IFI Control System (OI/RC) - The Future???

[Mike Shaul]

Originally Posted by Greg Marra

Actually, there is a very good reason for the backup battery. If you put a lot of draw on the 12v battery, it's voltage can drop very low. If it drops too low, the RC loses power, shuts off, and then reinitializes when it powers back up. The backup battery keeps this from happening, so even if your motors die a little, you won't have a few seconds of being dead on the field.

Sorry, I must have been unclear. I don't have a problem with the backup battery itself; it is absolutely necessary for brownouts.

The issue is that the battery is required for the servo power, a simple diode OR internal to the RC would allow the servos to run off of the main supply without the backup battery (granted without brownout protection). This protects against a failure mechanism where the battery is too low or missing, without loosing the functions of the servos (and camera). So, instead of loosing brownout protection AND servo function, you only loose brownout protection.

[Mike Shaul]

Originally Posted by chrisinmd

Mounting our 05 RC on a practice robot this year, I pulled both (+/-) of the spade terminals out of the board. A little JB Quik worked wonders, but I wonder why they switched from the trusty screw on ring terminals? They certainly were secure. Also, the backup battery connection needs to be more secure, that plastic connector is too wiggly even when electrical taped together.

We had that happen this year as well.

[ChuckDickerson]

Originally Posted by skimoose

It's not surprising that the OI/RC are out of stock until next season. These are high priced items. If I was at IFI, I wouldn't want to keep too many in stock for post season. The same thing happened with CIMs last year and the Vex Field this year. Once the main competition season is over, you don't have much demand for these expensive items. So why stock them? I'm sure if a team really needed an RC or OI IFI would have one.

Actually, I think the IFI systems are used outside of the FIRST community by those other destructive robot competitions like Battlebots. The IFI control systems seem to be discontinued all together according to Robot Marketplace: http://www.robotcombat.com/marketplace_ifirobotics.html

It just makes me wonder what is going on with IFI and what this means for 2007.

[Donut]

Originally Posted by DeepWater

Actually, I think the IFI systems are used outside of the FIRST community by those other destructive robot competitions like Battlebots. The IFI control systems seem to be discontinued all together according to Robot Marketplace: http://www.robotcombat.com/marketplace_ifirobotics.html

It just makes me wonder what is going on with IFI and what this means for 2007.

These are the Isaac controllers, the ones FIRST used prior to the FRC ones (2003 and earlier). They probably discontinued these because the FRC chips are significantly more powerful while probably not being too much more expensive, plus the mini robot controller (aka the EDU-bot controller) came out at the same time they stopped with the Isaac system since it can probably give all the same capabilities in a smaller package that's relatively cheap.

I know our team was at least one of those guilty of overloading last year's memory for code. After failing to get the camera to work very well and then running out of memory, we dropped it from our program last year. It cleared up about half the memory.

[ChuckDickerson]

Originally Posted by Donut

These are the Isaac controllers, the ones FIRST used prior to the FRC ones (2003 and earlier).

Ahh! I didn't realize that all the Isaac controllers were the old PBasic versions. Thanks for clearing that up.

[mtaman02]

If anyone wanted to get a replacement for any of their control system all that person would have to do is give IFI a call and they will gladly help you out, Im 2004 I ordered a 2001 OI, the only difference is some slight hardware and software upgrades. IFI won't be going anywhere they're too reliable to let go. They're always there when you need them, whether at the event, on and off the field, customer service and whatever you else can come up with.

[Pavan Dave]

that would be AWESOME. but it would not require as much engineering and insight to how each pin in the Pinout of the DOS joysticks does and all of that stuff and you dont need to dig through the root of the problem and look it up.. all you have to do is plug and play and I'm against it because I Think that the teams that did all the reasearch for the Ps2 controllers and stuff wasted their times trying to help their teammates..

Pavan

[Kevin Sevcik]

A few responses to some suggestions here:

RJ45 connectors - Why would you use giant 8 position connectors for 3 wires? Now the tiny 4 position ones like on telephone handsets would be doable. But there's no way you could fit enough on the RC. The whole point of the connectors are that they're standard for all RC Hobby equipment, and they're standard because they take up SO little space.

USB joysticks would be nice, but the drivers would be a royal pain to work out. And you'd still need ports for custom controls. A USB RC would similarly be nice... but do you really want to be forced to be 5m away from your robot to program? We've got a pair of 30' serial cables to tether the robot and have it hooked up for debugging and it's rather useful.

Also, if you're scraping your hands up pressing the program button on the RC, use the program/reset pin header and put some buttons in easier to reach areas. I had the students figure that one out when they started complaining about that.

[Karthik]

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=45687

Maybe it is premature to assume that IFI is in the middle of developing advancements for 2007. The linked thread describes how IFI is at the end of their current contract with FIRST. Since they're at the end of a 5-year contract, perhaps they're burning inventory in case there is no renewal?

[KTorak]

USB interfacing to download programs to the RC would probably be the nicest advancement at serial ports seem to continue to dissappear...

Stronger connectors for the +/- terminals on the RC would also be nice...we pulled one out and had to re-solder it back on.

[Rickertsen2]

I talked to The IFI guy at the Peachtree regional about the future of the controller. He told me that it has "outlived its useful lifespan" and that it was coming time for a new model. He told me that they had not yet decided what the new model would be like, only that there would be one.


I predict

• The PIC is here to stay
• Next year's controller will have a USB interface in addition to or in place of the serial port. I is likely that they will just add on an internal usb->uart chip.
• We may see a different connector scheme (I pray). It would require breaking compatibility with standard RC hardware, but would be well worth it. The can always sell adapter cables. the .1" headers are meant to be well protected. the do not take well to FIRST abuse, are not secure, and are generally a pain.
• A possible move from the traditional black flat square enclosure. This is WAY bigger than it needs to be. If you take it apart an look at the PCB, its very sparsely populated. Just look at the EDU.
• add an internal charger for the backup batt

I would also like but do not think it is likely

• An LCD display on the robot (2x16 characters min)
• Strong aux power on the OI

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by Karthik

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=45687

Maybe it is premature to assume that IFI is in the middle of developing advancements for 2007. The linked thread describes how IFI is at the end of their current contract with FIRST. Since they're at the end of a 5-year contract, perhaps they're burning inventory in case there is no renewal?

It could be--but I think that the purchase of Vex (which, unless I really missed something, seems to have its biggest support in FIRSTers) seems to point to IFI wanting to keep with FIRST. And there's also Tony's quote from the UFH award:

Originally Posted by Tony Norman

We’ve had all kinds of financial advisors tell us FIRST isn’t worth our time, but they just don’t understand the hidden payoff that comes from being a part of this program.

Unless they've been brainwashed by their bean-counters and managed to hide it in Atlanta, I'm betting that IFI will do just about anything within reason to keep working with FIRST.

On an unrelated note, I'd love to see the ring terminals return to the RC like they were in 2004. Secure, and so much less prone to break!

[miketwalker]

Although everything in this thread has been speculative and people have brought up good points, I definitly agree that there could be a million different reasons why IFI would not be selling more for this year. Either way, in the case that there are major changes, my only request would be that they continue what they did a few years ago with the edubot... provide an early test-bed for teams to transition with. I know many teams and students that are purchasing the VEX system to learn electronics and develop code to work in FRC next year.

With the hints made several times by FIRST in Atlanta, they definitly are planning to bring that camera back again and will be trying to push autonomous harder once again. As long as teams have time to learn the basics of a new system, I feel that this could be done with great success. I know that several teams plan to try to learn more about better using the CMUCAM in the offseason, and should a major revamp of the system come into play next year (i.e. FIRST decides to use a different color-tracking camera for some reason or the programming language changes)

The transition from Basic to C was a major step a few years ago, and if that happened again I would only hope we had enough time to transition pre-season and develop basic tutorials for students that have never worked with the system before. One possible strategy could be to incorporate these changes into the next-generation VEX controllers a few months before season. It would keep both FRC and FVC using similar controllers, allowing teams to work together as support groups in next year's game as well as learn whatever type of new system is used.

Finally, surprises add to the challenge and I am definitly not saying "They should let the cat out've the bag pre-season." However, something that would completly change how the system works should be announced early enough for teams to adapt and do research so they are in a position where they can tackle the games challenges.

[devicenull]

My guess would be they are switching out the PIC.. with all the problems that we initally had, why keep it? There has to be a better model that doesn't require disabling parts of memory

The old PBasic controllers had parallel ports for sensor connectors.. Those were probably gotten rid of because of the number of wires you had to solder to them.

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

Also, if you're scraping your hands up pressing the program button on the RC, use the program/reset pin header and put some buttons in easier to reach areas. I had the students figure that one out when they started complaining about that.

There are free pins in the program cable, you could fairly easily wire up remote switches using a break out box on both ends.

[lukevanoort]

I really don't see any major problem with the current PWM connectors, a little clip thingy like those RobotMarketplace doohickys could solve the problem on the RC end, and those RobotMarketplace doohickys could be used on the Victors. A little more reliability in the RC and better power connectors would be nice. Some metal linings on the mount holes would also be nice so you can Loctite them without destroying the piece. (Would be nice on Victors too, actually) As for the breaker block, two more 40A slots would be nice, and maybe a digital display that says the total current the robots pulling at the time. It would be perfect if it included current sensing on all the 40A slots, but that would be far to big/heavy and pricey. Maybe putting LEDs next to the slots that are popping breakers, or having another way to check for popped breakers.