While I'm not directly opposed to change, I sure hope FIRST truly understands and comprehends everything before they move onward with implementing this new system.
Right now, Vex and the FRC controllers share much of the same hardware. Vex is a cheap[er] controller to buy to develop code on. Much time and effort was spent on writing WPIlib and EasyC to program both of these controllers, and to facilitate the use of many of the advanced features (like the CMUcam2) on both platforms.
With a new control system, FIRST needs to understand that:
- A low cost version of the controller (such as the Vex controller) should be cheap and readily accessible. Most FRC teams probably already own Vex kits, so this is essentially free for them.
- Sometimes having a "limited" system with less features than having more-features-than-you-can-shake-a-stick-at is better. While we intuitively always want bigger, better, isn't a "limited" controller much more like the you-have-six-weeks-and-not-enough-time-and-resources-to-do-this-perfectly mindset that FRC has always been about? (I support upgrading the control system, but I also strongly stand beside the limits placed on things like the number/type of motors used, etc.)
- If FIRST wasn't to go with IFI to produce this new system, will the new company provide the immense amount of support that IFI has? Will the new company send reps to every regional? How much experience specifically with FIRST (as opposed to Battle Bots) would the new company have?
- If IFI is developing the new platform, will it be at least cross-compatible with the old system? (I'm thinking of teams - like my own - who have a ton of older IFI control system equipment from being involved with FIRST for many years, that we can use for prototyping/practice robots/etc.)
- If FIRST truly wants the majority of teams to do advanced things with their robots, they need stability! By keeping the same architecture of the control system, robot size/weight, etc. the same year-to-year, teams are given the chance to come up with advanced ideas in the off-season. (Six weeks is enough to implement ideas, but not enough to try entirely new and untested things.) But if FIRST is always changing things around, then teams won't want to develop anything in the off-season if they have any indication that their work will be all of a waste come the next Kickoff Date.
- Any decision made should be in the best interest of the teams competing. Rather than have this be a "secret", I hope FIRST openly and transparently announces soon what exactly is the change they are proposing, and open up for feedback from the community. If there is anyone who knows what is best for teams, it's the teams themselves.