I like the technical capabilities of the new system and I'm sure we'll be able to work around the limitations it places on us all, but it will take some adjusting to. The cRIO will open up more possibilities for inspiration. We love new challenges. I'm not worried that we'll see magic next season, but do like trying to foresee potential issues that we can prepare for now. The more information we can gather now, the easier it will be to advise teams.
I'm concerned about how turnkey the system will be for teams with few or no technical mentors. The multitude of cross wiring that all looks alike in this new system (multiple 5v, 12v, 24v power connections) worries me. We've all seen lots of examples of cross-wiring and loose connections by team's with little electronics experience that threaten to ruin an inexperienced team's experience.
Electronics layouts will take on a 3 dimensional design. While the cRIO is resistant to abuse, the connections to it are not. It makes me nervious to see those delicate convertors sticking up into the air off the cRIO brick. The brick will survive, but we'll need spares of the exposed connectors and analog and solenoid circuit boards. I imagine bricks will often be mounted on their side to provide some protection.
I am concerned about the development software licensing issues. I really liked the team-wide mcc18 license that allowed multiple students to learn to program at once, in the lab and at home. gcc will still allow this, however, Labview will not. I had similar issues with the limitations on the single team EasyC license.
I can't count how many problems I had with installing software on school provided laptops without an administrator. I'd meet the students at night and be leaving fix-it notes for the IT department in the morning. For example, EasyC stuck on Vex, because it had to write to a protected folder and then be restarted (not to pick on EasyC or school required IT protective measures).
Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseK
3.) Our team only has 1 demo each year in which we take more than 1 bot. Every other time more than 1 would be too much. Is this not the case with most teams?
|
We, like Madison, also have five or more older robots that are used quite a bit. We typically loan robots out to pre-rookie teams for competing in pre-season events, to demo at their school, or just to gain experienced in taking them apart and putting them back together.
On a given day we've had one robot driving in the Homecoming parade, another couple competing at a local off-season event with pre-rookies, a robot off being presented to a school board that lacks an FRC team.
During build season development the older robots are used for prototyping concepts, driving against the new robot, etc.
If we (I really) can afford to purchase an extra cRIO, then we need it as a portable workshop to take on the road to teams and to drive prototyping platforms. Our future retired cRIO robots will likely have to be retrofitted with older controllers much as we do with our old pBasic controllers. Advanced capability will be lost unless we devise our own replacement system. I am concerned about any necessary upgrades in later years that may render an expensive investment in a spare cRIO worthless.
The expected
exorbitant cost of the cRIO for subsequent years is not justifyable as an expense for any of the teams I work with, on a post-season robot. Many teams I deal with are on a very thin shoestring and must recycle parts off older robots in order to compete anyway, so this won't really be an issue for those really low-end teams.