Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Needel
I am not sure where you are going with this. Are you saying that people didn't do 4 lines because of the capabilities of the controller or because it is a difficult challenge. Either way I can see arguments for either. The controller is not the fastest thing on the market but how many teams of the 1500 actually use 100% of the processing or memory on board? I am just afraid that people are falling into the "we need it bigger, better, and faster" trap. IMO sometimes it is better to have a pickup truck that is bullet proof rather then a sports car which needs to be constantly tuned to keep it running.
|
It's not so much a hardware issue as it is a software issue. The tools and existing infrastructure around the product simply aren't conducive to the accomplishing the goals of the program. IMHO,
FIRST control systems need to foster rapid development time, a shallow learning curve, and great results. This is what we want to accomplish, correct? We want to develop control systems in 6 weeks, have them play well in competition, and we want everyone, rookie or veteran, to be able to do it.
If teams sit and do nothing during the matches, it is neither inspiring nor exciting for the students or general public.
There's always room for improvement. What one person says isn't broken seems to be very broken in my mind. Neither one of us is entirely right, but I'm sure both sides of the argument were heard and a concurring plan of action has been put into place.