Quote:
Originally Posted by lukevanoort
This is something that I don't like about the RoboCoach rules. It seems to me that legality/illegality here is a matter of semantics. If you just have software safety limits that are in constant effect, the buttons seem to fit; they communicate for the robot to do the same thing every time (speed up/slow down/turn), but the default behavior overrides this for safety reasons at certain speeds. It the GDC clarified to make that illegal, then software limits (such as using a limit switch to stop an arm) and all other devices that teams use to keep operator error from damaging their robots become illegal (assuming that they affect something the robocoach controls).
|
I'd have to say that this is still legal.
Quote:
|
The commands can also initiate the execution of more complex routines, as long as the routines rely only upon input from sensors and systems on-board the robot (i.e. not using information from the RoboCoach and/or Signaling Device other than “start routine xx”).
|
You're still sending the same command, but it is doing something different not because of a software state machine, but instead because it is a complex routine that is responding to sensor input (such as a limit switch or a tach). That seems to be exactly the sort of thing they're trying to permit. In light of this, it sounds like Mr. Clayton's software design would pass muster. Am I off-base here?