Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dlavery
Joe raises a great point and accurately illustrates how easy it would be to create an Operator Interface is USB devices were supported. And that is exactly the problem that I have with this whole idea. When we get to the point that creating the OI for our robots is just a matter of picking a gamepad out of a pile and plugging it in, then I think we have lost something very important.
OK, right up front I will admit that I am probably in a shrinking minority within the FIRST community. But there are those of us that are very concerned that the kit of parts contents, the structure of the rules, and the "easier is better" philosophy is taking too much of the challenge out of FIRST. Removing too much of the challenge removes too much of the accomplishment when you solve the problem. Removing too much of the challenge removes too much of the innovation in the solutions. And, perhaps most important, removing too much of the challenge removes too much of the fun.
-dave
|
Isn't this the reason for things like the 'innovation in design and control award'? I mean right now you can hook 2 flightsticks to each joystick port giving you a total of 4 x-y and 16 digital inputs. Yet no one would win an award for that.
I contend that making it easy for new teams to compete while opening up new avenues for the kids to learn (USB architecture is here for the foreseeable future) is the ideal isn't it? Lets give them skill in something that they can possibly use, not an out of date bus architecture that they will only see in a computer museum.
Personally, I believe that the OI and RC are too restrictive now. Give them a PC\104 feedthrough port and see what kind of wild ideas they come up with. Give them a USB or Firewire dataport and see how they use it. Give them better bandwidth and allow them to transmit video from onboard cameras. you will be amazed at what they come up with.
The above is, as usual, JMHO