View Single Post
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-12-2013, 13:48
techhelpbb's Avatar
techhelpbb techhelpbb is offline
Registered User
FRC #0011 (MORT - Team 11)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Rookie Year: 1997
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,624
techhelpbb has a reputation beyond reputetechhelpbb has a reputation beyond reputetechhelpbb has a reputation beyond reputetechhelpbb has a reputation beyond reputetechhelpbb has a reputation beyond reputetechhelpbb has a reputation beyond reputetechhelpbb has a reputation beyond reputetechhelpbb has a reputation beyond reputetechhelpbb has a reputation beyond reputetechhelpbb has a reputation beyond reputetechhelpbb has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 3.6GHz 802.11y for Competitions

Quote:
Originally Posted by magnets View Post
3. If implemented properly, normal 802.11n should work fine, even with lots of other networks happening at the same time. Instead of making it more complicated to fix the problem, FIRST should resolve the current issue.
Even if FIRST reduces each field to a single channel and makes the field/robot system more stable the effect of reusing a channel will be degraded performance with one or more network.

Once the other network is out of FIRST's control the risk of channel monopolization is high.

As we have both stated putting the show stopping robot communication on a different channel is possible. That other channel should be easier to diagnose without robots of various different needs placing demands on it. The field systems are common and required for all fielded robots. TCP/IP and video is not required but nice to have.

On the topic of 3.6GHz it only perpetuates binding the necessary field communications to the extra optional traffic.
It would be far cheaper to use RS232/TTL serial to RF adapters for the field traffic.
Licensing issues may apply to both options.

Course we could try IRDA for the fields and make the fields more RF immune.

Last edited by techhelpbb : 17-12-2013 at 13:57.
Reply With Quote