[Kevin Sevcik]

First off, I'm delurking after several months of down-time/new baby/work specifically to note that I drooled a little when I saw the tech-specs of these new controllers. We've always been attached to CAN, so we never went with the Talon SRs, and suffered mightily on mounting space for it. I'm really looking forward to packing 4-ish Talon SRXs into the footprint of a single Jaguar in 2015, and I will be sorely disappointed if I'm not allowed to do so. Also, I'm dearly hoping that CTRE will make the source for the controllers a little more open than it was for the Jags. The only thing available for the Jags was the very original non-FRC source, which made it troublesome to figure out what they were doing, why speed feedback wasn't reliable/available, etc.

If we're using this thread to put in feature requests, my request for the Talon SRX is for sensor feedback output regardless of what control mode you're in. One of the problems on the Jag was that you could only get certain feedback if you were in that particular mode. So speed feedback was only available in speed PID control. So no using the Jag as a sensor input for your nicer C++ PID code.

Magnets,
I think the number of teams using Jags/Talon SRs with no EMI problems is testament to the notion that PWM frequency isn't a huge EMI source on the bots. Since the new controllers will use the same sign-magnitude/synchronous rectification control as the Jag/Talon SR, it shouldn't be a problem. Sign-magnitude control toggles between the high/low FETs on the switched leg to switch between driving/recirculating the current. This makes for smaller current ripples and less EMI. You're probably going to get more noise from the brush commutation than the PWM switching, especially on high-speed 550-can motors.