View Single Post
  #3   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 21-02-2010, 22:18
Greg McKaskle Greg McKaskle is offline
Registered User
FRC #2468 (Team NI & Appreciate)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 4,751
Greg McKaskle has a reputation beyond reputeGreg McKaskle has a reputation beyond reputeGreg McKaskle has a reputation beyond reputeGreg McKaskle has a reputation beyond reputeGreg McKaskle has a reputation beyond reputeGreg McKaskle has a reputation beyond reputeGreg McKaskle has a reputation beyond reputeGreg McKaskle has a reputation beyond reputeGreg McKaskle has a reputation beyond reputeGreg McKaskle has a reputation beyond reputeGreg McKaskle has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Problems accurately counting pulses

I think Joe's suggestion is probably the best, but just so you can have a good conversation with the programmers, the interrupts are on the palette in bottom right -- Utilities>>Interrupts. You can configure it for Digital or for an Analog level. A second way to accurately get very high speed data is in the DMA capabilities, right next to the interrupts. They can be used to return a buffer of I/O values including digital lines.

Finally, it sounds like you are wanting to read at ~10 ms. That isn't very fast. In fact, you could stick the poll inside of the teleop and loop and while it doesn't satisfy Nyquist, it might work well enough for what you need.

If the CPU is loaded, and your timing jitters too much to get the 10ms, make the polling loop be a timed loop and possibly give it a bit of a priority boost.

Joe, I'm curious if you can give details of what you are referring to?

Greg McKaskle
Reply With Quote