Future FRC Technologies?

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by MasterMentor

While that would seem useful during the match, what would then constitute a replay? If the updated score/details didn't make it to your system within 10ms? 100ms? 1000ms? If the data wasn't updating on your DS because your DS was either AT or NEARLY AT maximum CPU utilization (and how would you prove that?!)? Would anyone then easily accept a backup DS from the FTA?

I do agree that having the data published to the DS in the same manner that the match timer is published to the DS would be considerably beneficial, but I'm not sure that it would be reasonable to *depend* on that data in-match. But, even unofficially, it could be incredibly useful to have that data in real-ish-time.

-George

The FTAs have to make a replay call as it is on a whole host of issues that may pop up during a match. It could easily be said in the rules, that this system is not guaranteed to work. Also this information is already available on the field network (not to robots and DS) but to computers running the Audience Display software.

People have custom driver station software as it is, that makes running a backup DS less than optimal but teams still do it when they have to. Also the majority of teams would not utilize this feature, just like the majority of teams don't use custom dashboard widgets, etc.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

The FTAs have to make a replay call as it is on a whole host of issues that may pop up during a match. It could easily be said in the rules, that this system is not guaranteed to work. Also this information is already available on the field network (not to robots and DS) but to computers running the Audience Display software.

People have custom driver station software as it is, that makes running a backup DS less than optimal but teams still do it when they have to. Also the majority of teams would not utilize this feature, just like the majority of teams don't use custom dashboard widgets, etc.

Allen's pretty close.

Replays, per FRC 2016 rules, are given if the following conditions are met:
--Field Fault. (FTA determination, usually)
--Affects the Outcome of the Match. (Head Ref/FTA determination--primarily Head Ref)
--Requested by Affected Team.

I think that for the most part, and without seeing the technology in place... Probably many requests would fail on the "affecting the outcome" part of that. The ones that were, actually, a field fault, that is.


On top of that, there is sort of a "standard warning" that many game announcers apply that the shown scores may not be accurate at any given time, and are not final.

[Bkeeneykid]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

The FTAs have to make a replay call as it is on a whole host of issues that may pop up during a match. It could easily be said in the rules, that this system is not guaranteed to work. Also this information is already available on the field network (not to robots and DS) but to computers running the Audience Display software.

People have custom driver station software as it is, that makes running a backup DS less than optimal but teams still do it when they have to. Also the majority of teams would not utilize this feature, just like the majority of teams don't use custom dashboard widgets, etc.

I think it would fall under the same ruling as the current method getting match time through code. Don't rely on it, it's not legal for replays, and use it at your risk.

Source: http://wpilib.screenstepslive.com/s/...input-overview

[Bryce2471]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

I've been reading this thread all weekend on Mobile and it's been killing me... On desktop now and can reply...
...LiFePO4 is a very safe chemistry as compared to above, and comes in cell and pouch style. Some 18650s ...

Great information! Thanks for that.

It also may be worth noting that these batteries could potentially be charged from dead to full in a few minuets between matches.

[Kevin Ainsworth]

Originally Posted by Abhishek R

Heads-Up Display (HUD) Driver Stations

Something we always joked about making one day on 624, but the reasoning is entirely all too real. We would make the effort of lighting our robot with addressable LEDs so drivers don't have to look down at the computer to understand the state of the robot - they could stay focused on what's going on in the field. A HUD would give a lot more information than what can be shown in 32 LEDs and in a much visually clearer way as well.

Besides, eventually when these things get fancy enough - who doesn't want to feel like Tony Stark in front of a Jarvis UI?

Here's the heads up display we used last year.
https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/s...d.php?t=136401

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by Kevin Ainsworth

Here's the heads up display we used last year.
https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/s...d.php?t=136401

Hom many lumens was the projector that you all ended up using?

[frcguy]

Originally Posted by Kevin Ainsworth

Here's the heads up display we used last year.

https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/s...d.php?t=136401

It seems like a really cool idea.

Any chance you have a photo from the driver's perspective? I saw several requests in the other thread but no photo.

Also, have you considered using a "pico projector" or something smaller?

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

I'm not sure what problem that would fix anymore. We could get rid of the brownout conditions if we had one, but most radio and roborio reboots are from physical disconnections and which aren't immediately solved by a backup battery.

The IFI control system's backup battery relied on a different connection to the robot controller. Thus you had to have two connection failures for a disconnect to occur, greatly decreasing the probability of occurrence.

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

The IFI control system's backup battery relied on a different connection to the robot controller. Thus you had to have two connection failures for a disconnect to occur, greatly decreasing the probability of occurrence.

Could that be duplicated by giving power through the RJ45 and the power plug? I wonder how the radio would react?

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by IndySam

Could that be duplicated by giving power through the RJ45 and the power plug? I wonder how the radio would react?

They are redudant that is how we powered the radio, all year and it worked flawlessly.

And yes the old backup battery did have another connection but it added completixty, in having keep another battery charger and replacing it when needed. The main problem it solved was avoiding brown outs, the current system does that well without the need for the backup battery. (at least that is how I believe the system is intended to work).

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

And yes the old backup battery did have another connection but it added completixty, in having keep another battery charger and replacing it when needed. The main problem it solved was avoiding brown outs, the current system does that well without the need for the backup battery.

While it may not be as truly redundant as a separate power circuit, I agree that it makes more sense from the volunteer inspection standpoint (which needs both simplicity and safety) to allow robust voltage regulators (and boosters where needed) to ensure a steady voltage rather than a separate power source.

[adciv]

Originally Posted by ratdude747

Not really, you make the controller part of the pack, just like with laptop packs and the like. Even add a push button charge indicator for extra functionality at a low marginal cost. The hardest part would be the current sense circuit, as we're talking pretty high peak currents compared to most packs. Not to say it's not doable (it almost certainly is), but it would take a corporate partnership for this to happen in FRC. Unless somebody already makes rated packs with a sufficiently robust casing, in which case, half the work is done.

The primary issue is a sufficiently robust casing is it would have to be built out of metal (work experience). Then again, I also have a different view on what I consider safe with regards to batteries since we sometimes do our penetration testing with bullets (conventional workplace hazard).

I am seeing integrated controllers as pretty common and one option a number of them do provide is current charge limiting. Some of the options allow you to provide the battery a straight 14.4 volts and the battery will current limit to whatever is programmed.

[cbale2000]

Originally Posted by frcguy

It seems like a really cool idea.

Any chance you have a photo from the driver's perspective? I saw several requests in the other thread but no photo.

Also, have you considered using a "pico projector" or something smaller?

I think they had mentioned that they had tried a pico projector but that it wasn't bright enough.
Personally, I've been wondering about the possibility of taking a pico projector and mounting it so it projects onto something the driver wears like a safety Faceshield so that the mount doesn't interfere with the drivers visibility, effectively making it an AR visor. That said, I think you would have to get creative to make everything focus properly.

[Kevin Ainsworth]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

Hom many lumens was the projector that you all ended up using?

1000-1500 Lumens
The student/alumni that came up with this concept doesn't remember the exact specification. He said it was or was similar to the NEC LT260 DLP Projector with an old bulb. Something he picked up at a school auction.

Adding a coating to the 45 degree viewing window or reflective car tinting might also help, we used clear polycarbonate.

The one thing about this setup was it was very heavy and awkward to carry around between matches.

Originally Posted by frcguy

Any chance you have a photo from the driver's perspective? I saw several requests in the other thread but no photo.

Also, have you considered using a "pico projector or something smaller?

No pictures that I can find, sorry.
We did try a smaller projector but it wasn't bright enough to be usable.