View Single Post
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-04-2016, 17:41
Agent ZeusChops
 
Posts: n/a
Re: PIDController + Latency - related issues

Alan, I agree with your point completely. But The reason I added in latency was because the system is flawed by never receding back onto the 'setpoint' as well as the system requires that user input is given to launch the ball. I don't really care how the system is setup nor do I care to look too closely at how the code is formatted. I'm fully aware that this certainly creates issues upon 'defending my point' but the system does not appear to be consistent. I can say that the robot uses one motor for the shooter which is controlled by a PIDController. There is an encoder used on the shaft connecting to separate belts to drive the two axles with wheels attached. I can do a rough sketch of the design if needed, but the actual system should still remain with the receding pattern given by the pdf however the activation only happens for roughly eight seconds, maximum prior to shooting so Integral never has a chance to increase large enough to reduce the error correction (if I'm not mistaken, they're using something like 0.07 for the 'I' value).

Currently, their code is written in Java but I'm almost certain that the language wouldn't matter as both Java and C++ should have the same PIDController formatting.

Defending the point of latency is that there is no extra check, as far as I'm aware, that the system ever waits for the current speed to be around the setpoint forced into the PIDController prior to launching the ball. The launch of the ball is forced by the manipulator and they only receive controller vibration to notify them that they are 'at' the setpoint. Certainly, there wouldn't be an issue of latency if the system was setup correctly.

Last edited by Agent ZeusChops : 09-04-2016 at 17:48.
Reply With Quote