Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch1373
Just putting this out there, I've been an inspector at 3 regionals(WPI, Boston, and CT) and the inspection checklist has always included this line:
The way I read that is that you can't use more than 1(even if cost wasn't an issue). So as an inspector, without seeing an update or Q&A post specifically allowing it, I would say no to that idea.
-Eric
|
Why do you interpret it this way?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch1373
Controller – 1 cRIO must be used on the robot
|
This part does not disallow the use of a second cRIO, it simply says that 1 must be used on the robot. If two are used on the robot then one is being used on the robot. If the rule said 1 and only 1 cRIO must be used then I would agree with this interpretation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch1373
and it must be the only device connected to the 37-pin Digital Sidecar ports and the 25-pin ports on the Solenoid and Analog Breakout(s) used on the robot <R56>
|
This also does not specifically prohibit using a second cRIO as a co-processor, If one cRIO is connected to all of the sensors and actuators (with the possible exception of the camera) and the other is connected to the cRIO via the second Ethernet port, and used only to interpret data sent through the ethernet port or gathered by the camera or another sensor attached to the second cRIO's second Ethernet port then this set up would not violate the quoted rule.
Obviously the best way to handle this would be to ask Q&A but If I were to read the rule indicated by the check list:
Quote:
|
<R56> ROBOTS must be controlled via the programmable National Instruments cRIO-FRC (National Instruments part number 780406-01). Other controllers shall not be used.
|
I would see nothing wrong with using a second cRIO (as in this setup it would not be a controller, just a processor).
It worries me some times that inspectors a left with a lot of room to make judgment calls (all though I understand it is necessary). I could easily show up to a competition with the set up I described (assuming it fit all of the cost guidelines) having never asked Q&A because my set up seems to be clearly allowed, only to have atleast two inspectors (Fletch and another one mentioned in this thread) who clearly have a difference in opinion to what the rule means, largely (in my opinion) based on the lack of differentiation by the inspectors between a controller and a co-processor.