Who used Driver Station for Vision?

[RyanCahoon]

Originally Posted by cbale2000

For me the bigger question is, why doesn't FIRST just ditch the cRio and go with laptop controlled robots?

[EDIT: this first set of arguments is further supported by [apalrd]'s arguments for RTOSes] If you start from FIRST's requirement that the control system have a kill switch that can't be blocked by user code (it's the reason the IFI controllers have a "master" coprocessor and a big reason why we can't touch the FPGA on the cRIOs) and step into their paranoid mindset for a second, either you accept that the laptop won't be the primary control processor, in which case your I/O board expands to become a microcontroller board, and you basically get back to where we are now*, or the laptop probably won't be able to run just any commodity OS, and that the user code will probably have to run in some sort of jail/VM/isolate. The latter two points combined means you have no guarantee that it can be programmed in "virtually any language." Or else I would argue that the cRIOs can be programmed in "virtually any language" as well: assuming the language is open source, you should be able to cross-compile for the PowerPC target. This is how RobotPY works.

Also, you have to find somebody to maintain and support this new platform. FIRST employs only a handful of control system engineer staff; a lot of the work on the software for the current system is done by NI or the WPIlib project. If you move to a laptop-based system, you lose at least half the team. Who handles all the calls and emails when teams start having problems with the system? Also, the laptops have to come from somewhere, so you have to find a sponsor willing to donate, or sell at greatly reduced price, 2300+ laptops. You may argue that already happens with the driver stations - and i'm not saying it's impossible, just that it would have to happen.

If we ignore all the above and suppose they did allow teams to use their own laptops, there's also the point of maintainability at the competitions. The ability of the FTAs and CSAs to help troubleshoot problems becomes greatly reduced when you open up such a critical part of the control system. FIRST is having a difficult enough time keep the current system running, as evidenced by the communication problems, etc, even when there aren't malicious parties involved. I'm not trying to insult FIRST at all - just saying the job is a difficult one already. It would become increasingly unclear if the problem was in the field system or if the team had messed something up themselves.

* Perhaps the argument here comes down to the fact that the cRIOs are bulkier than they need to be. And I would agree with you. I doubt FIRST needs controllers that are certified for 50G shock loads, etc. See above points on logistics, though. It might have been interesting (political issues notwithstanding) if we had kept the old IFI controllers but made it easier to interface them with a laptop.

Despite my arguments to the contrary, I think it would be a great opportunity if FIRST did move to a laptop-based system. I guess the last point is that I am encouraged by FIRST opening up the driver station in the last couple of years. Perhaps this is a sign of things to come (I hope).