Quote:
Originally posted by JLambert
Personally, I see the language and the controls hardware as a limitation. Much like how the mech side is limited to what materials it can use, we're given a limit to make it a little more challenging. Our task is to do our best with what we have.
|
Good analogy, but lets take it a step further. In the past 3 years, and especially this year, the mechanical rules have been relaxed a ton. The electronics rules have been relaxed slightly, by allowing the use of the custom circuit board, but the limitations they put on it make it much less useful then it could be.
Ultimately, what I would like to see is an interface to completely bypass IFI's microprocessor. That way, they can keep using the Stamp 2SX (or upgrade to a P) and many teams can continue to use it. Then, they provide a way for us to plug in our own microprocessor, of our choosing. It would need 8+ digital i/o and a serial port (and maybe some other stuff). If IFI were to use appropriate buffers, they would be easily able to tell if we blew up the robot controller, or whether it was their problem. This allows teams the flexibility to use a better microprocessor, or at least one that they are more familier with.
Now obviously this isn't an easy task, but I think the time would be much better spent then just changing the microprocessor, and keeping the black box attitude.
Just the ramblings of a wannabe EE