critique
 

Better connectors on the RC would be my number one suggestion. It was a pain to get the serial connection for the camera to stay on the whole match, and it just sucks when the power connectors come unsoldered and I have to open up my RC to solder them back in. Same goes for the victors; sometimes the PWM's just don't fit in and I have to take a knife to the plastic to make room.

It's also silly they haven't switched to USB; my new laptop has no serial port at all and carrying around a dock is cubersome. USB is faster and definitely the way to go.

I think almost everyone would agree that they'd like a way to get more data back to the OI, as well as a less cumbersome method of getting to output (wiring around joystick ports is a pain).

On the software side, the fast loop should be called during the autonomous part of the default code. That's when you need your sensor data most, and the comments around the function indicate that it's always called (we had no rotary encoders in autonomous for a few rounds because of this).

Also in general less clutter in the default code would be nice. Something that follows more of the guidelines of Code Complete with less block comment function headers, a more consistent naming style, etc.

Overall, I like most of IFI's products, they just have some serious quality issues. It's gotten better (I've had a lot more problems with the connectors on old RC's), but still, just a general look at the quality of their products and where improvements could be made would be a good call for IFI.

Re: IFI Critique
 

I would like to see on the RC:

1: A PC/104 feedthrough connector (to be able to add external functionality)
2: The ability to pass video to the OI (Most robots that have autonomy do not work within visual range of their operator)
3: A USB port(s) instead of the Joystick ports.

With the above you could customize the RC for whatever task is at hand.

Re: IFI Critique
 

Every wireless video system I've seen is 2.4GHz or better. I'm certain our wireless modems don't have near the bandwidth to send video. So that would require a major reworking of the entire RF system. You're better just getting a premade wireless video system and operating it independent of the IFI system.

Re: IFI Critique
 

And as much as you all wish for it, USB will not appear on the OI for at least many years.

It's hard to make a USB device. It's even harder to make a USB host (as the OI would have to be).

On top of it, there is no standard for USB joysticks like there is for drives and keyboards. So, in order for it to work, you would have to be able to load the Windows drivers (that ship with every joystick) on to the OI. This would entail:

• Converting the OI from a PIC processor to an x86 processor
• Have the OI run some version of Windows
• Add a CD drive and a floppy to the OI (or connectors for one)
• Be able to connect a monitor to the OI so you can figure out why it isn't working
• Mouse and keyboard so you can make it work
• All this while keeping it relatively inexpensive.

Bottom line: USB joysticks are not going to happen before any of you graduate.

Re: IFI Critique
 

Yes there is, the standard is called Human Interface Device and there are many USB joysticks which are "HID-compliant".

Re: IFI Critique
 

Is there an alternative to USB joysticks besides the hide to find gameport ones? Or are they equally hard to find?

Re: IFI Critique
 

what if they let us hook up a laptop to the oi not just as a dashboard bu as input as well. then connect the usb joystick to the laptop. if they did that u could use a program to communicate to the oi throught usb (having the oi be the client) and forwarding the data from the joystick.

Re: IFI Critique
 

If they allowed this, then there would be some teams exploiting this to gain an advantage to use extra software to perform extremely complex functions.

Re: IFI Critique
 

... and just out of curiosity, how much might you be willing to wager on this very declarative statement?

-dave

Re: IFI Critique
 

Ok. So you don't have to load drivers.

You still have to make a USB host device and support all the associated specifications.

Also, how do you map the input and output on an HID device to IFI's axis/buttons? Looking at http://www.usb.org/developers/devclass_docs/Hut1_12.pdf, there's a huge number of possibilities.

If IFI did implement this, but just for "joystick", "gamepad", and "multi-axis controller". Teams would then complain of the inability to use mice, keyboards/keypads, and tablet inputs. (Imagine, a touch pad which has a diagram of the field on it. Touch it, and the robot goes to the spot you hit.)

The options are:

1. Support limited devices. See teams' disappointment when they find that ____ doesn't work with the OI. Recieve more complaints
2. Support all devices. Increase complexity of the system exponentially. Increase time to develop. Increase cost of production. Increase chances of something going wrong.

I think that allowing adaptors for non-gameport controllers (PS, PS2, Sega Dreamcast, N64, etc.) is much more probable. The ability to implement this is dependent on primarily one thing: the power source for such a device. IFI may not need to change anything; FIRST just needs to change its rules.

BTW, that document is not the HID specification. It describes some of the specifics of the specification.

Re: IFI Critique
 

Well, it was primarily based on the assumption that no specification existed. In which case, the time it would take for such a spec to become widespread would likely exceed the 4 years it takes most people to get through high school.

In light of the other post, if IFI were to begin today on USB HID support, I would say that it would take them about 2 years to develop basic HID support, assuming that the current processor(s) and libraries could handle the extra load.

If they used another device and/or chip for actual USB "hosting", they may be able to develop basic support before January.

If it turns out that they have to radically change the processor, the bandwidth, or anything else in the control system to support it, I would say that the 2 years is a minimum. 3 or 4 is more likely, IMHO.

That is all based on what came in last year's kit and my knowledge of it. It is possible that the PIC18F8722 (or even the whole PIC18 line) is not capable of handling USB, or only very poorly. (This is all on the USB host end, not the device end.)

If they were to fully support the USB HID spec in its entirety, I would not be surprised to see a change of the control system comparable to the 2004 switch to PICs.

Disclaimer: I am only an 18-year-old software guy. I have no experience in hardware like this, so the numbers above are, at best, guesses. Use this information at your own risk.

Re: IFI Critique
 

I think by all means that we should stick to analog inputs and not support usb. They provide us with usable joysticks every year, so no team will be left out, but if your needs are more then that, then start figuring out how the device you want to use works, and how to interface it to your OI. Is if really going to help kids learn anything if all they have to do is plug in a new joystick to expand their capabilities?
If FIRST relaxed the rules about what you have supplying the analog signal into the OI somewhat, I know for sure I could do much more with the analog inputs then with a USB port.

Re: IFI Critique
 

I know many who'd disagree... Anyway, the thing I like about analog sticks is they're so simple, a team can quite realistically and easily build their own interface devices. A connector, some wire, some stuff from Radioshack, a soldering iron, that's all you need. I don't know much about making USB devices, but it seems like it'd be hard for them to be simpler.

Re: IFI Critique
 

Like with joysticks, USB is harder to implement. Also keep in mind that the program port serves as a second serial port (in addition to the TTL serial port) besides being used for program transfer. The programs don't get that big, and it wouldn't be worth the better speed for the problems it could cause. A better solution to having no serial port on a laptop would be a converter.

Hm, could next year's game object be a USB cable?

Re: IFI Critique
 

Implementing a USB programming port is one thing, implementing a USB port with a universal joystick software driver is a big deal. A very basic driver stripped down may fit on a pic, but you may not like the feel and response of a modern PC joystick with out the bells and whistle driver. CH makes a line of industrial joysticks. They are available with 100k pots. I have no idea of the cost. I've used a portable indoor crane that used them for the control and was very impressed with the feel and response.

Re: IFI Critique
 

USB Host isn't exactly a walk in the park, but its certainly not outside the reach of FIRST within the next 3 years. I bet that there are several teams, who have mentors with the knowledge and students with the drive, that if they were to take a season off FIRST and put in as much effort and resources into developing this system as they do into building a robot, would be able to finish it in 6 weeks. It is a tough task - but a: I don't see any reason why they should be limited to an 8-bit PIC, there are hundreds of other embedded processors out there (the only thing going between the OI and the RC is serial data, it doesn't matter what source it comes from), and b: theres enough knowledge out there to get it done. The RC itself is relativity simple as far as embedded systems go - its just two micro-controllers with their IO brought out to headers, with a couple serial busses brought out to the right ports and some buffers to enable and disable the relay outputs. Thats overly simplistic view - but the point is that it is no where near the extent of what you can get done with an embedded system.

All they have to do is give us 5 joysticks they support that won't go OBS/EOL too soon - which would be an improvement over the generally commercially available game-port joysticks right now.

Edit: Oh yah - as far as the original topic - like others said, USB Host on the OI would be nice, as would some high speed serial BUS (not single port) like I2C, SPI, etc - which should be possible as the PIC on last year's RC has a 2nd I2C port, but I think it goes to one of the relay ports, which AFAIK goes through a buffer which is enabled and disabled by the master controller. I2C could always be implemented in software, but letting the hardware handle the buffering and bus arbitration would make it easier.

Re: IFI Critique
 

Just to throw this out there...

Maybe you guys should take your ideas and apply them to college? You see, you are a sucess in my eye. You are interested in technology and you want to learn more... you should sponsor a team next year. As a part of people in your school, you should g0 far.

As a "teacher/engineer" I need elimentary topics to teach my students.

Re: IFI Critique
 

John,

Are you referring to the patents that the various gamepad makers have on their connectors?

I am not sure it is true, but I have heard that basically that some sort of intellectual property concerns prevent un-approved manufacturers from making a connector that plugs into a standard Nintento gamepad.

If this is the case, I am almost certain that some sort of home brew solution could be made where teams cut off proprietary connector A and plumb in commercially available connector B.

Alternatively, there are Linix boxes that sell for much less than an OI that have USB ports capable of reading a USB gamepad. I say not that we should have a Linix based OI but that there are open source drivers out there in the wild. I think that a determined effort could definitely implement a method to read a gameport from an OI.

There are other methods and hacks possible to get a gamepad controller to the FIRST masses as well (look at these pictures) but, as long as IFI is the only electronics supplier allowed under FIRST rules, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Joe J.

Re: IFI Critique
 

So we can expect folks to have to deal with joining wires from 4 different 15 pin D-sub connectors in order to gain access to all the pins for various switches & pots & LEDs as they build their operator interaface but we can't expect them to solder 4 wires from a gamepad?

I don't want to pick a fight, but I am not convinced.

People have been asking for a way to drive their robots via a gamepad type controller for many many years.

It seems to me that we don't have an easy way to do a FIRST legal gamepad type controller because it has not been a priority for either IFI or for Manchester.

Joe J.

Re: IFI Critique
 

Following up the above:

Digging around on the web it took me only a few minutes to find this chip:
CY7C67300 a.k.a. EZ-host. It cost under $7 from Digikey and it can be configured to read USB gamepad controls like the Logitech Dual Action gamepad and report that data to one of the PICs that IFI loves (via a number of protocols easily implemented, even on a PIC).

Read this paper if you have any doubt about the feasibilty of this chip to be able to implement a 4 gamepad interface for an embedded controller like that used on the OI. It can be done. It has not been done.

Again, I repeat my contention that the only reason we don't have a gamepad interface on the OI is that there has not the commitment to implementing it.

Joe J.

Re: IFI Critique
 

Joe and John both have valid points. The IFI system is showing it's age. There are better ways to do the whole system. However there is a tremendous amount of work to change and legal issues that come about when a product is sold as opposed to a hobbyist kludge. I have a Pelican wireless PS2 controller running a Basic programmed pic 18 with a servo chip for my VEX bot and it's better than the VEX system. But, it's not an off the self plug and play system. Yes I would like a fancy robot controller with all the bells and whistles. Then again I look back to the 2006 year and I'm not as enthusiastic. The only thing that allowed our team to survive this year was the KOP trans and frame and easy C. If things were any more complicated, we would have failed. I mean flat out not have been able to ship. The current stuff has matured into a base system that allows low resource teams to get some thing that moves to the competition no matter how resource strapped they are. What ever changes do happen in the future please remember that these are high school students and not all team members are AP fast track kids. There has to be a base level system that everyone can do, but also allows advanced use. The one thing I really liked from IFI was the 2005 breaker board. I was disappointed that it wasn't in the 2006 kit.

Re: IFI Critique
 

Would you be able to give some more information about your ps2 controller controlled vex robot?

Re: IFI Critique
 

USB robot controllers/operator interfaces would go together nicely with the new lego mindstorm kits using USB :rolleyes:

Re: IFI Critique
 

A USB host isn't entirely out of sight. Atmel has usb host chips for their AVR sub family.

Also if you want to use a gamepade to control something, don't PS2 controllers just use a USART interface. I know it is a 9 pin connection, but I have never looked at the specifcs of the system.

If all you people want a USB interface to a joystick so badly instead of having an easy solution from IFI why not develop something yourselves, then make a white paper. This way all teams can benifit from it with having to have a huge chane in IFI equipment.

I don't want to bash IFI but their system could use somechanges. On the other hand, look at what they have given you a sworking system. IFI provides motor controllers, radio, and a RC and OI. Plus many other fun things. Why do you want a easy solution any ways? Isn't FIRST about learning and being innovative?

As far as changes go I think the OI could provide more support for outputs to displays or whatever. they only have 4 outputs and I htkn the most you can use those for is LEDs.

Re: IFI Critique
 

I think that giving teams access to gamepad-type controls would SAVE teams time, energy and money.

Logitech's Dual Action Gamepad would give teams access to 12 buttons, 4 analog channels on 2 X-Y joysticks, plus a POV button with 8 positions for $20 list price, and about $10 on eBay.

2 of these bad dads would allow more than half of teams to skip building a OI at all. They could just Velcro the OI & radio to a board, plug in to gamepads and be done.

Consider this in comparison to the work teams have to do to get access to 8 analog channels and 16 switches now.

I am not saying that we should just have a gamepad interface and all would be right with the world, I am just pointing out an example of a customer request that has been out there for many many years.

Nothing has been done about it for many reasons. Some of them make sense... ...I just don't think the arguments that it is impossible or illegal or too expensive are among them.

Joe J.

Re: IFI Critique
 

just out of curiosity, is it even possible to get a gamepad that can plug into a joystick port?

Re: IFI Critique
 

I used to have one...circa 1993-1995. I think it was all digital buttons though (no analog sticks). So they did exist at one time.

Re: IFI Critique
 

Joe raises a great point and accurately illustrates how easy it would be to create an Operator Interface is USB devices were supported. And that is exactly the problem that I have with this whole idea. When we get to the point that creating the OI for our robots is just a matter of picking a gamepad out of a pile and plugging it in, then I think we have lost something very important.

OK, right up front I will admit that I am probably in a shrinking minority within the FIRST community. But there are those of us that are very concerned that the kit of parts contents, the structure of the rules, and the "easier is better" philosophy is taking too much of the challenge out of FIRST. Removing too much of the challenge removes too much of the accomplishment when you solve the problem. Removing too much of the challenge removes too much of the innovation in the solutions. And, perhaps most important, removing too much of the challenge removes too much of the fun.

-dave

Re: IFI Critique
 

what if they jut let us use more power from the OI? instead of the 100ma? max current up that to a higher value allowing a small computer in the middle that had enough computing power to translate the USB signal into the desired analog inputs. i Shur someone could come up with a simple USB host (possibly only allow certain controllers) and allow reprogramming to support more. i know that if i had more power allowed for controllers there could be some sweet stuff created and then shared so were all on an even playing field so to speak.

Re: IFI Critique
 

Seeing Dave's point there, I may have to change sides on this. We can already simply plug in the 2 kit joysticks and get 2 dual-axis joysticks plus 4 buttons on each, so it's already fairly easy for controls if you want. I guess we'll just have to figure out how to hook up a Nintendo Power Glove ourselves...

Since Dave's showing concern about losing the challenge to FIRST, can we consider this a hint telling us we'll have 3 foot long by 3 foot wide by 8 inch high size restrictions and a rule dis-allowing wheels next year? :D

Re: IFI Critique
 

The trouble is supplying that power reliably through the joystick ports (and the competition port, which powers the thing). What you'd really need is a supplemental power source—which, while electrically practical, makes it necessary to more rigourously inspect the OI and its associated devices, and means that new rules have to be drafted to govern it.

Re: IFI Critique
 

Isn't this the reason for things like the 'innovation in design and control award'? I mean right now you can hook 2 flightsticks to each joystick port giving you a total of 4 x-y and 16 digital inputs. Yet no one would win an award for that.

I contend that making it easy for new teams to compete while opening up new avenues for the kids to learn (USB architecture is here for the foreseeable future) is the ideal isn't it? Lets give them skill in something that they can possibly use, not an out of date bus architecture that they will only see in a computer museum.

Personally, I believe that the OI and RC are too restrictive now. Give them a PC\104 feedthrough port and see what kind of wild ideas they come up with. Give them a USB or Firewire dataport and see how they use it. Give them better bandwidth and allow them to transmit video from onboard cameras. you will be amazed at what they come up with.

The above is, as usual, JMHO

Re: IFI Critique
 

As it seems like 800mhz is out of the question as to various licensing issues, i'd like to see the radios change to 2.4ghz. Though we probably won't see that for another year or so.

Re: IFI Critique
 

The problem with 2.4 Ghz is that there is so much traffic on it, wireless computer networks, phones, so on. If FIRST then banned 2.4 Ghz appliances, there would be lots of uproar about how they couldn't use their network devices. 5 Ghz, on the other hand...

Re: IFI Critique
 

I think there's something missing there--creating an OI panel these days can already be as easy as picking a joystick out of a pile and plugging it in. In fact, that's all 1293's done* since its inception, with reasonable results.
*Well, this season we painted them, put dental rubber bands on the return for a little tighter feel, and switched out one handle for a shift knob. But they're still stockers, deep down.

I am not Car Nack, but I think most teams would see the new USB gamepads or joysticks, shrug, and use them as they would (or wouldn't) use the current AVB joysticks, assuming that the two were of similar quality. (Now, if you put CH Flightsticks back in the KOP, I'm sure that many of the veteran teams would start dancing in the streets before realizing that they need to get designing.)

Maybe I haven't been looking hard enough, but I haven't seen anything game-changing when it comes to joysticks. There's lots of great operator panels, dashboards, mini-arms, and HUD setups and all out there, but the joysticks are more or less joysticks. Some teams will paint them or change out the handle, but almost every OI panel I've seen either uses AVBs or Flightsticks. (Here's all the CD-Media photos tagged with "controls" for everyone's reference.)

Now, once we get into off-the-shelf breakout boards, something like 116's boards from 2006, we might be approaching the territory of too easy. (On the other hand, would that be the only way teams could get controls to work on a USB OI, unless IFI added some legacy DB15 ports?)

Re: IFI Critique
 

FYI - the 1213 controls changed right after the '05 season. The kids thought the PS1 case was cool. I thought is was useless, frivolous, and cumbersome. So, before IRI last year, I put the OI on a 10x12x1/2 slab of LDPE, which was slotted to rap and hold the game pads. Form follows function!

Re: IFI Critique
 

I have to agree with you for this matter. FIRST is about learning new things, and using your brain and being creative. If this was, for lack of better words, a "Plug and Play" oppratunity, than I doubt some teams would even use any extras besides the Joysticks and stuff and just Put the Transmitter/OI on a board. When you make the board like the team at nationals did, wth the playstation2 controllers, you actually Learn something, which is part of the spirit of first. I hope IFI does not change too much. I believe it is against what first stands for and what it represents.

Pavan.

Re: IFI Critique
 

I would like to see an end to those horrendous 1/4" blade electrical connections on the RC and main breaker panel (assuming we see a return of that very nice item). The things had a habit of being pulled out of the PCB, as many 'crimp' on connectors meant to mate with them would hold on tight. The connection to the PCB was weaker then the connection between the 'male' blade and 'female' crimp connector.

I want to see a return to good old fashion screw terminals. They require a few more seconds to use, but are rock solid and, I think, look better.

There are still issues with PWM wires not fully seating in Victors and causing all kinds of trouble while we all try to figure out whats wrong the the program not sending a signal to the Victor in question. When you do get those cables seated, they have a talent for popping back out half way through a match! This has been going on since we first got the things and only seems to get worse. There has got to be a better way to do this with out resorting to metal clips bought elsewhere. I like being able to use a standerd wire, pin and housing to make my own length wires but I would happily give that up for a solid seating and locking connector. Loosing a match because of a crumy PWM cable is about the most sour thing that can happen at a regional.

Also, every year Victors are lost to metal shavings. I know that it shouldn't be a problem, but it is and an expensive one at that. How about a redesigned enclosure that somehow shielded or sealed in the FET's so that metal shavings could not as easily get down in there, cooling issues or not.

Okay, I think thats everything.

-Andy A.

Re: IFI Critique
 

Couldn't agree more. Two years with the blade connectors, two controllers with bad contact problems.

The backup battery connector isn't very reliable either, the female end pins usually get wider with use (plug, unplug, charge...) and there goes your good contact.

Other than that, and provided our old CH Flightsticks keep working (and they're OLD!), we're very happy with the current setup.

Re: IFI Critique
 

So far everyone has focused on the OI, joysticks, and RC. I'd like to make a comment on the KOP frame and drive train. In my opinion the KOP stuff is perfectly usable and helps rookie and low resource teams get something moving. The one qualification is that it is not acceptable in the 2 wheel drive configuration. To be usable it needs to be 4 wheel drive. This is where I believe some changes could be made. Starting with the 28 tooth sprocket. The sprocket is custom made and heavy. The wheel chair sprocket adapters while expensive are well made. For a team to get 4 wheel drive They have to buy 2 28 tooth sprockets, 2 sets of adapters, some chain, master links and 2 trans sprockets. The 2 items that really add to the upgrade cost are the 28 tooth sprockets and adapters. 23.00$ for 2 pieces of plastic? I think somethings wrong here. 19$ for a custom steel sprocket is OK but they are heavy. IFI all ready has Aluminum 28 tooth sprockets for their wheels. For 2007 maybe IFI could drop the steel sprockets and use the aluminum ones with a redesigned wheel chair wheel adapter. Just seams that 2 pieces of plastic should be less than 10$ This would cut some weight out of the system and make IFI's stocking easier and reduce the cost to a team.

Re: IFI Critique
 

My only request is that they change the program port over to USB... and possibly make the whole RC smaller.. other then that I think its pretty good

Re: IFI Critique
 

You know what would really speed things up: a dsPIC or 2 for the OI and RC.
up to 40 MIPS
12 bit A/D(up to 32 Channels)
32 bit timers
Hardware Multipliers
Who knows with one of these, a little inginuity, and new rules, USB joysticks might be a reality.

Re: IFI Critique
 

The cost of the micros is almost immaterial to the cost of the RCs & OIs & radios -- I can tell you that the BOM cost is not what is driving these required items to list for $1100. Even if BOM costs were the driving force behind the price, you would be surprised at the features that would be possible with an extra few tens of dollars added to the BOM.

But, because IFI is the sole FIRST electronics supplier, they are dictators of what micro we get as well as basically everything else with regard to FIRST electronics.

There are micros & peripherals that are much more friendly toward robotic features and functions. This is especially true with respect to rapid code development.

I have been thinking a lot recently about the IFI monopoly. A number of questions keep coming to my mind. This thread seems as good of a place as any to start collecting them.

• Do we have an I2C or CAN or SPI or other serial interface to easily and cheaply implement sensors, etc.?
• Does the RC have any sensors baked in or easily added (e.g. 1D, 2D or 3D gyros and 1D, 2D, or 3D accelerometers)?
• Do we have a robot friendly micro (small example: shaft encoders have to be done with interrupts rather than with peripherals dedicated processing quadrature input in silicon)?
• Do we have a method to expand memory?
• Do we have an IDE with that helps autocode some of the more tedious aspects of setting up peripherals, interrupts, etc.?
• Do we have a processor that is well supported by autocoding tools?
• Do we have state of the art radios?
• Do we have radios that enable wireless operation in the pits?
• Do we have access to non-Windows compiler/loader?
• Do we have an easy way of implementing a gamepad controller on the OI?
• Does the default code encourage and support good programming and robotic practices (e.g. feedback control)?
• Do we have a software library for doing robot type tasks quickly and cleanly?
• Do we have an RC that can interface to standard hobbyist RC sensors and motor drivers?
• Do we have support for brushless motors? stepper motors?
• Do we have a reasonably priced alternative to driving lower current motors?

I have more, but I am tired of asking questions that have NO as their answer. So I will wrap up with just 2 more:

Would all this be expensive? Yeah, I am sure it would be.

Would it be a bargain given that 1300+ teams have to deal with the system? I am sure of that too.

Joe J.

Re: IFI Critique
 

We can get 2 gumsticks with 200Mhz Intel Xscale processors and radios for far less than $1100...

I can buy the 18F8772 for less that $10 a piece. And this is probably the most expensive component in the IO and RC... IFI buys these in bulk so they get them for far less.

They should at least switch to dsPIC's, which are the same price but have a massive performance boost.

Re: IFI Critique
 

Like Joe said, the BOM cost isn't the big cost in the IFI RC and OI. The major cost is the engineering, manufacturing, and support time for it. Think about the low quantity - if they are lucky, they might sell 2000 of them, including the ones which come in the kit of parts. No one likes doing low quantity manufacturing runs, as setup costs are enormous. And the guy answering the phone or the email when you have a problem with the RC likely isn't volunteering his time. Plus, I'm very doubtful that FIRST pays full price for the ones in the kit of parts. The only alternative I could see would be to develop a primary system, which is a very capable robot controller without all the FIRST specifics, and then give a FIRST addon pack, assuming there was a market for the original system to justify the additional work. They are likely still trying to earn back the cost of the engineering time that went into the original PIC solution, so I can't see us getting a total revamp (like Parallax to Microchip) anytime soon.

Look at the vex controller and the mini-rc - they are essentially the same product minus a TTL-RS232 converter and a Darlington pair array to drive solenoids and the differences as far as how they take radio input, yet due to the production quantity differences they are priced drastically different.

I think we should be grateful that IFI puts in as many resources as it does, for a product that they likely make no money on. And unlike some other FIRST contractors, they have shown a clear commitment to a fully functioning product, even if it meant putting in extra hours. If you think its so wrong that they are the sole supplier, develop your own system which is as refined as theirs (must have field control, IO protection (no outputs when disabled)) and demo it to FIRST, maybe they will choose you as the supplier...but I don't see anyone dropping the resources to do this.

Re: IFI Critique
 

for the time being you can either use hot glue to keep them in (works great), or buy one of these to fix your problem. I have no quick fix for metal shavings other than to put a blanket or sheet (or something similar) over your controls before you drill or do anything on your robot that would cause metal shavings to fall, or using one of these in and around the controls normally does the trick....

Re: IFI Critique
 

BING!

Of course, since it seems that so many folks do great things with the IFI system as it is, I have to wonder how long it'd take for someone to develop an IFI-compatible means of doing (or streamlining) some of the things we want out of the RC. I mean, if teams can rig up Gumstix to work or dump data from a Pocket PC into the RC to define an exact path for the robot, how long until we see a business-major-friendly way to make encoders work with the RC without dealing with the wonderful world of interrupts?

In fact, I'm willing to bet that someone could make a nice pile of beans doing it, while also scratching off some of Dr. Joe's wish list at the same time. (Although weren't the accelerometers and gyros this year just a matter of hacking off a PWM cable and soldering three connections?)

The way I see it, I'll be happy working with an IFI RC that gets the job done--controls the robot safely and reliably, lets us move in autonomous, handles some custom programming and trickery. If others want to get fancier with encoders and uber-enhanced PID loops and such, let's make it so that they can do it without too many four-letter words and without having to complicate (or, more importantly for a lot of teams, raise the price of) the RC.

Re: IFI Critique
 

I just took a regular PWM cable and put the pins right into the PCB and soldered it. Didn't even have to cut it! We used the gyro this year and it worked great.

-Chris

Re: IFI Critique
 

1. Stronger DB-9 connections. Too many teams, including ours, have ripped them out of the board. It's a quality rather than convienience request. Replace the rivets with small threaded hardware and the problem would be pretty much fixed. However, I do realize how standard the riveted connections are, and that an actual replacement implementation might be difficult.

2. Would it be possible for IFI to aqcuire the molds, rights, etc. to produce the now discontinued Flightstick? And would it even be profitable, considering also producing a commercially available USB option? Or, does IFI have enough connections that an enterprising team approaching them with blueprints and models could have them produced at reasonable cost? Unfortunately, I doubt that kind of short run production could be done for a reasonable price.

Re: IFI Critique
 

The DB9s are designed as breakaways. Consider what it would do to an RC if they were attached firmly to the PCB, and an errant robot tried to run away with its tether. Right now it's maybe a $100 job to fix it, accounting for time, parts and shipping to and from IFI. If it were screwed in, you'd have to replace the entire PCB, and maybe the RC itself.

Re: IFI Critique
 

I am not ungrateful to IFI for the system we have, in fact, I have defended them publicly on many many occasions. I was happy when FIRST chose their system.

But... ...time marches on. Bob and Tony are not infallible and they are certainly not making "no money" on unless you think numbers with 7 figures between the dollar sign and the decimal place constitute no money.

Even so, they are a for profit company. It is their charter to make as much money from FIRST and FIRST related sales as they can. It is not IFI's job to make sure that FIRST teams have the best products and the lowest prices. That job falls to Manchester.

I will say it flat out and in plain English: I think that FIRST HQ has not done their job well in recent years with respect FIRST electronics generally and managing the relationship with IFI in particular.

Joe J.

Re: IFI Critique
 

Actually, one of your questions have yes as their answer. The OI could in theory control stepper and brushless motors. It's just a matter of creating a new controller. I honestly don't see the point inside of FIRST but it would be useful to someone outside of FIRST.

Re: IFI Critique
 

Stepper motors would be great for some applications -- position control with no feedback required.

As to brushless motors, look at the power ratings of the so called coreless servos from Futaba, Hitec, et al. Those are really brushless DC motors. Brushless DC motors enable significant power density increases (more power in less weight & size - sign me up). And brushless DC motors are getting cheaper all the time.

Just as an exercise for the reader, search TowerHobby.com for "Brushless"

Why can't those motors go on FIRST robot? Well, because there is no way to legally power them on a FIRST robot.

And don't think that you can use any of those brushless speed controllers on TowerHobby.com either. Actually, you can't use ANY of the speed controllers on TowerHobby.com because IFI is the sole source for electronic speed controllers and that is that.

Even if the FIRST changed the rules and made these controllers legal, we STILL couldn't use them because IFI has bastardized their PWM outputs to make them incompatible with standard hobbyist electronics. IFI has no incentive to make them compatible either. In fact, they have strong financial reasons to make them INCOMPATIBLE, otherwise, some day someone may convince one of these speed controller makers to donate a few thousand or so to the FIRST KOP. If that happened, it could jeopardize IFI's Million Dollar Victor Monopoly. So, IFI is better off with incompatible outputs*.

Call 'em as I see 'em.

Joe J.

*Even as it is, IFI is in danger being caught with their monopolistic slip showing. Wouldn't Bob and Tony look like greedy so-and-sos if a speed controller manufacturer went to the bother of designing a special IFI compatible speed controller and offered to donated them to the FIRST Kit of Parts only to have IFI force FIRST to refuse the donation? Making 1000's of FIRST teams pay more so they can keep up their profits? They couldn't be THAT heartless... ...could they?

Re: IFI Critique
 

Heres a hint for you all (real world here): :ahh:

IFI is not in business to supply FIRST with OIs, RCs and Victors. IFI is in business to make money (just like every other company out there).

They make their money selling OIs and such, but that isn't their goal. If it was they would probably be out of business by now.

When a company (in this case FIRST) single sources and goes with a proprietary design (as in IFIs), it usually gets an initial price break. However, the company must be ever vigilant against that single source from then using its propriatery design to increase prices higher than the standard market.

It would be in FIRSTs best interest to reevaluate its position with such propriatery design companies every year to see if it would be better to find a more standarized version...or at least have some bargaining chips with the propriatery vendor.

Re: IFI Critique
 

Actually, they make most of it selling server racks, and you don't see them putting server racking in the kit to boost profit margins. (Mind you, server racks might be very usable construction materials) Anyway, let's try and get back on topic here, I think sparksandtabs wanted a thread about how to improve the current IFI system, not the company and its relationship with FIRST. A more accurate thread title might have been IFI Control System Critique.

Re: IFI Critique
 

Mind you... nothing has improved GM more than Toyota!

Re: IFI Critique
 

This is true, but I'd argue that in the market of FRC robot parts, you're all but required to provide the most bang for the buck in order to keep getting business. According to Brandon's statistics, there were just over 7,000 active users on CD. (For comparison, FIRST's 2005 annual report indicates that about 25,000 students participated in FRC in 2005. The two numbers are borderline apples-and-oranges, but you get the point.)

Now, let's suppose that Billfred Industries starts selling two-speed gearboxes, trying to go head-to-head with AndyMark*. A lot of those customers are either going to be on CD, be part of some local FIRST scene, or know someone who is. If these gearboxes are awesome, business will pick up next build season. But if the things just don't work, that same network will spread that news just as quickly. (How many AM Shifters did you see on robots in 2005? How many did you see in 2006?)

From what I've seen, there's been two ways to get a product out there in FIRST: team demand leading to it going in the KOP (think kitbot, CMUcam, the lighted target for the CMUcam), or word of mouth among teams about it (think roughtop, wedgetop, AM Shifters). A brand new control system can't really be done through the latter route, and convincing other teams that this new system you've developed is worth FIRST making the switch from IFI a bit of an uphill struggle. It'd take a heck of a salesman to get enough teams calling for the switch for it to really show up on the radar, but I believe it can be done if the product is quality. We are talking about the same folks who can scout a whole regional and collect enough data to make my head explode, after all.

*Now really, who would want to try and go against Andy Baker? That's like trying to single-handedly outscore 25, 254, and your choice of triplet with a shopping cart.

Re: IFI Critique
 

I jumped into this thread with a discussion about why we don't have an easy way to do a gamepad type controller on the OI. The answer was not customer focused but IFI support focused. Well, actually, first it was implied that it was illegal to do so and when a perfectly legal work around was discussed, it was claimed that it would make IFI answer more phone calls than they'd like. They have not responded to using a USB host chip such as EZ-host.

I think the two are inseperable. The relationship between IFI and FIRST one of the reasons things are the way they are.

Joe J.

Re: IFI Critique
 

Hmmm.....I wonder when the AM control system will be shipped out ;)

But seriously, the quatily and cost of the control system to me is outrageous. I have seen in many occasions where somebody has used a basic stamp to control something far more difficult that what we do in first. Go to the parallax website and look at the "Nuts and Volts" articles they have. They are hooking their BASIC stamps up to EVERYTHING you can imagine. Granite the programming languange is really easy to understand and it gives rookies an advangtages, it still held back more expirienced teams from acceling. I have seen manythings done in BASIC as we do in C. ALso that control system if bought direct from parallax is far cheaper. 2 BOEs and 2 transcievers with a few ADC chips and external circuittry and voila you spent only 300$ if that.

Not to bash anybody's control system but I have a development board sitting 3 feet from me that cost 80$ that can do EVERYTHING that the IFI system can do. Sure it may take a little more coding but it is cheaper and more raw (more room for development and expansion by individual teams) that the IFI and parallax solution.

<bashing>How hard could it possibly be to design a new control system?</bashing>

of course all IMHO

Re: IFI Critique
 

I issue the same challenge to you that I issued in my other post - if you think it can be done better and cheaper, then do it and sell it to FIRST. The BOM price for a IFI RC is likely less than $75, including the PCB, but engineering (including the base software dev - both master and user in thier configuration) and support time are not free. Basic Stamps are overpriced and under powered - and would be a move backwards - as they certainly don't provide the level of refinement necessary for FIRST. What is it that the stamp can do that the PIC can't? I don't see anything in your argument of your dev board being more capable - there are plenty of systems that cost less which are more capable, but they aren't as refined and don't provide the output control. You seem to be arguing two different things - going simpler in one sense (BASIC) and more complicated in the other sense (here's a dev board with nothing done for you). The IFI platform provides a mix of these - and with easyC, the simple side is covered pretty well.

Remember, in the end, the system doesn't have to be used by just you - it must be used by 1000+ other teams, and must provide a safety factor that others who aren't on a team know they won't be hurt by another team's misprogramming. None of those dev boards can provide that without some level of custom IO protection. Plus who wants to slap 8 pcb's on their robot - your 6 pieces of parallax gear does nothing about packaging.

I'm not saying it can't be done better and cheaper - I'm just saying that I'm not doing it with my time, and I don't see you doing it. If you think it is such an outrage, then be a do-er and not a talk-er. Even if you don't have the resources to do it yourself, there is nothing stopping you from convincing FIRST to accept a new system and getting together the resources to create it (even if by a sponsor, etc).

Re: IFI Critique
 

I am not neccessarily saying that the the Stamps are better, but I am saying that from what I have seen they can do basically everything we need to do. Maybe not so much in the upcoming years but right now from my expirience I would say they would run fine.

My dev. board isn't a stamp it is an atmel AVR. Also again I am not saying to give the teams a dev board and expect them to do anything. But I mean how hard would it be to take a socket for a 40 PDIP and create the neccessary ports for it on a PCB. I am not saying it needs no engineering but I also dont think it needs a whole heck of alot to get the job done. (then again what do I know I am only in highschool, feel free to bash me for this comment.)

As for your challenge. Sure. what the heck it is summer and I have nothing better to do. Just to set some rules for this new system I will try to develop what do you want. How about everybody who want to helps or has an idea as to what I could include in this system to make it something that they think a majority of FIRST teams could use or want in a system to post here.

I will work on a simple one that does everything that the IFI system does right now and make periodic updates on everything.

<edit> Due to me being poor right now. and not having the money to prototype something like this it will have to wait for a little bit. I do not currently have the mony to put into the right kind of socket to mount the chip I was looking at to a PCB let alone my dev board.

Though I will still do conceptual planning and post it on here</edit>

Re: IFI Critique
 

STAMP2 is not a step in the right direction to be sure. The problems we had with STAMP2s as a control mechanism were many and various -- complex & unweldy programming slots, unsigned 16 bit math, no interrupts, poorly implemented UART, and so on.

It was basically easy to do easy stuff using PBASIC, but anything complex took a guru to implement.

I think there are better micros/languages to use.

Joe J.

Re: IFI Critique
 

Once again, I am not saying that using the BS2 is a step in the right direction. I never said anywhere that I wanted to use it. I simply said that I have seen it used in a setting that needs more complex coding than what we do. So it is possible to use it. But I don't necessarily think that using a microchip processor is the best thing either.

Re: IFI Critique
 

I see from your profile that your rookie season was 2004. You realize that prior to 2004 the robot controllers used a BS2, right? Many, many people complained about the lack of power and other features (hence the move to the PIC-based RCs by IFI). And yes, there were many teams that completely maxed out the performance of the BS2. Teams were most definitely being held back by the BS2-based RCs.

Re: IFI Critique
 

I assume you're speaking of the STK500 board, in which case, you are flat out wrong. That board cannot do anything the IFI system does save for program a Flash based microcontroller. It is a very fancy, albeit useful multi-AVR programmer with some builtin debug features, and a builtin array of LEDs and buttons for testing. The obvious features such as PWM generation, I/O and ADC hardware require a chip with far more pins than a 40 pin PDIP AVR could ever supply, not to mention it doesn't support the ease of connection ability or any number of little things, such as pulldown resistors, multiple ADC inputs (16 last I checked), relay outputs, multiple serial ports (the DB-9s on the board must be jumpered by ribbons to the proper pins on the AVR, and even then only one of them is directly accessible, the other talks to the STK500s processor array.) You can't fully emulate the IFI control system with any combination of chips on that board, not in full functionality with all the extras you probably don't even realize you have and take for granted. There's also the cost of the development IFI put in to the pre-existing controller libraries and default code, which gives you much of that functionality you arbitrarily claimed the STK500 could do.

In short, there's just no way that $80 development board could emulate the IFI system properly, and have all the pre-existing software support and safety features, plus it definitely does not have a built-on 900MHz radio system.

Before you go bashing IFI and making wild claims, make sure they have some foundation.

Re: IFI Critique
 

While I do agree that the PIC processor has to go, I know that is not going to happen soon. But my biggest gripe with the RC is the use of PWM cables. They are way to fragile, and the connectors suck.
What IFI should use is standard CAT 3 cable with RJ-11 connectors.

Re: IFI Critique
 

I am referring to the stk500. But I also have the stk503 that can run 100 pin chips. Also doesn't the IFI system have 2 processors? So if I were to actually try to make a new system I could use 2 procesors, right? So I could run a ATMEGA128 or ATMEGA2560 and with one chip I could emulate most of the features on the IFI system. Also I would outsource somethings, such as PWM because I think it would make the code run better, though using a USART you would only need a set of 3 charaters to set the pwm. It would require less timers and less general code to run them. Also I would want to use the IFI radios just because I think it would make it easier then finding a whole new wireless communication system.

I don't think I could do this myself, that is why I asked a couple of electrical and software engineers to help me work things out with this. I don't think it will be completely easy but I do think it is possible.

Re: IFI Critique
 

A single atmega 128 won't be able to re-create what they do with 2 chips - mainly due to the lack of UART's (Atmel doesn't seem to understand the synchronous thing) - we use 3 of the 4 as far as i can tell on the microchips. (Radio on master, program and TTL on user). Especially if you use one of the UART's to "outsource" PWM generation, you would have to find a way to share the program and radio ports, unless you forced everyone to use ISP. I think you would be better off using I2C or SPI for the secondary PWM generation.

I did have the pleasure of using Brian Dean's MAVRIC (www.bdmicro.com) on the real time scoring system I developed for Battlecry, and it was a nice change from the Microchip's - but I don't think the Atmega128 provides significantly more than the high-end 8-bit PIC in the RC. (And yes it was overkill for the RTS system, but we had a board laying around).

Re: IFI Critique
 

That is the only thing I haven't been able to work out yet. I have only found 1 real user friendly PWM board.I am sure there are more but I haven't found them yet. I know for FACT that one chip wouldn't beable to do everything. It only has 8 ADCs, 2 USARTs, and a few other things such as IO and such. Now on the other hand the atmega2560 has 4 USARTs

Re: IFI Critique
 

I just want to point out that, using the current IFI hardware, you can use any processor you want. You can use the existing serial port library from Kevin Watson to build out a protocol to read OI inputs (and optionally local sensor inputs) from the RC. You can then send your PWM commands back to the RC. What you do in between is up to you. The RC will just pass OI inputs to your processor and listen for PWM updates. Very simple, and teams have already done it. With any chip you try to use the major roadblock will be PWM generation. Why not use the RC for that?

Re: IFI Critique
 

Didn't FIRST pay IFI to design these systems and retain the IP related to the OI and Arena Controller? Wouldn't be suprised if IFI didn't really own the designs they produced. Curious to see what the contracts said.

Re: IFI Critique
 

Considering IFI owns some patent on robot arena control or something, I get the impression they own the designs. I'll see if I can dig it up later.

Edit:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...&RS=PN/6674259
(if that works, otherwise patent # 6,674,259)

System and method for managing and controlling a robot competition

Abstract

A system and method for operating robots in a robot competition. One embodiment of the system may include operator interfaces, where each operator interface is operable to control movement of a respective robot. A respective operator interface may be in communication with an associated operator radio, where each radio may have a low power RF output signal. A robot controller may be coupled to each robot in the robot competition. A robot radio may be coupled to a respective robot and in communication with a respective robot controller and operator radio. The robot radios may have a low power RF output signal while communicating with the respective operator radios. Alternatively, the radios may be short range radios, where a distance of communication may be a maximum of approximately 500 feet.

Re: IFI Critique
 

Actually I could have sworn it was an obscenely vague patent, that if you were to look at it. Really shows nothing relating to design, but the act of controlling a robotic competition. Though I wouldn't quote me on that.

Re: IFI Critique
 

Agreed - I wasn't saying the patent was on the actual designs, but rather that it would seem logical that if they owned the patent they would own the designs. I obviousally don't know for sure though.

Re: IFI Critique
 

I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV but I do have 18 patents and quite a bit of experience with patent related issues. I am sure that it is possible to design a system that does not voilate this patent.

Furthermore, a patent is nothing more than a license to sue someone for violating the patent. Once in court, the presumption is that the patent is valid, but the court may decide to invalidate the patent for many reasons including existing prior art that may not have been considered by the patent examiner.

America is a "first to invent" country (as opposed to most of the rest of the world which "first to file"). The upshot of this is that if a competition that can document that they were using such a system to run their competitions prior to the priority date on the patent application (October 5, 2001), the patent would be declared invalid.

Bottom line: Despite its 58 claims, I do not view this patent as a particularly strong.

Joe J.

Re: IFI Critique
 

I wasn't arguing anything about working around their patent etc - just saying it was logical that since they own the patent they own the designs on their current products (not FIRST).

I don't think too highly of the current patent system...espically companies like NTP and even Apple who abuse it.

Re: IFI Critique
 

An open letter to All,

Despite my relatively high rep points and my long time participation on these fora, I too am capable of overreaction and flamewars.

I have demonstrated poor judgment in my posts on this thread.

I have made charges I cannot substantiate and I have made things personal where a business-like tone was more appropriate. Perhaps even worse, I have been mean spirited and unkind.

I regret my tone and my behavior. I ask all readers of these fora to forgive me. I will endeavour to keep my emotions in check in future postings.

Best Regards,

Joe J.

P.S. A special thanks to my well respected brethren who helped me see the error of my ways via PMs, IM's, and phone calls.

Re: IFI Critique
 

More than forgiven Joe, everyones allowed to slip up once in a while, even you. You still deserve all those rep points and I look forward to your future postings.

Re: IFI Critique
 

Out of Stock
No more this year

Out of Stock
No more this year

...

Out of Stock
No more this year

Re: IFI Critique
 

Jack,

Aside from the fact that that seems only marginally related to the original topic and subsequent discussions.... Did you have that problem during the actual season or after the season? During the season is much more worrying, after all.

Re: IFI Critique
 

Because of the small market for parts and minimal orders, IFI wisely keeps little to no stock during the offseason. Since they usually make small changes to the OI and RC each year it is also wise for them to use up inventory.

This 'out of stock' should be normal.

Re: IFI Critique
 

That may work for them, but it doesn't do much for the customer. And, it doesn't excuse running out of RCs before ship date. And, please, do not suggest that upgrading '05 was an acceptable alternative.

It's come to the point where there is no "off season", as evidenced by the volume here on ChiefDelphi. IMO, IRI is way better than any Regional, and this year was much better than the Champs. We would have been better prepared had IFI been there for us. They were one for four at having what we needed, no matter what season.

Re: IFI Critique
 

HI

Anyone ever had a problem with an order from IFI. They screwed up and order and it has never been resolved?

Thx

Re: IFI Critique
 

I had an issue with IFI working on a project. I ordered two kitbot top plates, but they didn't arrive with my order. I called IFI, they checked--it didn't ship from their other warehouse. So a few days later (albeit a little late for my project), two Kitbot top plates arrived at USC. I just wrote it off as a screwup; stuff like that just happens now and then.

Re: IFI Critique
 

IFI is a business. As such, carrying inventory (especially obsolete inventory) is a poor business move. The cost of supporting 1 small customer (your team) does not justify having an entire run to build RCs and OIs

Most companies buy their parts on credit. They do this so they do not have to use up their available cash reserves. The assumption is that the finished product will be sold before any interest on that credit is accrued. Thus, carrying excess inventory costs money (in interest).

I did not suggest any alternatives because I was only remarking on IFIs business practice, not a solution to your delemma.

And there is an 'Offseason'. IFI is contractually bound to have ALL parts in stock during the competition season. That season ended at the championship in Atlanta. Because they MUST have spares available at that time (built and ready) they generally will have some afterwards, but they are not contractually bound to maintain any stock, nor are they required to build anymore.

I've said it before and I will say it again. IFI is not in business to supply FIRST with RCs and OIs. They are in business to make money (as all businesses should be). Once we understand IFIs motivations, then their actions are easily predicted.

Re: IFI Critique
 

Where did you see that? We needed another CMUcam during the season (after Midwest, several weeks before the Championship) and IFI was out of stock. We had to borrow one from another team. I know other people have had that problem with other parts too. I think if you read Jack's post more closely you'll find that he had out-of-stock problems during the season as well as afterwards (or at least that's how I interpreted it).

Re: IFI Critique
 

I'm posting very late in this thread. I started a new thread on chit-chat yesterday that may add some reality to this thread about another control system that has FIRST type capabilities. Check it out on this thread.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=48627 The cost is $349 for the controller. It can communicate via wifi...

Re: IFI Critique
 

What would you say if I told you Such a device does exist?