[Greg McKaskle]

I'm not positive who the NI folks were, but my suspicion is that they were volunteering and taking part in the same awesome event as you were. If they could snap their fingers and shave seconds off of boot time, they likely would. But they are probably trained engineers acting in a volunteer role.

On the boot time topic, I just timed it without user code, and it is under 30 seconds -- on a cRIO, over ethernet. If you think about the topology, the cRIO has nothing to do with how the bridge/radio connects to the field. To the cRIO, it is a cable. NI didn't make the radio or write the firmware, and we have little influence over the selection criteria except that it needs to bridge ethernet. I'm not trying to pass the buck here, just pointing out that the cRIO is just one ingredient in the soup.

The RoboRIO has additional options for radio connectivity, and may I point out that the myRIO even includes an integrated radio option. As mentioned in the Q/A, radio selection is still in progress and that is because it has a big impact -- on boot times, throughput, security, price, etc. The control system team cares deeply about team experience and one should not assume that this opportunity to improve things will be wasted. One of the things I look forward to after the system is available is to publish a development blog that details the other possibilities that just weren't meant to happen due to budget, time, space, weight, etc.

On the price and capabilities topic, NI responded to the RFP with what we feel is a very exciting product to use on a robot. I will not knock an IFI controller, or the Sasquatch. Each has its strengths. In the non-Hollywood world, it is not possible for all 2600 team to agree on the ideal controller characteristics. The laws of physics and economics apply here and we don't all want the same experience. And we don't have to agree either.

Alpha testing starts a few billion milliseconds from now and that means Joe and I need to get back to work.

Greg McKaskle