New Info on 2009 control system, maybe

[willson.thomas]

I think the best implementation would be to simply disable the robot if a joystick is disconnected, and to also require a power cycle to re-enable the robot. This would make sure that no bad data/timing error caused by the disable would make the robot behave erratically.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by willson.thomas

I think the best implementation would be to simply disable the robot if a joystick is disconnected, and to also require a power cycle to re-enable the robot. This would make sure that no bad data/timing error caused by the disable would make the robot behave erratically.

Problematic and probably overkill. How do you implement default code that doesn't need to be changed to run a robot if missing a joystick means the robot won't run? Plus, disabling the whole robot when a joystick read fails probably takes more work.

[willson.thomas]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

Problematic and probably overkill. How do you implement default code that doesn't need to be changed to run a robot if missing a joystick means the robot won't run? Plus, disabling the whole robot when a joystick read fails probably takes more work.

It would only disable the robot if a joystick, which would have been enumerated at the beginning, produces multiple bad reads in a row. This way it would only disable if a joystick went missing while it was running, it wouldn't check at boot. Or you could have it check for joysticks at boot, and simply have four boolean values that need setting.