Quote:
Originally Posted by Gdeaver
To go back to a 8 bit controller after the NI experience seams kind of retro...
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferret_guy
I agree with the above sentiment that this would seem like a move back. The reason I like the cRio so much is the face that it supports so much diversity and can support very easy to grasp languages like labview
|
I see the argument for raw processing power, but I also know teams are going to max out whatever they are given. Teams were pegging their cRIOs at 100% with video, while ten years earlier SPAM named a robot 3-Bits for the amount of space left on their BASIC Stamp-based IFI controller. (Paging George Wallace to correct whatever part of that I surely butchered, but they really had it close.)
To me, the important thing is the system's resilience at maintaining command response. That will involve things outside the immediate purview of the Sasquatch, such as the radios, FMS, etc.--but at the end of the day, it has to be able to withstand boneheaded robot design decisions. (Outright abuse is a nice-to-have.)
The second most important thing is service and documentation. IFI killed it with this back in the day; with PDFs off their website, you could wire up the control system, apply power, and drive without even necessarily hooking up a computer to download code. And at events, their reps were incredibly helpful. The CSAs have been great since then, but there's something about a person empowered to pull a part, break the warranty seals, dig in, and fix it. (Actually happened to a team of mine with the spade power terminals. Fixed in 10-15 minutes, and that was the year of the radio reprogramming.)
Everything else--languages, I/O, weight, cost, schedule of more parts--is far more flexible in my eyes when those first two points are hit.