View Single Post
  #5   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-02-2016, 14:17
PneumaticFlea PneumaticFlea is offline
Electroneer, Programmer, Webmaster
AKA: Lucas LeVieux
FRC #4014 (Top Hat Technicians)
Team Role: Programmer
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Rookie Year: 2014
Location: California
Posts: 9
PneumaticFlea is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Single-player operator interface?

Thanks you all for your speedy replies!

The wording of 3.1.1 is ambiguous; but it seems to hint at a single driver being legal. So theoretically, you could have only one person behind the glass.

I think the idea of trying both ways is good. We don't really have a dedicated driver or drive team, and I'm not exactly sure how other teams decide who they are, but last year we just gave everybody a crack at it and whoever was most confident got the gig. Maybe this year we should have something a bit more formal, and do some tests on different configurations of the operator interface (multiple IO classes) and decide which is most efficient.

To clarify on the design of the robot, we have a tank-tread drive base, a two-wheeled shooter that pivots with a servo, some sort of manipulator arm (the specifics of which I'm not completely sure of), and a scissor-lift mechanism for the endgame. The drive team would really only be operating two of these systems at a time at most. Is this too complex for one person? Or would it require too much coordination for two people?

I think it's a good point about having more brainpower to solve problems. Joel, your situation is very interesting to me (same robot, different amounts of drivers). It seems like for most things, 1 driver might be sufficient, but 2 doesn't hinder anything and the extra brainpower can be useful. I'll convey your findings to the rest of the team.
Reply With Quote