![]() |
Feedback Thread: Driver Station and Dashboard
Spurred on by feedback scattered in other threads, I'd like to request detailed feedback on the control system. To help organize things, I've created three feedback threads, one for the HW elements that are used on the robot, one for the Dashboard and Driver Station, and one for WPILib.
Feedback Topic: ----------------- Driver Station and Dashboard Tips on giving feedback: --------------------------- Please be specific as to which elements are being commented on. Not all teams use elements in the same way, so there is no need to argue that your value judgement for a component is the right one. Explain or justify your judgement so the expectations and context of use is clear. While comparisons are a fine way to provide feedback, be sure to capture the context that is in your head. What did you expect it to do? Where did it fail and succeed? And then, tell how that compared to the other experience. Please include tips on best-practices -- a good tool used poorly doesn't lead to a good experience, and the knowledge you can share may make a huge difference to someone else. Once you've given the context please give your thoughts on improvements. Greg McKaskle |
Re: Feedback Thread: Driver Station and Dashboard
As for the Dashboard, my experience was good.
It was very easy to use (with LabVIEW on both ends), and it was painless to create a packet definition ctl file and use it on both ends. I like the way you just feed it text and it spits the text out at the other end - that makes things nice and simple, as opposed to writing the TCP or UDP comm code. I expected it to give me the data I set at the other end, which it did, and I then wrote a tabbed interface (with a color scheme of black, yellow, and purple) around that. After I found how to change the background color of the VI, it made everything so much nicer. Only one problem I noticed: I had a hard time telling if I had lost comm with the robot, something that was valuable to me. If it lost comm, I could tell fairly quickly because the image would go away, but an indicator I created to check the error state of the get data VI would never go away (it seems that the get data VI is blocking and has not timeout, or if it did it was very long.). But everything else was fine, I was able to send a ton of data (all the analog sensors inputs, motor outputs for PID controlled devices, setpoints, shift states for the drive, kicker, and arm, drive ft/sec, highest speed since boot (ft/sec), and more without overloading anything. I also had a feature to save the first image of Autonomous to my flashdrive, and it didn't complain when my flashdrive wasn't plugged in, which was good. As for the Driver Station, you already know my complaints. On the good side, it gave you feedback on the joystick buttons and Cypress inputs, something the 2009 DS never did (the 2008 and previous did through the Dashboard port), which was very helpful when debugging Cypress IO problems or checking for problems in the control box without booting up the robot. Although I never checked to see if there was a 1-line status like last year (although we just said "Woman Drivers") or a single indicator like the previous OI's, the Dashboard provided that functionality just as well. |
Re: Feedback Thread: Driver Station and Dashboard
Quote:
Liked:
Would have been nice:
Didn't like:
EDIT: added a few more things |
Re: Feedback Thread: Driver Station and Dashboard
^ what he said.
|
Re: Feedback Thread: Driver Station and Dashboard
Quote:
|
Re: Feedback Thread: Driver Station and Dashboard
Quote:
|
Re: Feedback Thread: Driver Station and Dashboard
I would prefer that User Messages was just a string indicator, and not treated like an LCD display.
|
Re: Feedback Thread: Driver Station and Dashboard
I would like a bit more documentation for the dashboard application (and honestly the default robot code as a whole).
We didn't have very much time to experiment with modifying our dashboard, but the few times we looked at it, we had troubles tracing the code and determining what we could/couldn't modify. We also never figured out how to display our own data from our robot code on the dashboard. Again, we didn't have too much time to mess with it, but it still seemed pretty undocumented. Of course we also used C++ this year and thus didn't have much hands on time with labview. Accessibility will be key in whether or not we modify the dashboard in the future. |
Re: Feedback Thread: Driver Station and Dashboard
Quote:
If you are unfamiliar (or don't want to use) labview then there are alternatives. For example: With C# the ZomB dashboard http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?p=962203 |
Re: Feedback Thread: Driver Station and Dashboard
I realize it's a tall order, but could you reduce packet loss between the Driver station and the cRIO, and eliminate those spontaneous system watchdog timeouts? Perhaps the packet transmission rate could be scaled according to the connection quality?
|
Re: Feedback Thread: Driver Station and Dashboard
As suggested by Radical Pi, I think a NetConsole client should have been built into the Driver Station. However, I think it would be better placed as a second tab on the dashboard rather than on the lower bar, which is itself already quite crowded with four tabs. In the 2010 season we used LabVIEW so printing to the console wasn't practical. I'm now learning the WPI libraries and using printf's constantly for debugging, so NetConsole as a Driver Station built-in seems to me a missing feature.
As has also been suggested above by kamocat, the "User Messages" display was difficult to use. I propose either using it as a smaller version of the NetConsole client, or simply treating it as a string as he suggested. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:15. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi