Go to Post "Its not a glitch its a new feature, we just dont know how to use it yet" - Cuog [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Technical > Electrical
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
View Poll Results: In 2014, I plan on or would like to use:
Victors 25 14.71%
Jaguars 20 11.76%
Talons 125 73.53%
Voters: 170. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 4 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-04-2013, 16:32
apalrd's Avatar
apalrd apalrd is offline
More Torque!
AKA: Andrew Palardy (Most people call me Palardy)
VRC #3333
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Auburn Hills, MI
Posts: 1,347
apalrd has a reputation beyond reputeapalrd has a reputation beyond reputeapalrd has a reputation beyond reputeapalrd has a reputation beyond reputeapalrd has a reputation beyond reputeapalrd has a reputation beyond reputeapalrd has a reputation beyond reputeapalrd has a reputation beyond reputeapalrd has a reputation beyond reputeapalrd has a reputation beyond reputeapalrd has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Talons, Jaguars and Victors - where do you stand?

The update rate really doesn't matter if you are running code slower than the update rate you are running (e.g. we run our code at the relatively fast rate of 10ms/iteration, so the standard Victor update rate of 10.1ms vs a Jaguar or Talon at 5.05ms would make no difference)

I also played with (psudo-accidentally) updating the Victor 884's at 5.05ms and it worked fine. The new 888's appear to be spec'd down to 2.1ms cycle time (with a max pulse width of 2ms) but using a cycle time that isn't a multiple of 5.05ms requires some additional timing calculations (it's not hard, if I were to try to run my code at 7ms and update the PWMs at 3.5ms it would be possible).

BUT since the code still calculates the pulse width at 10ms the update frequency doesn't matter at all below that. In fact, the default code updates at somewhere around 20ms in the main loop in LabVIEW (not exactly sure, it's not timed well) so the 10.1ms vs 5.05ms update rate wouldn't affect anything.

We ran Talons on our test chassis in late December without fans and were so happy we ran them on all of our 2013 motors (there are 11 on our robot) without any fans.


Edit: I see absolutely no reasons to use a Jaguar in FRC. The reliability history is poor (in my time on 33 we've blown ~3x more Jaguars than Victors, yet used ~6x more Victors on robots), although the changes by IFI should help that, the CAN implementation is poor (synchronous blocking) and increases single point failures, and they're freaking huge.
__________________
Kettering University - Computer Engineering
Kettering Motorsports
Williams International - Commercial Engines - Controls and Accessories
FRC 33 - The Killer Bees - 2009-2012 Student, 2013-2014 Advisor
VEX IQ 3333 - The Bumble Bees - 2014+ Mentor

"Sometimes, the elegant implementation is a function. Not a method. Not a class. Not a framework. Just a function." ~ John Carmack

Last edited by apalrd : 10-04-2013 at 16:35. Reason: Jaguars
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:09.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi