Nearly Officially Official: cRIO Control System To Be Reused

[Leav]

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...7&postcount=23

This is why I don't like this idea (no new controller) even if there is a two tier paying system:

basically it's a pretty silly reason, which might even be stupid...

let the difference between the entry fees be marked as X...

A team needs much more than X each season and from my experience the difference between $10,000 and $(10,000+X) isn't that much when you are fund raising.

so basically it boils down to this:

1. "rich" teams will always get a new controller
2. "poor" teams will have a rough time raising money and will choose to not buy a new control system, putting them at a disadvantage
3. the gap grows with time since not having a controller affects your performance which in most cases affects your fund raising ability (sad, but true).
4. from two tier paying system the gap widens into a two tier league where some teams do not even consider winning the regional an option.

don't judge this on the conclusion about the "two tier league", it's just the apocalyptic scenario...

in summary, choice is normally good, but in this case will leave "poor" teams much much more behind.

I think it is so important that teams must even be forced to buy a new controller (kind of like eating your vegetables.... you don't like it now, but someone who knows better is forcing you and in the long run you agree)

does that make any sense?

What do you think about this?

-Leav

[skimoose]

Originally Posted by Greg McKaskle

Concerning reuse, the cRIO connectors are quite different from the friction fit of the previous system. The chassis is held by at most two fasteners, and the modules are clipped in. Disconnecting the chassis and leaving the modules attached to the robot is very quick. The next layer of connects, on the modules, are mostly D-sub based, and also quick to reconnect. Over the coming months, I assume many teams will come up with strategies for quickly putting the computing "engine" back into the robot with little to no rewiring. A backup of code images to install over enet is another important piece needed to put a robot into a different robot.

Greg McKaskle

First, can we safely assume that teams will receive additional I/O modules in the KOP each year? Or will we need to purchase additional modules just to keep robots in a relatively usable state?

I don't think anyone is questioning whether the cRio can easily be swapped into and out of robots. The issue being stated is that with only one controller the scenario you describe here won't work if our current competition robot (with controller) is in a distant corner of the country waiting for a competition. I can't hold a demonstration when the controller is one thousand miles away.

As for the mentors that mentioned pulling old controllers, our old controllers are already installed in older robots. Yes, we can pull one, but if a former-student-turned-engineer showed up thinking about mentoring, how are you going to explain that the robot they helped design, build, drive, and sweat over is an unusable pile of parts because you needed the controller for different robot. It's been hard enough explaining why we had to dismantle several of our early robots because the former school we worked out of wouldn't allow us to store them any longer.

While this may not be a big issue, one that will be is compatibility. Several documents are showing an ethernet camera with the new system. Anyone want to field an easy (simple and low cost) way utilize this feature with an older controller? What other future FIRST developments will cause further compatibility problems when utilizing older controllers with new robots? Do you also want to waste time rebuilding an older OI to use with the new robot?

How many mentors who mentioned using older controllers, have actually taken one of much older basic programmed RC's and put them into a new robot successfully? I know we have those controllers in storage, but they predate me and most of the current mentors on the team. I'm not even sure if we could find the basic IDE and compilers now. Could we get it to work? Yes, if we can find everything, but why should we waste vital mentor man-hours when the robot was functioning just fine with the original controller.

A two tier registration system is acceptable, but once again it opens the divide between the "have" and "have not" teams. The "have" teams can and will buy additional controllers if given the opportunity. Also, what happens if purchasing additional cRio controllers is prohibited or more expensive than current registration fees? Will "have" teams register a new "rookie" team and disband it after one season just to harvest a low cost controller?

I applaud FIRST for trying to find cost savings, but is this really a cost savings to teams?

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by Greg McKaskle

Concerning reuse, the cRIO connectors are quite different from the friction fit of the previous system. The chassis is held by at most two fasteners, and the modules are clipped in. Disconnecting the chassis and leaving the modules attached to the robot is very quick. The next layer of connects, on the modules, are mostly D-sub based, and also quick to reconnect. Over the coming months, I assume many teams will come up with strategies for quickly putting the computing "engine" back into the robot with little to no rewiring. A backup of code images to install over enet is another important piece needed to put a robot into a different robot.

Anyway, I'm not trying to lobby one way or the other about the reuse. I'm pointing out that the cRIO mechanical design does make reuse much easier to accomplish, though.

Greg McKaskle

Having looked at pictures, I agree that just changing the cRIO and modules are very easy. However, Bill specifically mentioned the power distribution board and digital side car as being reused as well. Those would be considerably harder to remove, as each would have many connections.

[Zflash]

Team 1319 currently has all five of our robots fully assembled. We use them in the community, to teach new students, and for driving practice. We will always have these resources whether or not the new control system is given to us each year. If a rookie team this year does not get a controller thier second year we have an advantage over them both in community outreach and driver training. If FIRST decides not to allow teams to purchase a second controller in 2010 then 2009 rookies will not have a chance to become one of the "have's" they will by default be a have not. If in 2010 and on then they have a choice on what you get in the kit then a rookie has a fighting chance to become a "have". Theoretically a team can get a long with a miniumum of 2 controllers. Although we have been known to show off three robots at a time.

On a side note on the Survey for FIRST they did ask if teams would like to decide what they got in thier kit so that they would not get things that they did not use. Maybe thier plans are already to provide tailored kits to each teams needs.

[ayeckley]

Originally Posted by Libby K

I refuse to form an opinion before I know all the facts

Don't you find that incapacitating? In Real Life, we are forced to form opinions without having "all the facts". That's the nature of Experience and Judgement. If you happen to pursue a career in Engineering, you might be surprised at how often you have to make decisions (based on your opinions) having only limited data. <Insert your own Apollo 13-ish example here>

C'mon FIRST and NI - it's been long enough! Tell us what the bill for this new contraption is going to be.

[Elgin Clock]

The following is just simple case study of pro's & cons of keeping vs getting a new controller every year based on quotes of CD users, mainly because I haven't made a long post in like forever on these boards, & seeing 3 pages of varying opinions on one topic often makes me think too hard until I comment about it here. LOL

Originally Posted by rtfgnow

what i see is that if a team wants to keep it for their old robots it does not hurt the environment, if we threw it on the ground that would be different.

Even though something is not being dumped in a landfill, making more of one thing & using natural resources for the products (re: oils & petroleum for the plastics along with precious metals for the rest of it) still impacts the environment.
Stand: Pro for reusing controllers depending on your true balance of nature & environmentalist stand I guess.

Originally Posted by Leav

I don't like this idea one bit, not even if there are two registration fees (with cRio and without).

Originally Posted by Greg Marra

Really? Why not even then?

Originally Posted by thefro526

My teacher and I were talking about this the other day and he thought and I thought it would be a good idea if FIRST were to charge one registration/KOP fee for when you want a new OI and another if you wish to reuse your old one. IE, check box a box on the application if you want a new CRIO and it adds XXXX to your application fee if your team has received one the previous year.

FIRST has always been about giving teams the most fair playing field they can give you & then it's up to you after kickoff. If right from Day 1 of kickoff you have a brand new shiny part while your competitor is using an old (probably competition worthy beat-up component), then your new parts have an advantage over that used part any day. This is not fair at all even with a price decrease of registration. Are you willing to take that gamble to save enough in registration/ kit fees to send one more student to a competition, or pay another team bill that is piling up? That's a harsh reality if that road is taken with this two tier pricing system IF that is implemented as suggested.
Stand:
Pro for reusing controllers for "rich" teams because of the "buy a new one" option.
Con for reusing controller for "poor" teams who have to make that decision & sacrifice the "level playing field" to save a bit of cash.

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

If anyone in the thread competes in BEST, they already know the beating high school students can put on electronics reusing them year after year.

It seems after the beginning of Build season '08 that FIRST didn't even expect teams to break the Trackballs & that was just a rather simple albeit, fairly expensive ball. In industry these controllers are used every day, this is true, but they aren't mobile in most applications with other robots working along side it trying to ram them.
Point being: You can make the most durable control system in the world, & it could work perfectly everytime mechanically, & also software wise, & never need servicing if left alone to do it's task, but give that system to a bunch of High Schoolers (or to be fair: give that to people in general) with the idea that it's going into a competition, & it's going to take a beating. Guaranteed.
Stand: Con for reusing controller

Originally Posted by skimoose

As for the mentors that mentioned pulling old controllers, our old controllers are already installed in older robots. Yes, we can pull one, but if a former-student-turned-engineer showed up thinking about mentoring, how are you going to explain that the robot they helped design, build, drive, and sweat over is an unusable pile of parts because you needed the controller for different robot. It's been hard enough explaining why we had to dismantle several of our early robots because the former school we worked out of wouldn't allow us to store them any longer.

That is a sad fact & pain felt by more & more teams the longer the competition exists unfortunately.
^That wasn't a stand on this issue, I just sympathize with that one & felt the need to comment on that quote.


Anyways, as we all know there are pros & cons to everything, & I'm sure you, reading this right now, may not really be in tune with everyone else's similar thoughts. Whether you are a team member, mentor, student, parent of a student, FIRST employee, FIRST supplier, sponsor, technical industry professional, or even just someone who may want to start a team & by reading this is on the verge of being scared off of joining FIRST as a rookie because of all the "the sky is falling next year" kind comments in this thread alone - everyone is feeling some kind of stress at this point in time for the upcoming season just because of sooo many changes.

My thoughts while reading this is that every one of you, (in that small & very focused group I listed that doesn't even begin to cover the kinds of people we have participating in this competition) is to chill out, & remember everyone else on that list, & think of them & how equally (or excessively) stressed they are becoming getting ready for 2009 when you start to worry how "crazy" 2009 will be with the addition of a new control system.

Change is coming. And like every other year, something will get unveiled that will lead someone to say "That's it, I'm quitting FIRST for good" but is that really necessary??

Let's not over react about how umm.. interesting this year will be - yet...

Let's stand back in this very defining moment in your FIRST "careers", take a couple of deep breaths (my health news letter says 10 is a good number of deep breaths to take when stressed - LOL) & let's all be able to say 2, 5, or even 10 years down the road from now, "Hey, remember when FIRST changed the controller in 2009 to the "new" way?? I was there. And I survived it, & life went on.. (And the sky actually didn't fall!!!)

Imagine that one for just a minute if you will, then go ahead & add some more 2 cent thoughts.
(Because I know this thread will still go on with more thoughts & concerns, & complaints, & suggestions after this post. That is a certainty.)


Oh, & one more comment. The only thing that Bill's blog has done (because some have complained on it's true nature) is shift that nervous, apprehensive, & excited feeling about the coming year (we usually get all at once usually during the "hint" communications in December) from December back a couple of months to September.
I'm still looking forward to 2009, no matter what the subject of the announcements I see here or on Bill's blog are - maybe even more so now than a typical year because of the teasers from his blog postings.
Aren't you?

[GeorgeTheEng]

There's a point that I haven't seen raised in this thread. (or I missed in which case I apologize)

In the last few years we've seen the economy take a significant downturn. (I'm starting to lose count of the banks and mortgage firms needing "bail outs") Costs of most consumer items have gotten higher. (most of us pay double or triple what we did for gas just 2 or 3 years ago) In some sectors, corporate profits have declined. Through all this, FIRST has managed to keep the entry fee/ KOP fee constant. Even while growing and asking suppliers for more and more items.

It is entirely possible that FIRST is being faced with a simple choice... Reuse the control system or raise the KOP fees in 2010 and beyond. If that is the case, then I support reuse. Keep more teams in the game. Let the "rich teams" buy additional controlers. Or maybe get a few teams together to share the cost and have one that can be passed around for demos and such (of course then your electronics need to be designed to be easily accessible and the wiring well documented).

There is always a design to question change and worry about it's implications. Personally I think like would be boring if everything stayed static. Enjoy the change, learn something new, adapt.

[Greg Needel]

Originally Posted by GeorgeTheEng

There's a point that I haven't seen raised in this thread. (or I missed in which case I apologize)

In the last few years we've seen the economy take a significant downturn. (I'm starting to lose count of the banks and mortgage firms needing "bail outs") Costs of most consumer items have gotten higher. (most of us pay double or triple what we did for gas just 2 or 3 years ago) In some sectors, corporate profits have declined. Through all this, FIRST has managed to keep the entry fee/ KOP fee constant. Even while growing and asking suppliers for more and more items.

It is entirely possible that FIRST is being faced with a simple choice... Reuse the control system or raise the KOP fees in 2010 and beyond. If that is the case, then I support reuse. Keep more teams in the game. Let the "rich teams" buy additional controlers. Or maybe get a few teams together to share the cost and have one that can be passed around for demos and such (of course then your electronics need to be designed to be easily accessible and the wiring well documented).

There is always a design to question change and worry about it's implications. Personally I think like would be boring if everything stayed static. Enjoy the change, learn something new, adapt.

I am aware of the economic situation as well as everyone else is and at this point would be understanding if FIRST had to make these tough choices but the issue I have with that is the fact that they didn't say that. FIRST claims that they are doing it for "environmental" reason not financial ones. That is what caused this uproar in the first place. Yes if faced with the reality of having to re-use the control system teams will adapt but I would want a real justification for the change beyond the facade that first is trying to play off. If it is financial they should say it, if it is because they can't manufacture that many every year they should say it. When will FIRST learn that we all care about this organization and they will gain way more points with the community if they are just upfront with us.


On another note has FIRST announced the registration fees yet this year? Do we know if they are going to go up THIS year?

[Andy Brockway]

Originally Posted by Greg Needel

On another note has FIRST announced the registration fees yet this year? Do we know if they are going to go up THIS year?

It has not changed except for Michigan.

http://www.usfirst.org/community/frc...nt.aspx?id=460

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by GeorgeTheEng

There's a point that I haven't seen raised in this thread. (or I missed in which case I apologize)

In the last few years we've seen the economy take a significant downturn. (I'm starting to lose count of the banks and mortgage firms needing "bail outs") Costs of most consumer items have gotten higher. (most of us pay double or triple what we did for gas just 2 or 3 years ago) In some sectors, corporate profits have declined. Through all this, FIRST has managed to keep the entry fee/ KOP fee constant. Even while growing and asking suppliers for more and more items.

It is entirely possible that FIRST is being faced with a simple choice... Reuse the control system or raise the KOP fees in 2010 and beyond. If that is the case, then I support reuse. Keep more teams in the game. Let the "rich teams" buy additional controlers. Or maybe get a few teams together to share the cost and have one that can be passed around for demos and such (of course then your electronics need to be designed to be easily accessible and the wiring well documented).

There is always a design to question change and worry about it's implications. Personally I think like would be boring if everything stayed static. Enjoy the change, learn something new, adapt.

I don't think the economy has anything to do with it. If it did, FIRST would have been incredibly foolish to switch to a new, substantially more expensive system.

[Leav]

I'm just going to guess that the NI system is sooooooo expensive that they just can't afford to sponsor so many systems each year.
Theyere going to do 1700 the first year, and then only about 200-300 every year after that, which is I guess much more reasonable...

In which case I wish the switch wasn't made in the first place.
(ofcourse there were a 10^(10^10) other considerations.. blah blah blah... )

how many teams were really getting limited by the old controller?
I am going to guess around 10, if any at all.

Any way, there is the chance the the NI controller is 90% depleted uranium (which would explain the weight....) and so the enviormental issue is real

FIRST, Please don't hurt the teams from economic motives, or for the sake of looking foolish for going back to IFI... Thanks!

-Leav

[,4lex S.]

All designers should take this as a challenge,

Why not design all future robots, and reconfigure all past robots to run with an easy install cRio based control board? Sort of like how you can yank a hard drive out of one computer and put it in another without much problem (and have it work). Design solutions should be how we solve this problem (although I wouldn't mind having at least 2 floating around anyways).

[Cory]

Originally Posted by ,4lex S.

All designers should take this as a challenge,

Why not design all future robots, and reconfigure all past robots to run with an easy install cRio based control board? Sort of like how you can yank a hard drive out of one computer and put it in another without much problem (and have it work). Design solutions should be how we solve this problem (although I wouldn't mind having at least 2 floating around anyways).

Because it would be a physical impossibility for us to fit a cRIO in our 2006, 2007, or 2008 robots.

We shouldn't see this as a challenge, we should see this as a step taken backwards, simply for progress' sake, where none was particularly needed.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

I don't think the economy has anything to do with it. If it did, FIRST would have been incredibly foolish to switch to a new, substantially more expensive system.

Unfortunately, the only economic factors that apply is us buying the new system. Hopefully, its status quo or cheaper than before, but I doubt it.

[Bob Steele]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

What distresses me most about moving to the cRIO and not recieving a new system every year is the sheer amount of abuse teams often put their control systems through. Yes, I know, 4 foot drops onto concrete and all that jazz. I realized it's a hardened industrial controller meant to stand up to some pretty harsh environments. But I don't think it's actually design to withstand people intentionally trying to damage it, as so often happens with our rookies.

I'm seriously doubting that the cRIO is going to fair any better than the IFI controller did if a robot runs away at full speed with a tether cord attached to it. Nor do I think it will react well to metal shavings inside the case when the mechanical team is doing something while the cRIO isn't properly sealed. I can think of a dozen ways for the thing to get damaged, and extending its service life over several years isn't going to help. As for all the sidecars and bumpers and such.... Well I think their names were aptly chosen. So while it's a good policy to not trash things that don't need to be, things get trashed quite often in our competitions. Our robots are typically designed for ridiculousy short service lives and then horribly abused during said life. A semi-inexpensive controller that's replaceable seems to fit right in. If anyone in the thread competes in BEST, they already know the beating high school students can put on electronics reusing them year after year.

I have competed in BEST and those components are NOTHING like the cRIO.
I have seen a working cRIO dropped from a two story building and land and keep working. (as a demonstration). This controller is nothing like anything we have ever used in FIRST before ... or ANY other robotics competition has ever used. It is made to take abuse.

From what I understand if you purchased this control system on the free market you would be paying $8-10,000. NI is giving us the opportunity this coming year of purchasing a second unit for $1000 ...

Our team uses our demo robots also and never takes them apart.
I think there are many ways to skin this cat though... Those teams that have last year's (2008 controller) or previous could probably figure out a way to make it operate an old robot. We might not be able to do autonomous... but we could certainly use it to operate the robot.

Another cheap way to do this would be by using a VEX controller.
A vex controller can pretty easily control most of what any FIRST robot has done for the past 4 years..if not all...

Now, if you build a LABVIEW based robot in 2009 you will have a tougher time retrofitting it to a VEX or previous IFI controller but it might be an interesting engineering assignment for the off season too.

I think that NI and their partners are providing something here that is going to be a critical turning point in FIRST robotics. The possibilities of this controller are incredible. Who knows... it may even make autonomous TOO easy to do... AND we are teaching students to use INDUSTRY STANDARD hardware and software.

This is an incredible opportunity for FIRST teams all over.
Let's wait and see before we start crying about spilled controllers.

This is going to be a great ride this year....

Good luck to everyone...
I hope you are doing your homework!!!