View Single Post
  #17   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-09-2014, 12:58
Aren Siekmeier's Avatar
Aren Siekmeier Aren Siekmeier is offline
on walkabout
FRC #2175 (The Fighting Calculators)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: 대한민국
Posts: 735
Aren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [FRC Blog] myRIO Expansion Port - What's the Deal?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankJ View Post
I have long since stop trying to predict what the GDC will do. But speed controllers & relays fit into the blogs definition of an active device. The proposed rule says one active device. NOT one active intermediate active device connected to a second active device. The blog has an approval process for active devices. Part of the approval process seems to be that you will need the resources to make the device commercially available to all the teams. So the approval bar starts off pretty high.
I can see where you're getting this reading, but look at the other two options for controlling a motor or servo. It says directly connected to PWM pins or connected through passive devices, which obviously doesn't mean no speed controller/relay at all. The intent seems to be that all actuators are still controlled by the approved controllers (Talons, Vics, Jags, and Spikes), while the signals to these controllers can be supplied in the 3 ways described (direct connection, passive connection, or one approved active device).

But I agree both that the wording doesn't say this exactly and that we can't predict all of the GDC's intent or future actions.
Reply With Quote