Compressor Control Loop: Relay Index is Invalid; also, Robot Drive not Running fast

[Mark McLeod]

That looks correct, and it's worked for me when I've used it.
Your Driver Station reports the cRIO image version to be v43?
No conflicts for DIO 1 or Relay 1?

[RyanN]

Originally Posted by Mark McLeod

That looks correct, and it's worked for me when I've used it.
Your Driver Station reports the cRIO image version to be v43?
No conflicts for DIO 1 or Relay 1?

It was the newest version, not sure which. It was last weekend when we messed with it. I setup the cRIO for them using the latest software though.

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

Team 1410 apparently fixed their "relay index is invalid" problem by using a good 37-pin cable between the cRIO digital module and the Digital Sidecar. I don't know why that would make a difference, unless the faulty cable was somehow keeping the module from working.

We did have one of the bad cables, and the electrical guy tried to fix it, but ended up breaking one of the clips that holds the connector together. We're using one of the old ones from last year now, so no worries there.

Anyway, we're using this code right now, which works perfectly.

Begin.vi


Periodic Task.vi


Finish.vi


I'm assuming this is legal for use in competition as long as we can demonstrate that the compressor shuts off at ~120PSI, and we have the pressure relief valve installed. I'm not going to lie. I skimmed the rules when they first came out. Being a college mentor is hard. I dedicate what time I have to help out the teams I mentor. I don't remember any of the rules saying you have to use their compressor code, but I'm not 100% sure.

[Bill McKinney]

Team 3711 has just run into the same message . Our code looks exactly like that shown above for all three vi's. And we're getting the invalid relay index message (and "invalid" indications in the control loop vi front panel)
Modules are set to the default of 1. Both the pressure switch and spike PWM are in the number 1 slots. We've replaced PWM cable and spikes. The spike gets a continuous orange(ish) light and receives no signal.
If someone does have a workaround we'd love to see it since we're testing pneumatics on the robot using a manual switch at the moment.
Thanks very much.

[Mark McLeod]

Use your code that works.
There's nothing sacred about the custom vi. It's just easier to work with common code if we're helping someone.
It adds some extra complexity in it's design to handle multiple compressors, but serves as an interesting example of doing that.

It's time for a little library decomposition to see where the sensitivities may lie.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Bill McKinney

Team 3711 has just run into the same message . Our code looks exactly like that shown above for all three vi's. And we're getting the invalid relay index message (and "invalid" indications in the control loop vi front panel)
Modules are set to the default of 1.

Is a puzzlement. Can you post your code so we can go through it in detail, looking for anything that isn't quite right?

Both the pressure switch and spike PWM are in the number 1 slots.

I think you're talking about the 3-pin connections on the Digital Sidecar, but in case you're talking about the cRIO module, that needs to be in the number 2 slot.

[Bill McKinney]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

Is a puzzlement. Can you post your code so we can go through it in detail, looking for anything that isn't quite right?



I think you're talking about the 3-pin connections on the Digital Sidecar, but in case you're talking about the cRIO module, that needs to be in the number 2 slot.

Thanks again for your help on this. Yep, the slots referred to were in the sidecar. We have now created a new compressor while loop in the periodic tasks VI per the code given earlier in this thread and everything is working fine. All wiring (PWM and pressure switch) remains the same so it was certainly (if there is such a thing) an issue with code in the compressor loop VI.
Incidentally, I won't add our original non-working code here since it was an exact dupe of the suggested code from this thread.
Of course it's crunch time and there are more probs, but this will be interesting to think more about in a couple of weeks!
Thanks.