Re: 2009 Control System Possibility?
 

Interesting... according to the cRIO description, you can use C/C++ code on the real-time processor, in addition to LabView. The more I read about this, the more sense it seems to make to me. I think this system could allow us to do a lot of interesting new things with I/O, as well as provide a really simple graphical programming interface for new programmers, while still allowing teams to continue learning and using C.

Re: 2009 Control System Possibility?
 

I should have written in my first post that I would doubt seeing Python, Java, or Basic, but would 110% expect C/C++ capabilities. I assumed whatever platform we are moving to will have at least some capability to execute software written in C.

Re: 2009 Control System Possibility?
 

I'm kind of excited about the move from IFI. After 3 years of programming IFI, a little change would be refreshing! I'm also a big supporter of having an open electronics platform. Our teams been around for 11 years or so, and we have quite the stockpile of parts. It would be a bit of a bummer if they all of the sudden became worthless. Also, I've been looking around on FIRST's website, and I have seen no news about the switch from IFI. Has there been a press release of sorts, or is this more hearsay? I'm really quite interested in what controllers FIRST is considering.

Re: 2009 Control System Possibility?
 

I could get excited over this
http://sine.ni.com/nips/cds/view/p/lang/en/nid/202711

Encoder input and current sensor built in. We could start doing some great things for the community as far as software infrastructure goes.

edit: Looks like this is for low current applications only (8A continuous, 12A peak). Either way, I hope some kind of 'out of the box' feedback solution is integrated into our motor drivers next year. I have helped teams get software solutions running at regionals for the past few events, and the value of something like this would be immense.

Re: 2009 Control System Possibility?
 

For what I've been told by some people(or more of a lot) on the committee and the other volunteer and mentors here in Colorado, I had been hearing that we're going with Labview...

I've been told it goes back to when the VEX kits were first released at Radioshack and IFI was having a lot of problems because many of the kits were defective and IFI began to lose money and had to break ties with Radioshack. Then it goes into even more detail but it's more trouble to explain what had happened between FIRST and IFI.

I've heard that FTC next year for the Fall 2008 season though will still be allowed to use the VEX kits but it will be their last year to be allowed to use them for FTC.

Re: 2009 Control System Possibility?
 

FIRST without IFI... now thats a scary thought... sadly it looks like the future

Re: 2009 Control System Possibility?
 

programming in Labview would be nice (i use it everyday @ work), but my money is on M$ & .NET CF.....

Re: 2009 Control System Possibility?
 

Also gone will be all the tech support. There's always at least one IFI representative at each regional and they have always provided great support (from what I've seen). What can we expect from the new provider?

Re: 2009 Control System Possibility?
 

Hopefully FIRST will consider that aspect when they enter a new contract. IFI people have been incredibly helpful throughout the years.

Re: 2009 Control System Possibility?
 

According to their website, IFI has 75 employees; National Instruments has over 4500. I bet they can spare a few for each FIRST event.

But we all know that numbers don't tell the whole story. So , for a real life example of NI's FIRST support, just pop over to the NI forum right here on CD, and ask Danny Diaz (an NI employee) a question. Chances are, he'll have an answer within an hour or two. If NI is able to provide even 1% of the excellent service that Danny has provided so far, we'll all be in good shape.

Re: 2009 Control System Possibility?
 

we were talking to someone from IFI and he said they were working on something that runs natively on Linux but they arent going to use it for first

Re: 2009 Control System Possibility?
 

Ugh, I hope not. This is one programmer who won't be continuing in FIRST if that's the case.

Re: 2009 Control System Possibility?
 

That's the thing... I'm wondering how they will handle the control interface, given that VxWorks is a full OS. There will have to be some sort of interlock, but if the programmers can get into the OS level, how much use is that?

Re: 2009 Control System Possibility?
 

IMNSHO a properly designed Class 1 Bluetooth based system would be the
most robust of the unlicensed alternatives. Assuming that you are not going
to run 2.4 GHz jammers (i.e. microwave ovens), WiFi access points, or
Portable 2.4 Ghz phones on the actual field, there would be virtually no
interference that would be of much impact to a Class 1 piconet on the field.
The field controller could be optimally located above the center of the field
with an appropriate radiation pattern. The field controller could be master
of a single pico-net and it would have virtually no interference with
adjacent fields or even Bluetooth Cellphones in the pockets of the drivers.
Active Bluetooth voice connections close to the field could be a problem
but these are not legal anyway. They could be detected by the field
controller which would not be a bad thing.

For non-competition situations, each operator console could be master of
its own piconet. Everyone could operate even in the pits without interference
as long as Wireless lans weren't being used. BT offers much greater control
over what could be done and far more predictable results than WiFi. 2.4 GHz,
however, is not the place for channelized operations. The coexistance
problems of BT and WiFi occur mainly when you try to use both in the same
box (or immediate proximity). In those scenarios, coordination is required
in order for both to simultaneously work. BT class 1 works fine in an area by itself and
version 1.2 or later will even do a good job of working around a nearby
WiFi, WiMax, or Single Channel source. There is also an excellent open-source
BT stack to build from.

I agree that ordinary off-the-shelf class 2 BT devices would probably not
work all that well. But the 1600 hops per second over 79 channels basic
operation with +20dbm transmitter (and better receive sensitivity) of Class 1 devices
can, with appropriate system design, provide the most robust solution at
the datarates involved (240kbps).

Re: 2009 Control System Possibility?
 

What about Zigbee. 802.15.4

That means virtually no interference. Also, they use access keys, similar so Secure BT, meaning that if they were set to the team number, there is little chance of interference.

http://rfdesign.com/next_generation_...-needs-zigbee/