Quote:
Originally Posted by apalrd
The only reason it's so darn hard to do stuff now is because of inefficiency in the current system - The WPIlib in LabVIEW is so unoptimized that it's nearly impossible to run code that uses IO calls faster than 20ms task time without saturating the CPU.
The fact that we're currently saturating a 400mhz PowerPC amazes me. I don't like the idea that we should just throw more power at it to deal with it, since there's no reason to need anything near a 400mhz PowerPC.
|
In my opinion, the new control system should be less powerful than the current cRIO setup. I've looked at the great robots from 2008 and before, and they don't really lack anything that we have today. The CMUcam wasn't as great as the current axis cam, but the only successful implementations of vision that I know of don't use the cRIO. In Java, the libraries are a little better than LV, but we still see high processor utilization when barely running anything. Having a slower and less powerful control system would force teams to come up with solutions that aren't completely inefficient (some of the code I see helping at competitions is amazingly inefficient) which would cause teams to come up with innovative control solutions.
Also, the current system is WAY overkill. The FPGA is a much higher-end model than what is needed, and there is no reason why the sidecar, digital module, analog module, the SSR module, the analog breakout, the pneumatics breakout, and the radio could not be integrated into one device. A good control system would have one enclosure for everything but power distribution. It would be MUCH cheaper than a $2,000 cRIO replacement.