View Single Post
  #7   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 11-02-2012, 00:11
WizenedEE's Avatar
WizenedEE WizenedEE is offline
Registered User
AKA: Adam
FRC #3238 (Cyborg Ferrets)
Team Role: Leadership
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Rookie Year: 2010
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 395
WizenedEE is a name known to allWizenedEE is a name known to allWizenedEE is a name known to allWizenedEE is a name known to allWizenedEE is a name known to allWizenedEE is a name known to all
Re: Cannot Have Decorative Lights While Disabled?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV View Post
Can you post a link to the Q&A response?
I don't think links exist for each question, but you could search for our team number or the text of the question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanCahoon View Post
Which seems to allow them to be controlled using Digital I/O ports, which, if I remember correctly, are available regardless of robot state (somebody correct me if I'm wrong, that might have been only for the old IFI controllers). I wouldn't wire up a motor-controlling device using this method, but for controlling lights it doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
I haven't checked whether or not they're disabled.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nssheepster View Post
Why, exactly, would you want lights on while you are disabled? The judges already know, and the drivers already know. And the announcers will tell the crowd, and thus your team. So is it just cool, or what?
It's cool, and (essentially for testing) we can see the vision targets light up on the camera even when disabled.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Ross View Post
Considering that [R50] is in the motors and actuators section, I think your interpretation is reasonable. Perhaps a good followup question would be "Are non-functional decorations that do not contain a motor or an actuator exempt from rule [R50]?"
Great idea, I'll do that tomorrow. I had the same "personal interpretation" but I wanted to back it up with the Q&A, but they gave an unexpected response.