[sanddrag]

I find this Q/A answer quite underwritten for such a thorough question.

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=442

Q:
My question pertains to sections 5.2, 5.3.3. and 6.3.5

In section 5 of the manual the definition of a FIX-IT-Window says
"During the FIX-IT WINDOWS, software for either the robot or operator interface may be developed without restriction."

The answer to a previous Q/A question (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=407) says "The Robot Controller is considered part of the robot, not part of the operator interface. As such, it must be shipped with the robot prior to the shipping deadline."

To me, this does not seem to be development "without restriction." Additionally, under <R17> and <R20> teams are allowed large amounts of time to develop software. So my questions are the following:

What use is the value in keeping the Operator Interface if we are required to ship the Robot Controller? Can a team purchase an additional robot controller to develop programming after the ship date? If yes, then why must teams incur this multi-hundred dollar cost to take advantage of the FIX-IT-WINDOWS as opposed to keeping (and not shipping) the one provided in the KOP? It seems like the previous Q/A is imposing an otherwise avoidable expense to teams who wish to program in the FIX-IT-WINDOWS Under-funded teams may be at a disadvantage.

Thanks.

A:
The IFI Robot Controller is considered part of the robot, and must be shipped with the robot prior to the shipping deadline.

The Fix-It-Windows are intended to permit teams to manufacture spare and replacement parts and develop software for their robot while at their home facility. Teams do not have direct access to the robot during these periods, and must rely on information they have generated during the design and build process to determine the fit and function of any parts developed during the Fix-It-Windows. This is true for both hardware and software.

Very disappointing. I feel I brought up some good points/arguments/questions only to have them ignored. This Q/A answer/ruling does nothing but channel money into IFI.

The answer to my other question here http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=464 ins't so illogical but still disappointing.