View Single Post
  #9   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 19-05-2015, 09:35
jhersh jhersh is offline
National Instruments
AKA: Joe Hershberger
FRC #2468 (Appreciate)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: May 2008
Rookie Year: 1997
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,006
jhersh has a reputation beyond reputejhersh has a reputation beyond reputejhersh has a reputation beyond reputejhersh has a reputation beyond reputejhersh has a reputation beyond reputejhersh has a reputation beyond reputejhersh has a reputation beyond reputejhersh has a reputation beyond reputejhersh has a reputation beyond reputejhersh has a reputation beyond reputejhersh has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brownout behavior - alternative design goals

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tanis View Post
As for comms loss causing the robots to be disabled- I am in favor of that. Without comms, you can't e-stop your robot. That means that if you lose comms and your robot becomes a danger to itself or to people, you can't stop it. Disabling the robot when it can no longer communicate with the driver station sounds like an appropriate action to take.
That's contradictory and not how it will work. And anyway, if you have no comms how does FMS disabling do any good. You have no comms.

No, we will continue to have the designed behavior that the robot will override (locally) the enable signal when a situation deems it (no comms and brown out) and the DS and FMS should only use that as status for humans (if they even have comms to receive that status).

The FMS broke this year and it will be fixed.
Reply With Quote