IFI Critique

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by Gdeaver

...The IFI system is showing it's age. There are better ways to do the whole system.... ...The only thing that allowed our team to survive this year was the KOP trans and frame and easy C. If things were any more complicated, we would have failed. I mean flat out not have been able to ship....

I think that giving teams access to gamepad-type controls would SAVE teams time, energy and money.

Logitech's Dual Action Gamepad would give teams access to 12 buttons, 4 analog channels on 2 X-Y joysticks, plus a POV button with 8 positions for $20 list price, and about $10 on eBay.

2 of these bad dads would allow more than half of teams to skip building a OI at all. They could just Velcro the OI & radio to a board, plug in to gamepads and be done.

Consider this in comparison to the work teams have to do to get access to 8 analog channels and 16 switches now.

I am not saying that we should just have a gamepad interface and all would be right with the world, I am just pointing out an example of a customer request that has been out there for many many years.

Nothing has been done about it for many reasons. Some of them make sense... ...I just don't think the arguments that it is impossible or illegal or too expensive are among them.

Joe J.

[John Gutmann]

just out of curiosity, is it even possible to get a gamepad that can plug into a joystick port?

[BrianBSL]

Originally Posted by sparksandtabs

just out of curiosity, is it even possible to get a gamepad that can plug into a joystick port?

I used to have one...circa 1993-1995. I think it was all digital buttons though (no analog sticks). So they did exist at one time.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

I think that giving teams access to gamepad-type controls would SAVE teams time, energy and money.

Logitech's Dual Action Gamepad would give teams access to 12 buttons, 4 analog channels on 2 X-Y joysticks, plus a POV button with 8 positions for $20 list price, and about $10 on eBay.

2 of these bad dads would allow more than half of teams to skip building a OI at all. They could just Velcro the OI & radio to a board, plug in to gamepads and be done.

Joe raises a great point and accurately illustrates how easy it would be to create an Operator Interface is USB devices were supported. And that is exactly the problem that I have with this whole idea. When we get to the point that creating the OI for our robots is just a matter of picking a gamepad out of a pile and plugging it in, then I think we have lost something very important.

OK, right up front I will admit that I am probably in a shrinking minority within the FIRST community. But there are those of us that are very concerned that the kit of parts contents, the structure of the rules, and the "easier is better" philosophy is taking too much of the challenge out of FIRST. Removing too much of the challenge removes too much of the accomplishment when you solve the problem. Removing too much of the challenge removes too much of the innovation in the solutions. And, perhaps most important, removing too much of the challenge removes too much of the fun.

-dave

[fimmel]

what if they jut let us use more power from the OI? instead of the 100ma? max current up that to a higher value allowing a small computer in the middle that had enough computing power to translate the USB signal into the desired analog inputs. i Shur someone could come up with a simple USB host (possibly only allow certain controllers) and allow reprogramming to support more. i know that if i had more power allowed for controllers there could be some sweet stuff created and then shared so were all on an even playing field so to speak.

[Donut]

Seeing Dave's point there, I may have to change sides on this. We can already simply plug in the 2 kit joysticks and get 2 dual-axis joysticks plus 4 buttons on each, so it's already fairly easy for controls if you want. I guess we'll just have to figure out how to hook up a Nintendo Power Glove ourselves...

Since Dave's showing concern about losing the challenge to FIRST, can we consider this a hint telling us we'll have 3 foot long by 3 foot wide by 8 inch high size restrictions and a rule dis-allowing wheels next year?

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by fimmel

what if they jut let us use more power from the OI? instead of the 100ma? max current up that to a higher value allowing a small computer in the middle that had enough computing power to translate the USB signal into the desired analog inputs. i Shur someone could come up with a simple USB host (possibly only allow certain controllers) and allow reprogramming to support more. i know that if i had more power allowed for controllers there could be some sweet stuff created and then shared so were all on an even playing field so to speak.

The trouble is supplying that power reliably through the joystick ports (and the competition port, which powers the thing). What you'd really need is a supplemental power source—which, while electrically practical, makes it necessary to more rigourously inspect the OI and its associated devices, and means that new rules have to be drafted to govern it.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Joe raises a great point and accurately illustrates how easy it would be to create an Operator Interface is USB devices were supported. And that is exactly the problem that I have with this whole idea. When we get to the point that creating the OI for our robots is just a matter of picking a gamepad out of a pile and plugging it in, then I think we have lost something very important.

OK, right up front I will admit that I am probably in a shrinking minority within the FIRST community. But there are those of us that are very concerned that the kit of parts contents, the structure of the rules, and the "easier is better" philosophy is taking too much of the challenge out of FIRST. Removing too much of the challenge removes too much of the accomplishment when you solve the problem. Removing too much of the challenge removes too much of the innovation in the solutions. And, perhaps most important, removing too much of the challenge removes too much of the fun.

-dave

Isn't this the reason for things like the 'innovation in design and control award'? I mean right now you can hook 2 flightsticks to each joystick port giving you a total of 4 x-y and 16 digital inputs. Yet no one would win an award for that.

I contend that making it easy for new teams to compete while opening up new avenues for the kids to learn (USB architecture is here for the foreseeable future) is the ideal isn't it? Lets give them skill in something that they can possibly use, not an out of date bus architecture that they will only see in a computer museum.

Personally, I believe that the OI and RC are too restrictive now. Give them a PC\104 feedthrough port and see what kind of wild ideas they come up with. Give them a USB or Firewire dataport and see how they use it. Give them better bandwidth and allow them to transmit video from onboard cameras. you will be amazed at what they come up with.

The above is, as usual, JMHO

[BiTurboS4]

As it seems like 800mhz is out of the question as to various licensing issues, i'd like to see the radios change to 2.4ghz. Though we probably won't see that for another year or so.

[lukevanoort]

The problem with 2.4 Ghz is that there is so much traffic on it, wireless computer networks, phones, so on. If FIRST then banned 2.4 Ghz appliances, there would be lots of uproar about how they couldn't use their network devices. 5 Ghz, on the other hand...

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Joe raises a great point and accurately illustrates how easy it would be to create an Operator Interface is USB devices were supported. And that is exactly the problem that I have with this whole idea. When we get to the point that creating the OI for our robots is just a matter of picking a gamepad out of a pile and plugging it in, then I think we have lost something very important.

OK, right up front I will admit that I am probably in a shrinking minority within the FIRST community. But there are those of us that are very concerned that the kit of parts contents, the structure of the rules, and the "easier is better" philosophy is taking too much of the challenge out of FIRST. Removing too much of the challenge removes too much of the accomplishment when you solve the problem. Removing too much of the challenge removes too much of the innovation in the solutions. And, perhaps most important, removing too much of the challenge removes too much of the fun.

-dave

I think there's something missing there--creating an OI panel these days can already be as easy as picking a joystick out of a pile and plugging it in. In fact, that's all 1293's done* since its inception, with reasonable results.
*Well, this season we painted them, put dental rubber bands on the return for a little tighter feel, and switched out one handle for a shift knob. But they're still stockers, deep down.

I am not Car Nack, but I think most teams would see the new USB gamepads or joysticks, shrug, and use them as they would (or wouldn't) use the current AVB joysticks, assuming that the two were of similar quality. (Now, if you put CH Flightsticks back in the KOP, I'm sure that many of the veteran teams would start dancing in the streets before realizing that they need to get designing.)

Maybe I haven't been looking hard enough, but I haven't seen anything game-changing when it comes to joysticks. There's lots of great operator panels, dashboards, mini-arms, and HUD setups and all out there, but the joysticks are more or less joysticks. Some teams will paint them or change out the handle, but almost every OI panel I've seen either uses AVBs or Flightsticks. (Here's all the CD-Media photos tagged with "controls" for everyone's reference.)

Now, once we get into off-the-shelf breakout boards, something like 116's boards from 2006, we might be approaching the territory of too easy. (On the other hand, would that be the only way teams could get controls to work on a USB OI, unless IFI added some legacy DB15 ports?)

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by Billfred

(Here's all the CD-Media photos tagged with "controls" for everyone's reference.)

FYI - the 1213 controls changed right after the '05 season. The kids thought the PS1 case was cool. I thought is was useless, frivolous, and cumbersome. So, before IRI last year, I put the OI on a 10x12x1/2 slab of LDPE, which was slotted to rap and hold the game pads. Form follows function!

[Pavan Dave]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Joe raises a great point and accurately illustrates how easy it would be to create an Operator Interface is USB devices were supported. And that is exactly the problem that I have with this whole idea. When we get to the point that creating the OI for our robots is just a matter of picking a gamepad out of a pile and plugging it in, then I think we have lost something very important.

OK, right up front I will admit that I am probably in a shrinking minority within the FIRST community. But there are those of us that are very concerned that the kit of parts contents, the structure of the rules, and the "easier is better" philosophy is taking too much of the challenge out of FIRST. Removing too much of the challenge removes too much of the accomplishment when you solve the problem. Removing too much of the challenge removes too much of the innovation in the solutions. And, perhaps most important, removing too much of the challenge removes too much of the fun.

-dave

I have to agree with you for this matter. FIRST is about learning new things, and using your brain and being creative. If this was, for lack of better words, a "Plug and Play" oppratunity, than I doubt some teams would even use any extras besides the Joysticks and stuff and just Put the Transmitter/OI on a board. When you make the board like the team at nationals did, wth the playstation2 controllers, you actually Learn something, which is part of the spirit of first. I hope IFI does not change too much. I believe it is against what first stands for and what it represents.

Pavan.

[Andy A.]

I would like to see an end to those horrendous 1/4" blade electrical connections on the RC and main breaker panel (assuming we see a return of that very nice item). The things had a habit of being pulled out of the PCB, as many 'crimp' on connectors meant to mate with them would hold on tight. The connection to the PCB was weaker then the connection between the 'male' blade and 'female' crimp connector.

I want to see a return to good old fashion screw terminals. They require a few more seconds to use, but are rock solid and, I think, look better.

There are still issues with PWM wires not fully seating in Victors and causing all kinds of trouble while we all try to figure out whats wrong the the program not sending a signal to the Victor in question. When you do get those cables seated, they have a talent for popping back out half way through a match! This has been going on since we first got the things and only seems to get worse. There has got to be a better way to do this with out resorting to metal clips bought elsewhere. I like being able to use a standerd wire, pin and housing to make my own length wires but I would happily give that up for a solid seating and locking connector. Loosing a match because of a crumy PWM cable is about the most sour thing that can happen at a regional.

Also, every year Victors are lost to metal shavings. I know that it shouldn't be a problem, but it is and an expensive one at that. How about a redesigned enclosure that somehow shielded or sealed in the FET's so that metal shavings could not as easily get down in there, cooling issues or not.

Okay, I think thats everything.

-Andy A.

[Manoel]

Originally Posted by Andy A.

I would like to see an end to those horrendous 1/4" blade electrical connections on the RC and main breaker panel (assuming we see a return of that very nice item). The things had a habit of being pulled out of the PCB, as many 'crimp' on connectors meant to mate with them would hold on tight. The connection to the PCB was weaker then the connection between the 'male' blade and 'female' crimp connector.

I want to see a return to good old fashion screw terminals. They require a few more seconds to use, but are rock solid and, I think, look better.

-Andy A.

Couldn't agree more. Two years with the blade connectors, two controllers with bad contact problems.

The backup battery connector isn't very reliable either, the female end pins usually get wider with use (plug, unplug, charge...) and there goes your good contact.

Other than that, and provided our old CH Flightsticks keep working (and they're OLD!), we're very happy with the current setup.