View Single Post
  #6   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 21-01-2012, 02:16
theprgramerdude theprgramerdude is offline
WPI Freshman
AKA: Alex
FRC #2503 (Warrior Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: Brainerd, Minnesota
Posts: 347
theprgramerdude has much to be proud oftheprgramerdude has much to be proud oftheprgramerdude has much to be proud oftheprgramerdude has much to be proud oftheprgramerdude has much to be proud oftheprgramerdude has much to be proud oftheprgramerdude has much to be proud oftheprgramerdude has much to be proud oftheprgramerdude has much to be proud oftheprgramerdude has much to be proud of
Re: 2012 Team Update 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by compwiztobe View Post
I just don't understand why we are using wifi at all. Sure switching to a bigger, more powerful controller is great (despite all the overhead of using an FPGA and not really taking advantage of it), but when all the wireless connections needed are known, specifically, FMS to 6 and only 6 robots, why do we need a protocol that is inherently built for arbitrary connectivity? Isn't this just asking for problems? And it gains us nothing. I think it would make a lot of sense to stick with a proprietary radio connection, and if you must use IP, establish a forward of the wired network run by the FMS over this radio link. I may be oversimplifying things, but the current situation is hardly simple.

So stick with the cRio and fancy shmancy Driver Station laptops, but stick with a wireless connection that works and is not so heavily dependent on a friendly environment.
I can't tell if this is a pointless rant or if you're being serious.



What wireless protocol and frequency would you use? 2.4Ghz? 5Ghz? Something other than wi-fi? There isn't much to switch to that isn't regulated.
__________________
Attending: MN Duluth Regional
Reply With Quote