Quote:
Originally Posted by Ether
Frankly, I don't see where nonadrive is simpler
|
Just to be clear: For a fair comparison of the code required, you have to compare apples to apples. Mecanum requires no special operator intervention or programming to actuate raising or lowering of wheels. To be functionally similar to this for comparison, nonadrive requires extra operator input(s) and extra code to respond to those extra operator input(s) to raise and lower the traction wheels and control whether or not to power the center wheel. To be functionally equivalent (same driver interface and same robot behavior), nonadrive requires extra logic to react to the normal joystick axis driver commands and decide automatically when to raise or lower the traction wheels (for example, when strafing or tight turning is commanded).
This is not an argument that mecanum is "better". Just a comparison of the code involved. The code for either is fairly straightforward.
It would be interesting to hear from teams that have fielded successful nonadrive robots. Did you add extra input(s) and associated code for the driver to manually raise and lower the traction wheels, or did you add logic to process the "normal" driver commands and let the robot automatically handle this decision in order to keep the driver interface simpler, or did you design a "hybrid" compromise with manual operator input(s) plus some automatic behavior?