[FRC Blog] Radio Silence

[cbale2000]

Originally Posted by techhelpbb

If you want to do that, then FIRST doesn't need to police the WiFi band any more and the camera limits go away. So this is probably exactly the opposite of the issue. As long as FIRST allows teams to continue to use WiFi and puts FMS only on the 900Mhz then there is no real issue except a slightly more heavy robot.

In point of fact during the bid round in which the RoboRIO was accepted I proposed in writing to FIRST this exact solution.

So much this. The only real benefit to using WiFi instead of Serial over 900Mhz is the ability to have live video feedback to the driver station, actual command signals take far less bandwidth.

Considering that for most teams reliable video feeds from the robot is nice to have but not a necessity (except those doing vision processing on the laptops of course), to me it makes far more sense to ensure a reliable command signal to the robots over the luxury of a video feed. The old radios (pre-2009) would boot and connect in under 5 seconds, and were supported by a backup battery (through the controller), meaning even if you did somehow drop connection, you'd pick it back up almost instantly, no more sitting on the field for half of the match because of a momentary brownout or sudden impact.

Switching away from the overcrowded 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz frequencies alone would be a huge benefit to field connectivity (plus people could set up WiFi in the pits again), and separating control signals from video could open up more bandwidth for both. Plus these days there are a ton of options available for compact radios of various frequencies due to the growth in the RC aircraft and DIY electronics communities, so finding a suitable Transmitter + Receiver for FRC uses should be much easier now than it was 10 years ago.

[frcguy]

Originally Posted by cbale2000

Considering that for most teams reliable video feeds from the robot is nice to have but not a necessity (except those doing vision processing on the laptops of course), to me it makes far more sense to ensure a reliable command signal to the robots over the luxury of a video feed.

I completely disagree. The camera feed on our driver station was extremely important to us this year. We played several matches without it, and it made it extremely hard for our driver to line up a shot, and I am very confident we are not the only ones to rely on a camera this year. Although I understand there are connection issues, taking a brute force approach and taking away something that teams use is a little absurd. I am sure that we can find a solution that works for everyone.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by frcguy

I completely disagree. The camera feed on our driver station was extremely important to us this year. We played several matches without it, and it made it extremely hard for our driver to line up a shot, and I am very confident we are not the only ones to rely on a camera this year. Although I understand there are connection issues, taking a brute force approach and taking away something that teams use is a little absurd. I am sure that we can find a solution that works for everyone.

I would be a fan of a proprietary low bandwidth (but quick connecting) radio for controls channels, and then the option for teams to run wifi as well for anything they desire.

[cbale2000]

Originally Posted by frcguy

I completely disagree. The camera feed on our driver station was extremely important to us this year. We played several matches without it, and it made it extremely hard for our driver to line up a shot, and I am very confident we are not the only ones to rely on a camera this year. Although I understand there are connection issues, taking a brute force approach and taking away something that teams use is a little absurd. I am sure that we can find a solution that works for everyone.

Don't get me wrong, having a live feed is extremely useful, but if you had the choice of possibly spotty camera connectivity / low fps but near-perfect control connectivity, or a single connection point that will leave you dead on the field for half the match if ANYTHING goes wrong, which would you pick?

Personally I'd rather have continuous control and a possibly temperamental camera connection than the chance of having my whole robot parked on the field doing nothing. I also think that, if the rules continue to allow driver station cameras, it will eliminate much of the need on-board cameras due to the far better framerate and resolutions possible with such a setup. On-board cameras are still great for targeting, but there are plenty of ways to score a goal reliably that don't require a live video link.

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by frcguy

I completely disagree. The camera feed on our driver station was extremely important to us this year. We played several matches without it, and it made it extremely hard for our driver to line up a shot, and I am very confident we are not the only ones to rely on a camera this year. Although I understand there are connection issues, taking a brute force approach and taking away something that teams use is a little absurd. I am sure that we can find a solution that works for everyone.

It's not really brute force to ask a team to provide a path for their own video.
Allegedly the FMS safety controls override the value of video.
If this is the case then there should be no video on the control connection at all.

Again - what was suggested was not no video - it was video on WiFi and FMS on a lower frequency.
Hypothetically FIRST would police and insure the FMS lower frequency, the teams would be responsible for their WiFi.
FIRST could then return to using simple spectrum and protocol analyzers.
Keep in mind that lower frequencies will change sometimes based on venue because the competition is now International.

As a CSA who has watched the video over WiFi issue for a number of years, and someone that made video over WiFi for military robotics, all I am suggesting is that we let this crazy video mess fend for itself.