Quote:
Originally Posted by geomapguy
If you don't the ability to do stuff manually in your code, then you are setting yourself up for failure. What happens if a sensor goes out during a match....you still want to be able to function without the sensor.
So honestly, just figure it out and stop crying about it...
|
If a sensor goes out and my default is to not allow firing how is that failure? If we determine that the potential risks of not being in a known good state are not worth the cost of losing a match I would say that is both OUR call to make and the proper call.
This isn't my first rodeo, when designing a system that has potentially dangerous states I prefer to know exactly where things are and be sure that the system protects itself from damage and keeps itself from getting into states that could be dangerous. Dry firing the system is potentially dangerous due to the fact that it bypasses the regular firing procedure meaning any of a handful of other systems could be in the wrong configuration and could be damaged, destroyed, or cause other problems. There is a firing procedure for a reason. If the forks were to hit the intake neither system would likely be destroyed but it would present an unsafe condition for the humans that have to sort that crap out.
Asking for clarification isn't "crying about it" it's making sure we are adequately prepared for any known contingencies. It's something engineers try to do. I will comply with any and all procedures that the LRI's deem necessary to ensure safe operation of robots, I just want to know what they are and what the expectations on my team are.
I would assume you wouldn't talk to one of your mentors as you have just done to me, I will ask you nicely once to change your tone. After that I will be contacting your team leaders to have a discussion about how your team is representing itself online.