Go to Post I think applying Gracious Professionalism to strictly legal game play trivializes what is a much more important and fundamental FIRST concept. - jimfortytwo [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Technical > Technical Discussion
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #9   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-06-2015, 16:04
Ryan_Todd's Avatar
Ryan_Todd Ryan_Todd is offline
ye of little faith
FRC #0862 (Lightning Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Plymouth, MI
Posts: 114
Ryan_Todd has a reputation beyond reputeRyan_Todd has a reputation beyond reputeRyan_Todd has a reputation beyond reputeRyan_Todd has a reputation beyond reputeRyan_Todd has a reputation beyond reputeRyan_Todd has a reputation beyond reputeRyan_Todd has a reputation beyond reputeRyan_Todd has a reputation beyond reputeRyan_Todd has a reputation beyond reputeRyan_Todd has a reputation beyond reputeRyan_Todd has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Swerve with a twist

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harshizzle View Post
Yeah, this is exactly what I was attempting to describe.
[...]
This design cannot do simultaneous steering and moving with any sort of accuracy, but in cases when that is not needed (I'm picturing something like an amazon warehouse robot), this could be an option.
Thanks for confirming my interpretation.

Personally, I would be less interested in this concept as a "Plan A" design than as a case study in control systems design. As discussed above, this still has the same total number of outputs as a traditional independently-steered swerve drive, but it nonetheless manages to be an under-actuated system; this would therefore save relatively little in cost and complexity, while giving up a fair amount of controllability in the process. If you're looking to save on cost and complexity, after all, it's hard to beat a good old-fashioned skid-steer setup.

Don't get me wrong, however, because I strongly believe that this project would still be completely worthwhile-- and indeed, quite valuable in the real world! The key is to shift gears a bit, and instead view this as a research project.

As a software engineer in the automotive industry, I always need to be mindful of the fact that the real world isn't perfect; things go wrong all the time, and my work needs to be able to take that in stride. As a result, my job is not simply to get my component to work right, but rather to ensure that even if the rest of the system is compromised to the point where my component cannot work right, it will still never work wrong. If that means slowing down the engine to prevent it from overheating (or stopping the engine altogether to prevent it from exploding), then so be it!
This kind of thinking is essential whenever the end user's safety is at stake, and strongly advisable in many other applications.

With this in mind, can you see a way that it might be helpful to have an understanding of how to control a swerve drive platform, even if one or more axes of control are disabled, modified, or behaving abnormally?


(It may, for example, be advantageous to design a swerve drive specifically to allow for the possibility of falling back to an alternative control scheme like the one described above.)
__________________
 


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 16:24.

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