WildStang 2015 Beta Testing blog

[JesseK]

As an EE in college, we lived for the blinking LEDs. If they didn't shine or blink correctly, our circuits were wrong. Even now, as a systems programmer (think Java), when I put something on an embedded system (think Vuzix glasses with a custom circuit) I still 'live and die' by the blinking of LEDs.

It is good to see we are passing on this obsession to the next generation

[SteveGarward]

Originally Posted by JesseK

It is good to see we are passing on this obsession to the next generation

On our team? You have no idea...

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by SteveGarward

If you want to use the same circuit powering the wireless is up to you.

A 2015 robot rule might make that decision for you.

Based on the available power from the VRM, and on the expectation of having the same wireless bridge next year as we used this year, I wouldn't count on being permitted to use the VRM 5 volt output for anything else.

[SteveGarward]

I agree, and rules trump anything I ever say.

For powering custom circuits (which have mostly been LEDs lately), we have been using a separate regulator, fed by 12V from the PD board.

[The Lucas]

I like your Cable Magic post. I was hoping one of the beta teams would print something like that, since the DIO connections no longer have a lock.
I have a suggestion to possibly improve the DIO cabling further by using Latching Polarized (LP) Connector Housings like these 1x3 Female Housings. At first glance, it seems that with a few cutouts for the latch and the notch, Cable Magic could be modified to accept both LP and standard PWM connectors. The question really is if the resulting part would be rigid enough with less plastic, and withstand repeated latching.

I have used the LP connectors in prior years for intermediate sensor and solenoid connections. They have done a good job of preventing accidental disconnects and reverse connections (we had a really bad year with electrical tape covered PWM intermediate connections so we decided to upgrade). I really like the prospect of individually latching DIO channels on the RoboRIO, not sure if it is feasible until I get a test unit. Any insights you and the other beta teams could provide would be much appreciated.

[SteveGarward]

The software subteam has just published a blog post on their initial work with the Java platform on the roboRIO.

Three in a week? Somebody stop us!

[SteveGarward]

A quick update - we made a mistake and posted an incorrect board design for one of the MXP expansion boards. The 'original' board design was an older version - please see the update on our blog if you were looking at using this board design.

[JesseK]

Can you ssh to the RoboRio?

[Greg McKaskle]

Yes. ssh, sftp, webdav and the web services are the primary tools for viewing and modifying roboRIO settings. There will still be a formatting/imaging tool for the basics.

Greg McKaskle

[JesseK]

Cool, thanks Greg!

[billbo911]

Originally Posted by SteveGarward

A quick update - we made a mistake and posted an incorrect board design for one of the MXP expansion boards. The 'original' board design was an older version - please see the update on our blog if you were looking at using this board design.

What is the value of "R1"? I assume it is for current limiting of the +5vdc.
What is the value of the filter cap "C1"?

Wait, never mind. It looks like that is just a power indicator LED with current limiting resistor.

[SteveGarward]

Originally Posted by billbo911

Wait, never mind. It looks like that is just a power indicator LED with current limiting resistor.

Correct - this is just an LED using the 5v DC from the MXP to know it is connected. The resistor R1 is just a current limiting resistor for the LED. Value should be around 150R for an average 2v @ 20mA LED.

We changed from surface mount to through hole at the last minute for this set of boards (since there was only 1 SMT part left..), and didn't notice we had missed the value on the schematic.

[billbo911]

Can I make a suggestion for the next Rev. of your MXP Expansion board?

As it is designed right now, it doesn't appear to have any method of securing it to the RoboRio other than the MXP connector it's self.

How simple, and cost effective, would it be to lengthen the board so that it overlap the two nutserts in the top RoboRio? Then just have holes in the board line up with the nutserts. That way you would have a securing method on the other end of the board from the connector.

[Mark McLeod]

Did you mean this version?

‘The secure’


This board layout is larger to span from the MXP connector to the two screw holes for mounting at the top. This allows it to be firmly secured to the roboRIO.
Download the board here.

[SteveGarward]

Thanks Mark, beat me to it.

The only downside to this board is the additional cost of empty space. Probably worth it for security.