FRC Blogged - The 2015 Control System Request for Proposa

[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.

[Hjelstrom]

Probably the main problem is that the Kinect has enough latency to make it not very suitable for direct control of a robot (e.g. using your arms as the joysticks). Games have the same problem. The games that seem to work best are the ones where you are mimicing an action rather than directly controlling something. Kinect will probably be utilized nicely in a game design like 2008 where you can choose between specific goals or tasks.

I'm excited to see USB support being considered for the robot controller (lets get kinects on the robots!) and I still think there is value to doing vision on the robot.

Originally Posted by BigJ

Sorry, let me rephrase. Most game developers at this point are not using Kinect very well. I am not sure if this is a limit of their time and budget or of the Kinect technology. However I have a hard time believing that a lot of FRC teams can do better with Kinect than the developers of a AAA video game (Steel Battalion).

http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2012/...y-armor-review (Might have strong language, I didn't re-read it too closely)

Although Steel Battalion has a bunch of problems aside from the Kinect control, the Kinect controls it is using are relatively simple and apparently fail to work well enough for that stuff.

Not to say that some developers aren't using Kinect well (see Double Fine's Happy Action Theater/Sequel): http://www.giantbomb.com/quick-look-...equel/17-6467/ (This one most likely does have strong language but I did not re-watch it)

Notice that the Happy Action Sequel mostly just uses detection to paint things on the scene and record the players.

Again, it's one of those things that is possible, but unless the bonus is VERY high, most teams will use that time to improve their in-robot autonomous, or spend more time in driver practice. If the bonus is very high, then you have the high disparity between teams who could get it to work and have enough experience, and those that couldn't.

Rereading your post, I think you probably weren't trying to refute me or anything, but after compiling the post I figure this is good information for everyone to see anyway.

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by Hjelstrom

I'm excited to see USB support being considered for the robot controller (lets get kinects on the robots!) and I still think there is value to doing vision on the robot.

Under the COTS rules you can put a laptop with it's own battery on the robot. That laptop could connect to a Kinect right now. You don't even have to run Windows there is work underway for Linux. It really doesn't differ in any way from the way the existing fields connect to the Kinect.

The issue with adding Kinect to just any USB Host, even if it has the hardware, is that you need the software for it. If you have say OpenEmbedded running you can get drivers. However, then you're back to robbing CPU time from the rest of the control system to process video. Also there are usually compromises made to reduce the resources of Linux to make it fit into a smaller package. For example uCLinux which doesn't need a memory controller. You still get something that is basically Linux but what do you compromise on in the process?

I guess it comes down to how bad do you want a PC on your robot before it just makes more sense to put a PC on your robot?

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by techhelpbb

Under the COTS rules you can put a laptop with it's own battery on the robot. That laptop could connect to a Kinect right now. You don't even have to run Windows there is work underway for Linux. It really doesn't differ in any way from the way the existing fields connect to the Kinect.

I think he knows that.

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by Hjelstrom

Probably the main problem is that the Kinect has enough latency to make it not very suitable for direct control of a robot (e.g. using your arms as the joysticks). Games have the same problem. The games that seem to work best are the ones where you are mimicing an action rather than directly controlling something. Kinect will probably be utilized nicely in a game design like 2008 where you can choose between specific goals or tasks.

I'm excited to see USB support being considered for the robot controller (lets get kinects on the robots!) and I still think there is value to doing vision on the robot.

I am entirely against the Kinect as a robot control system. The processor of the driver station is a direct contributor to latency, and it conveys a large advantage to teams who can throw down a large chunk of change for a high end laptop. We already have one, so i don't say this out of self-interest. It's for the hundreds of cash strapped and rookie teams that will be put at a large disadvantage if it is forced upon them. Kinect in the robot could be very interesting assuming they provide the software on the crio side so all the teams can make use of it (assuming again that it's essential to the game as had been suggested).

[Clinton Bolinger]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

I am entirely against the Kinect as a robot control system. The processor of the driver station is a direct contributor to latency, and it conveys a large advantage to teams who can throw down a large chunk of change for a high end laptop. We already have one, so i don't say this out of self-interest. It's for the hundreds of cash strapped and rookie teams that will be put at a large disadvantage if it is forced upon them. Kinect in the robot could be very interesting assuming they provide the software on the crio side so all the teams can make use of it (assuming again that it's essential to the game as had been suggested).

It looks like FIRST is trying to help improve the Kinect "experience" for the 2013 season.

Originally Posted by http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/frc-kit-parts-supplier-toolkit

Computers for Kinect Stations

A foreseeable need for the 2013 season is computers to support the competition. Here are the basic (very basic) system requirements for the need we have:

Qty required: 60
Due Date: 11/30/12

• At least a Celeron-ish processor (I don’t know if there’s anything on the market that’s too slow for our application, it’s very basic)
• At least 16GB hard drive (Flash or locking hard drive preferred, the environment isn’t always delicate)
• At least a 15” display
• At least 1 Ethernet port
• No OS necessary as we can image the machines ourselves.

As other people have stated, I think that the correct implementation of the Kinect will be similar to the 2008 Hybrid mode. Where the game will have a Randomizer to determine the location of a game piece and the only way to tell the robot where it is located is via the Kinect or on board sensors.

-Clinton-

[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

[FrankJ]

I stand corrected. I did not realize how large IFI is & certainly did not mean anything negative. They certainly have control systems that will work. If they choose to put forth a request expect it will be good.


Hard to tell the revenues since they appear to be private. But I am guessing that they are much smaller than NI. Which was my original point. Of course being private they are not dependent on market opinion....

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by ebarker

I'm kinda feeling this one

That's actually what I meant to link to, made a mistake in my haste.

Very potent guy for that price and packaging. Maybe with such a system we could get one in each year's kop?