Go to Post Banned for being a nerd. There are no nerds in here! - Schnabel [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

 
Closed Thread
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-10-2015, 11:07
Jaci's Avatar
Jaci Jaci is offline
Registered User
AKA: Jaci R Brunning
FRC #5333 (Can't C# | OpenRIO)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Rookie Year: 2015
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 266
Jaci has a reputation beyond reputeJaci has a reputation beyond reputeJaci has a reputation beyond reputeJaci has a reputation beyond reputeJaci has a reputation beyond reputeJaci has a reputation beyond reputeJaci has a reputation beyond reputeJaci has a reputation beyond reputeJaci has a reputation beyond reputeJaci has a reputation beyond reputeJaci has a reputation beyond repute
RoboRIO MXP Breakout

As something to keep me busy during the offseason, I've looked into possibly making some circuits for the RoboRIO's MXP Breakout Port.

Unfortunately, upon reading this article, it seems that PWM devices MUST be a direct passthrough. I suspect this will bear some issues regarding sensor based response (i.e. a Trim) for the PWM port.

While I can see why FIRST is doing this (in the interest of safety), I was wondering if there's a way to interface with the PWM on the breakout without passing it directly to a motor controller, i.e. putting circuitry inbetween. While there is an approval process, there is nothing in the article that I can see stating it as being coherent enough to include this type of control.

Additionally, approval process states that the report must be in conjunction with a company as a vendor, and all information disclosed at kickoff. I see the MXP board as an extremely powerful tool, but for some teams they may want to keep this interface board private, or just not have to deal with manufacturing for other teams (i.e. build for their own usage). I hope to see FRC make this interface legal for single-team use, as Electrical Engineering in FRC hasn't really delved much further than 'plug the thing in the thing'.
__________________
Jacinta R

Curtin FRC (5333+5663) : Mentor
5333 : Former [Captain | Programmer | Driver], Now Mentor
OpenRIO : Owner

Website | Twitter | Github
jaci.brunning@gmail.com
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-10-2015, 13:04
Michael Hill's Avatar
Michael Hill Michael Hill is offline
Registered User
FRC #3138 (Innovators Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 1,580
Michael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond repute
Re: RoboRIO MXP Breakout

You're correct that it's a safety concern. FIRST needs to be guaranteed that if the refs (or your team) disable your robot, it will be disabled, so if the PWM gets generated by a breakout board (or monkeyed with), they can't be guaranteed the motor controllers won't get a signal. What you can do, however, is make a breakout board that talks to something like a beaglebone or some other platform that handles sensor input and does control loops and interface that with the MXP. I know 971 has had success with doing that (albeit with Ethernet and UDP broadcasting). You could also do some fancy off-board image processing as well. If you just need to tell your robot to turn right or left, then you could just transmit that information digitally through the MXP port.
  #3   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-10-2015, 20:35
cgmv123's Avatar
cgmv123 cgmv123 is offline
FRC RI/FLL Field Manager
AKA: Max Vrany
FRC #1306 (BadgerBOTS)
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Rookie Year: 2011
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 2,089
cgmv123 has a reputation beyond reputecgmv123 has a reputation beyond reputecgmv123 has a reputation beyond reputecgmv123 has a reputation beyond reputecgmv123 has a reputation beyond reputecgmv123 has a reputation beyond reputecgmv123 has a reputation beyond reputecgmv123 has a reputation beyond reputecgmv123 has a reputation beyond reputecgmv123 has a reputation beyond reputecgmv123 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: RoboRIO MXP Breakout

Under the 2015 rules, as long as you're not trying to control a motor or servo, there are no restrictions* on circuitry connected to the MXP. It's just another CUSTOM CIRCUIT.

*Please use common sense when interpreting the phrase "no restrictions".
__________________
BadgerBOTS Robotics|@team1306|Facebook: BadgerBOTS
2016 FIRST Championship Tesla Division | 2016 Wisconsin Regional Engineering Inspiration Award

2015 FIRST Championship Carson Division | 2015 Wisconsin Regional Chairman's Award

2013 FIRST Championship Curie Division | 2013 Wisconsin Regional Chairman's Award

2012 FIRST Championship Archimedes Division | 2012 Wisconsin Regional Engineering Inspiration Award, Woodie Flowers Finalist Award (Lead Mentor Ben Senson)

  #4   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-10-2015, 20:57
Greg Needel's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero
Greg Needel Greg Needel is offline
REVving up for a new season
FRC #2848 (All-sparks)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 3,111
Greg Needel has a reputation beyond reputeGreg Needel has a reputation beyond reputeGreg Needel has a reputation beyond reputeGreg Needel has a reputation beyond reputeGreg Needel has a reputation beyond reputeGreg Needel has a reputation beyond reputeGreg Needel has a reputation beyond reputeGreg Needel has a reputation beyond reputeGreg Needel has a reputation beyond reputeGreg Needel has a reputation beyond reputeGreg Needel has a reputation beyond repute
Re: RoboRIO MXP Breakout

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaci View Post
As something to keep me busy during the offseason, I've looked into possibly making some circuits for the RoboRIO's MXP Breakout Port.

Unfortunately, upon reading this article, it seems that PWM devices MUST be a direct passthrough. I suspect this will bear some issues regarding sensor based response (i.e. a Trim) for the PWM port.

While I can see why FIRST is doing this (in the interest of safety), I was wondering if there's a way to interface with the PWM on the breakout without passing it directly to a motor controller, i.e. putting circuitry inbetween. While there is an approval process, there is nothing in the article that I can see stating it as being coherent enough to include this type of control.

Additionally, approval process states that the report must be in conjunction with a company as a vendor, and all information disclosed at kickoff. I see the MXP board as an extremely powerful tool, but for some teams they may want to keep this interface board private, or just not have to deal with manufacturing for other teams (i.e. build for their own usage). I hope to see FRC make this interface legal for single-team use, as Electrical Engineering in FRC hasn't really delved much further than 'plug the thing in the thing'.

I don't want to directly speak for FIRST here, but I will share our experience putting a few boards last year through the process (and maybe some new ones for this year ). The main concern that FIRST has is when a robot is disabled, nothing moves. Inside the roboRIO this is taken care of and if all PWM lines are just passed through they don't have to worry about any problems. If there are any active or passive components on pwm lines between a motor controller and the RIO, there is a chance that the robot will keep moving when disabled. Things like pots and capacitors can cause motor controllers to read false signals and even a twitch of a motor can be very dangerous. Some of the motor controllers on the market even have this twitch problem with nothing more than a bad Y-cable in the mix, so you can see why FIRST is cautious.

All that being said, if you wanted to do a trim Pot on a motor controllers, why not just plug it into an analog port and modify the pwm signal in code? I figure it would have the same results with probably a more predictable outcome.
__________________
Greg Needel│www.robogreg.com
Co-founder REV Robotics LLC www.REVrobotics.com
2014 FRC World Champions with 254, 469, & 74
  #5   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-10-2015, 22:39
Jaci's Avatar
Jaci Jaci is offline
Registered User
AKA: Jaci R Brunning
FRC #5333 (Can't C# | OpenRIO)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Rookie Year: 2015
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 266
Jaci has a reputation beyond reputeJaci has a reputation beyond reputeJaci has a reputation beyond reputeJaci has a reputation beyond reputeJaci has a reputation beyond reputeJaci has a reputation beyond reputeJaci has a reputation beyond reputeJaci has a reputation beyond reputeJaci has a reputation beyond reputeJaci has a reputation beyond reputeJaci has a reputation beyond repute
Re: RoboRIO MXP Breakout

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Needel View Post
I don't want to directly speak for FIRST here, but I will share our experience putting a few boards last year through the process (and maybe some new ones for this year ). The main concern that FIRST has is when a robot is disabled, nothing moves. Inside the roboRIO this is taken care of and if all PWM lines are just passed through they don't have to worry about any problems. If there are any active or passive components on pwm lines between a motor controller and the RIO, there is a chance that the robot will keep moving when disabled. Things like pots and capacitors can cause motor controllers to read false signals and even a twitch of a motor can be very dangerous. Some of the motor controllers on the market even have this twitch problem with nothing more than a bad Y-cable in the mix, so you can see why FIRST is cautious.

All that being said, if you wanted to do a trim Pot on a motor controllers, why not just plug it into an analog port and modify the pwm signal in code? I figure it would have the same results with probably a more predictable outcome.
I can see FIRST's concern, but if a schematic for something as simple as a Trim were to be sent in and put through approval (i.e. a direct passthrough, but will be blocked when an external signal is active, therefore no auxiliary signal generated for the PWM), I would hope it would be at least possible

I'm not saying this is something I'd do, I'd just see it as a good theory to use in upcoming boards. I guess it's more a principal than anything, although I have no intention of running PWM on the board I'll be making, 10 ports is more than enough
__________________
Jacinta R

Curtin FRC (5333+5663) : Mentor
5333 : Former [Captain | Programmer | Driver], Now Mentor
OpenRIO : Owner

Website | Twitter | Github
jaci.brunning@gmail.com
  #6   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 18-10-2015, 22:11
philso philso is offline
Mentor
FRC #2587
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Rookie Year: 2011
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 940
philso has a reputation beyond reputephilso has a reputation beyond reputephilso has a reputation beyond reputephilso has a reputation beyond reputephilso has a reputation beyond reputephilso has a reputation beyond reputephilso has a reputation beyond reputephilso has a reputation beyond reputephilso has a reputation beyond reputephilso has a reputation beyond reputephilso has a reputation beyond repute
Re: RoboRIO MXP Breakout

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaci View Post
...

Unfortunately, upon reading this article, it seems that PWM devices MUST be a direct passthrough. I suspect this will bear some issues regarding sensor based response (i.e. a Trim) for the PWM port.

While I can see why FIRST is doing this (in the interest of safety), I was wondering if there's a way to interface with the PWM on the breakout without passing it directly to a motor controller, i.e. putting circuitry inbetween. While there is an approval process, there is nothing in the article that I can see stating it as being coherent enough to include this type of control.

Additionally, approval process states that the report must be in conjunction with a company as a vendor, and all information disclosed at kickoff. I see the MXP board as an extremely powerful tool, but for some teams they may want to keep this interface board private, or just not have to deal with manufacturing for other teams (i.e. build for their own usage). I hope to see FRC make this interface legal for single-team use, as Electrical Engineering in FRC hasn't really delved much further than 'plug the thing in the thing'.
Why do you feel that directly interfacing with the PWM signals is necessary? It is much, much easier (and safer) to manipulate the PWM signals in software as Greg suggests. Much more can be done in software than can be done in hardware. Some teams use co-processors, as Micheal indicates. It would be difficult to find a co-processor with enough horsepower and speed to put in the path of the PWM signals that would not compromise the PWM signals in some way. There are other ways you can apply your creativity without endangering yourself and others.

By directly manipulating the PWM signals, you will be adding complexity to a safety critical system. That complexity can lead to an unsafe condition if not tested very, very thoroughly. This is likely why FIRST wants to see a company as a vendor. It is also likely that they will want to review the company's policies regarding making and documenting design changes. Otherwise a system that was deemed to be safe can become unsafe.
  #7   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 19-10-2015, 10:15
Jaci's Avatar
Jaci Jaci is offline
Registered User
AKA: Jaci R Brunning
FRC #5333 (Can't C# | OpenRIO)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Rookie Year: 2015
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 266
Jaci has a reputation beyond reputeJaci has a reputation beyond reputeJaci has a reputation beyond reputeJaci has a reputation beyond reputeJaci has a reputation beyond reputeJaci has a reputation beyond reputeJaci has a reputation beyond reputeJaci has a reputation beyond reputeJaci has a reputation beyond reputeJaci has a reputation beyond reputeJaci has a reputation beyond repute
Re: RoboRIO MXP Breakout

Quote:
Originally Posted by philso View Post
Why do you feel that directly interfacing with the PWM signals is necessary? It is much, much easier (and safer) to manipulate the PWM signals in software as Greg suggests. Much more can be done in software than can be done in hardware. Some teams use co-processors, as Micheal indicates. It would be difficult to find a co-processor with enough horsepower and speed to put in the path of the PWM signals that would not compromise the PWM signals in some way. There are other ways you can apply your creativity without endangering yourself and others.

By directly manipulating the PWM signals, you will be adding complexity to a safety critical system. That complexity can lead to an unsafe condition if not tested very, very thoroughly. This is likely why FIRST wants to see a company as a vendor. It is also likely that they will want to review the company's policies regarding making and documenting design changes. Otherwise a system that was deemed to be safe can become unsafe.
This is all theoretical -- I have no intention of actually doing so. It would just be nice to get an idea of how this could work and what potential it could unlock. The MXP is often referred to as a custom electronics board, and I wanted to see just how custom you could get. I'm aware it's a safety concern, but I'm trying to find out what is theoretically possible, and on that line, what is considered dangerous and unsafe.
__________________
Jacinta R

Curtin FRC (5333+5663) : Mentor
5333 : Former [Captain | Programmer | Driver], Now Mentor
OpenRIO : Owner

Website | Twitter | Github
jaci.brunning@gmail.com
  #8   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 19-10-2015, 12:29
FrankJ's Avatar
FrankJ FrankJ is offline
Robot Mentor
FRC #2974 (WALT)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Marietta GA
Posts: 1,946
FrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond repute
Re: RoboRIO MXP Breakout

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaci View Post
I can see FIRST's concern, but if a schematic for something as simple as a Trim were to be sent in and put through approval (i.e. a direct passthrough, but will be blocked when an external signal is active, therefore no auxiliary signal generated for the PWM), I would hope it would be at least possible
That is not exactly simple. You are intercepting the PWM signal and sending out a new one with the trim added. I don't see this ever getting approved. (disclaimer: I have nothing to do with the approval process.)
__________________
If you don't know what you should hook up then you should read a data sheet
  #9   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 19-10-2015, 19:09
philso philso is offline
Mentor
FRC #2587
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Rookie Year: 2011
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 940
philso has a reputation beyond reputephilso has a reputation beyond reputephilso has a reputation beyond reputephilso has a reputation beyond reputephilso has a reputation beyond reputephilso has a reputation beyond reputephilso has a reputation beyond reputephilso has a reputation beyond reputephilso has a reputation beyond reputephilso has a reputation beyond reputephilso has a reputation beyond repute
Re: RoboRIO MXP Breakout

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankJ View Post
That is not exactly simple. You are intercepting the PWM signal and sending out a new one with the trim added. I don't see this ever getting approved. (disclaimer: I have nothing to do with the approval process.)
I think you would unlock much more potential for controlling your motors by investigating using different motor control software algorithms and incorporating sensor inputs in innovative ways. You would not need approval from FIRST to do any of this.

Intercepting the PWM signals and then modifying the pulse widths is not a trivial thing to do. It will be even more difficult to do it well enough that you would consider submitting it for approval. As I stated earlier, it would take a lot of real-time processing horsepower to do this.

My day job is designing the hardware that goes into large (100 ~ 1200 hp), 3-phase motor controllers for industrial applications. I have never seen any of my employers, any of our competitors or any academic papers intercept the PWM signals and manipulate them in hardware. What is done by everyone in the industry is to have many software modes (Volts/Hertz, Vector Control, ...) for generating the PWM signals. Much of the research in this field is in improving the (software) control algorithms used to generate the PWM signals. It is often the quality of the software that gives one motor controller an advantage over another.
  #10   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 21-10-2015, 01:35
AustinSchuh AustinSchuh is offline
Registered User
FRC #0971 (Spartan Robotics) #254 (The Cheesy Poofs)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Los Altos, CA
Posts: 803
AustinSchuh has a reputation beyond reputeAustinSchuh has a reputation beyond reputeAustinSchuh has a reputation beyond reputeAustinSchuh has a reputation beyond reputeAustinSchuh has a reputation beyond reputeAustinSchuh has a reputation beyond reputeAustinSchuh has a reputation beyond reputeAustinSchuh has a reputation beyond reputeAustinSchuh has a reputation beyond reputeAustinSchuh has a reputation beyond reputeAustinSchuh has a reputation beyond repute
Re: RoboRIO MXP Breakout

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaci View Post
Additionally, approval process states that the report must be in conjunction with a company as a vendor, and all information disclosed at kickoff. I see the MXP board as an extremely powerful tool, but for some teams they may want to keep this interface board private, or just not have to deal with manufacturing for other teams (i.e. build for their own usage). I hope to see FRC make this interface legal for single-team use, as Electrical Engineering in FRC hasn't really delved much further than 'plug the thing in the thing'.
As someone who made a serious MXP board last year, I can give you a bit of info on how things went for us. We made the decision to passively pass the 10 PWM signals from PWM ports 0-9 through a board with active circuitry on it for power regulation and a gyro. This held the board more securely and gave us nice latching connectors for the PWM ports. We even had a very clear 1/4" wide section of board where there were no traces. We talked with FIRST, sent them our schematic, and were unable to get the board approved for use by our team. They agreed with us that there should be no issue given the schematic but were unable to make exceptions. And this was for a board with nothing active in the control path. We were able to make the board pass inspection by physically separating the PWM part of the board from the rest of the board.

Electrical engineering in FIRST is pretty limiting mostly due to the safety involved. You can do some pretty cool stuff with sensors though. Back in the cRIO days, we ran a BeagleBone Black with a custom cape to interface with sensors and run our control logic. We had boost-buck voltage regulators to keep the board up through the whole match. We also had a micro-controller to count encoder pulses and interface with our gyro on the custom cape.

Sorry to rain on your parade.
  #11   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 21-10-2015, 09:11
FrankJ's Avatar
FrankJ FrankJ is offline
Robot Mentor
FRC #2974 (WALT)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Marietta GA
Posts: 1,946
FrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond repute
Re: RoboRIO MXP Breakout

One element of the 2015 approval was that it had to be produced by a "Vendor". Presumably as a COTs device with stock available for purchase by other teams. So a board made by a team would not meet the approval criteria unless they had a vendor make in sufficient quantities so that it was available to any team that wanted it. Rephrase from Frank's blog: "myRIO Expansion Port - What's the Deal?" 9/23/14
__________________
If you don't know what you should hook up then you should read a data sheet
  #12   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 21-10-2015, 19:11
GeeTwo's Avatar
GeeTwo GeeTwo is offline
Technical Director
AKA: Gus Michel II
FRC #3946 (Tiger Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Rookie Year: 2013
Location: Slidell, LA
Posts: 3,723
GeeTwo has a reputation beyond reputeGeeTwo has a reputation beyond reputeGeeTwo has a reputation beyond reputeGeeTwo has a reputation beyond reputeGeeTwo has a reputation beyond reputeGeeTwo has a reputation beyond reputeGeeTwo has a reputation beyond reputeGeeTwo has a reputation beyond reputeGeeTwo has a reputation beyond reputeGeeTwo has a reputation beyond reputeGeeTwo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: RoboRIO MXP Breakout

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankJ View Post
One element of the 2015 approval was that it had to be produced by a "Vendor". Presumably as a COTs device with stock available for purchase by other teams. So a board made by a team would not meet the approval criteria unless they had a vendor make in sufficient quantities so that it was available to any team that wanted it. Rephrase from Frank's blog: "myRIO Expansion Port - What's the Deal?" 9/23/14
And even this plan didn't work with the NavMXP. Given the amount of navigation that was required to score autonomous points, we would have purchased a couple last year had there been any in stock for more than a few milliseconds. (OK, I slightly exaggerated on the time window.)
__________________

If you can't find time to do it right, how are you going to find time to do it over?
If you don't pass it on, it never happened.
Robots are great, but inspiration is the reason we're here.
Friends don't let friends use master links.
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 21-10-2015, 20:01
Greg Needel's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero
Greg Needel Greg Needel is offline
REVving up for a new season
FRC #2848 (All-sparks)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 3,111
Greg Needel has a reputation beyond reputeGreg Needel has a reputation beyond reputeGreg Needel has a reputation beyond reputeGreg Needel has a reputation beyond reputeGreg Needel has a reputation beyond reputeGreg Needel has a reputation beyond reputeGreg Needel has a reputation beyond reputeGreg Needel has a reputation beyond reputeGreg Needel has a reputation beyond reputeGreg Needel has a reputation beyond reputeGreg Needel has a reputation beyond repute
Re: RoboRIO MXP Breakout

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankJ View Post
One element of the 2015 approval was that it had to be produced by a "Vendor". Presumably as a COTs device with stock available for purchase by other teams. So a board made by a team would not meet the approval criteria unless they had a vendor make in sufficient quantities so that it was available to any team that wanted it. Rephrase from Frank's blog: "myRIO Expansion Port - What's the Deal?" 9/23/14
IMO if a team wanted to make their own active MXP board to use if they just posted the gerber files, BOM, and schematic online I believe that would be sufficient. Teams (even with no experience) can easily use services like the ones provided by Dangerous Prototoypes (dirty pcbs), Seeed studio, osh park, etc. It would be less convieniant for teams than AndyMark but still a solution.

Speaking from the standpoint of a FIRST supplier company, forecasting for the FRC community is one of the hardest things with such a short window for sales. If you build too few of an item and it goes out of stock there is almost no way to recover inside the season. On the flip side if you build too much, you will likely have to sit on that inventory for a year before sales start again. That inventory is just "money sitting on a shelf" that can't be used for other things like developing new products or investing in tooling.

Specifically when it comes to MXP boards, last year there was not any history of sales to make a guess at demand. I know that we have put a lot of though into how much we will stick this year and I would assume that they people who make the NAVX have as well.

P.S. yes,the more board will be back in stock soon for the upcoming season.
__________________
Greg Needel│www.robogreg.com
Co-founder REV Robotics LLC www.REVrobotics.com
2014 FRC World Champions with 254, 469, & 74
  #14   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 22-10-2015, 14:17
FrankJ's Avatar
FrankJ FrankJ is offline
Robot Mentor
FRC #2974 (WALT)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Marietta GA
Posts: 1,946
FrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond repute
Re: RoboRIO MXP Breakout

First has spoken. Same rules has last year. In order to produce an approved active board. The PWM pins will have to be pass through. You will need to be a Vendor & be willing to produce it in commercial quantities for the FRC community. If you are not using the MXP port to control movement, you board does not have to be approved.

I wonder if the blog post wasn't at least in part a response to this thread.
__________________
If you don't know what you should hook up then you should read a data sheet
  #15   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-10-2015, 00:18
AustinSchuh AustinSchuh is offline
Registered User
FRC #0971 (Spartan Robotics) #254 (The Cheesy Poofs)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Los Altos, CA
Posts: 803
AustinSchuh has a reputation beyond reputeAustinSchuh has a reputation beyond reputeAustinSchuh has a reputation beyond reputeAustinSchuh has a reputation beyond reputeAustinSchuh has a reputation beyond reputeAustinSchuh has a reputation beyond reputeAustinSchuh has a reputation beyond reputeAustinSchuh has a reputation beyond reputeAustinSchuh has a reputation beyond reputeAustinSchuh has a reputation beyond reputeAustinSchuh has a reputation beyond repute
Re: RoboRIO MXP Breakout

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankJ View Post
I wonder if the blog post wasn't at least in part a response to this thread.
They've been planning the blog post for a while.
Closed Thread


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 20:28.

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