FRC Blogged - The 2015 Control System Request for Proposa

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Does this mean it would be integrated into the robot controller?

No, I didn't read it like that. "Support" does not equal "integrated".

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

In other words, we could end up with a control system that doesn't support current languages.

Yes, in theory, but what other languages are there? A company promoting their product using some obscure language (FORTRAN 77?) isn't going to see a lot of business. Reality is, you will know at least one of the languages. (And if not, you learn. Like real life)

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

How would an integrated solution work? For example, can you imagine the design challenge if the radio was integrated into the cRio?

No, I am having a difficult time imagining that. Seems trivial to me, but that may be just me...

Originally Posted by IndySam

Things like this must be done with a limited committee of dedicated individuals.

Absolutely, and I truly hope they don't get all transparent on us in this case.

[rsisk]

Originally Posted by DonRotolo

... A company promoting their product using some obscure language (FORTRAN 77?) isn't going to see a lot of business.

And what is wrong with FORTRAN? My first programming language was FORTRAN IV

[ebarker]

Before there was National Instruments, with their fancy cRIO system for test and automation ..... There was the HP1000, a real time test and automation system that ran ... yes, you guessed it... FORTRAN

HP1000

Yes indeed, FORTRAN on the 1000 predated NI and the cRIO.

[skimoose]

Originally Posted by ebarker

Before there was National Instruments, with their fancy cRIO system for test and automation ..... There was the HP1000, a real time test and automation system that ran ... yes, you guessed it... FORTRAN

HP1000

Yes indeed, FORTRAN on the 1000 predated NI and the cRIO.

Oh, come on if we're going to go to tried and true systems, I vote for my first imbedded experience. An 8080 with numeric keypad programmed in hex and managing a 2K memory stack. Or my first closed loop feedback system on an analog computer programmed with jumpers.

[IndySam]

This thread has officially jumped the shark!

the old guy shark

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by IndySam

This thread has officially jumped the shark!

the old guy shark

Hey I'd love to see new features that go beyond that RFQ that people want.

Let's see who can think out side of that box (hopefully within the galaxy).

BTW: I'm only 36 but I've been told I'm going on 80.

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by techhelpbb

Hey I'd love to see new features that go beyond that RFQ that people want.

I'd love to see a simple, robust system that connects quickly and dependably.

Andy

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

I'd love to see a simple, robust system that connects quickly and dependably.

Andy

Let's frame that:

Simple as in all in one piece with no room for wiring error or simple as in connect these wires here...here...and there?

In the current system the connect time is determined more by the D-Link robot AP and field than the cRIO. Point being: where is the line between the control system and accessories that FIRST provides?

To elaborate if someone makes a system that can boot, connect, and be ready to run in < 15 seconds. Then a user comes along with say a laptop and that takes 1.25 minutes to boot added to it is that an issue for the control system developer, FIRST or the user?

What about the amount of time to upload software into the control system?

Just curious.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by techhelpbb

Let's frame that:

Simple as in all in one piece with no room for wiring error or simple as in connect these wires here...here...and there?

In the current system the connect time is determined more by the D-Link robot AP and field than the cRIO. Point being: where is the line between the control system and accessories that FIRST provides?

To elaborate if someone makes a system that can boot, connect, and be ready to run in < 15 seconds. Then a user comes along with say a laptop and that takes 1.25 minutes to boot added to it is that an issue for the control system developer, FIRST or the user?

What about the amount of time to upload software into the control system?

Just curious.

I can't speak for Andy, but to me, the benchmark of "a simple, robust system that connects quickly and dependably" remains the 2008 control system (with the 2005-2006 breaker panel). The cRIO era has had some pluses, but you can't beat opening the package, wiring the robot, turning it on at the breaker and being able to drive three seconds later. (You'll notice I didn't say anything about imaging, setting IP addresses, or even downloading some user code.)

I'm not married to the IFI system, but it is my point of reference on things related to (re-)connection speed and simplicity.

[Paul Copioli]

Originally Posted by FrankJ
NI does not depend on making money from us to stay in business. I imagine a smaller company like IFI would.
Common misconception. My understanding is during IFI's run of making our control system, Rack Solutions was their big money maker. With the introduction of VEX they are obviously doing more than fine without FIRST.

Cory is right. Last year FRC business (including team sales of the Victor and other FRC specific items) was about 1% of VEX's business, not IFI's business. If you include Rack Solutions and that little toy company called Hexbug, then I imagine it is less than 0.3% of the total IFI business. So we would not depend on the revenue if we decided to propose.

Paul

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Cory is right. Last year FRC business (including team sales of the Victor and other FRC specific items) was about 1% of VEX's business, not IFI's business. If you include Rack Solutions and that little toy company called Hexbug, then I imagine it is less than 0.3% of the total IFI business. So we would not depend on the revenue if we decided to propose.

Paul

I love this guy!

[ebarker]

I'm kinda feeling this one

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

So we would not depend on the revenue if we decided to propose.

I really hope you guys will submit a proposal. IFI has demonstrated capability to deliver systems that perform well and reliably, at attractive cost.

If an IFI proposal is selected by FIRST, I will rejoice for two reasons: (1) teams and participants will benefit, and (2) such a selection will indicate that two very accomplished and extremely innovative guys have found a way to put past differences behind them.

[Gdeaver]

I think everyone is is forgetting just how much the FPGA does on the robot controller. Most arm socs have at most 2 hardware quadrature encoder channels and limited counter timers. Also the modules that plug into the C-Rio have significant protections built in. One thing I always hoped NI would comment on was how much was lost by having the WPI layer to support Windriver and Java. If NI only had to support Labview and they had control of everything, how much different would the system be? Could we have been able to use their Can module? Would the system been more robust? This is important. If the the awarded company does not have total control of the system and there are many entities involved, then the chance of problems goes up. If the system has to support many software environments, then the problems increase and support becomes a nightmare. The power PC chip is an old man in the processor world and Intel, AMD, Via, N'vidia all have cutting edge solutions. Who in the market has a commercial product shipping today with the robustness of the C-rio and modern hardware that we can afford? I'm drawing a blank. The one thing that complicates the whole First system is machine vision. How do we support it. It's the most hardware demanding thing that we do.