|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
(1) Victor and (4) Jaguars came with the 2009 Control System.
Side-by-side size comparison
19-11-2008 16:23
DavidGitzI wonder what the difference is on the digital output of the dig. sidecar between the victor pwm VI and the jaguar pwm VI. If someone could check this with an o-scope that would be pretty cool.
19-11-2008 16:44
billbo911|
I wonder what the difference is on the digital output of the dig. sidecar between the victor pwm VI and the jaguar pwm VI. If someone could check this with an o-scope that would be pretty cool.
|
19-11-2008 16:49
Kingofl337correct - update rates
Servo 20ms
Victor 10ms
Jaguar 5ms
19-11-2008 17:00
JesseKI wonder if the Jaguar has to be calibrated like the victor. First thing we should test is if the 'neutral' of the Jaguar is truly 127. There's a 'calibrating a victor' thread around here somewhere and I won't have a chance to even ask our team to do it until Tuesday.
19-11-2008 17:35
robostangs548
Calibrate, With it's mini-computer like size, it should calibrate and program itself. LOL
19-11-2008 17:38
Nate Smith
|
I wonder if the Jaguar has to be calibrated like the victor. First thing we should test is if the 'neutral' of the Jaguar is truly 127. There's a 'calibrating a victor' thread around here somewhere and I won't have a chance to even ask our team to do it until Tuesday.
|
|
Originally Posted by Jaguar Getting Started
Q Do I need to calibrate my Jaguar (MDL-BDC)?
A Depends, but probably not. The Jaguar (MDL-BDC) module does have a calibration mode; however, the need to use the calibration mode is unnecessary if you are using a cRIO system and a new Jaguar (MDL-BDC)—because the default parameters of the Jaguar (MDL-BDC) are tuned for use with a cRIO. The calibration mode is provided if you want to use a Jaguar (MDL-BDC) with another source of Servo (PWM) signal that does not have the same range of pulse widths (for example, an older robot controller). If you have calibrated your Jaguar (MDL-BDC) from a different source and move it back to a cRIO system, you will need to recalibrate. |
19-11-2008 18:16
Joe Ross
|
I wonder if the Jaguar has to be calibrated like the victor. First thing we should test is if the 'neutral' of the Jaguar is truly 127. There's a 'calibrating a victor' thread around here somewhere and I won't have a chance to even ask our team to do it until Tuesday.
|
19-11-2008 18:30
EricVanWyk|
I wonder what the difference is on the digital output of the dig. sidecar between the victor pwm VI and the jaguar pwm VI. If someone could check this with an o-scope that would be pretty cool.
|
|
I wonder if the Jaguar has to be calibrated like the victor. First thing we should test is if the 'neutral' of the Jaguar is truly 127. There's a 'calibrating a victor' thread around here somewhere and I won't have a chance to even ask our team to do it until Tuesday.
|
19-11-2008 18:53
gorrilla|
The Jaguar pulses are faster and longer, to get updates quicker with more resolution. You can also calibrate the Jaguar to the Victor pulse widths.
Remember, we are in floating point math now: 1.0 is forward 0.0 is stop -1.0 is reverse |
19-11-2008 19:53
RedHeadRoboticsLooks pretty cool. I can't wait to get to try them out with the new control system
19-11-2008 21:24
waialua359The only downfall as stated earlier is its size compared to the victors. Now that you get an actual pic side by side, that has huge ramifications on the amount of additional space you need to run them.
At least they are CHEAPER for now...........
19-11-2008 22:56
Coach NormThe cheaper price will remain throughout the 2009 season according to Luminary Micro if you use the proper link. See post here for info: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...&postcount=102
20-11-2008 01:27
R.C.
I was thinking about it, the size isn't toooo bad. Life is fun of obstacles, finding a path around them is all the fun.
20-11-2008 19:49
darkemberHow much more does the Jaguar wiegh then the victor?
20-11-2008 22:06
I have to say, I'm not too thrilled about having to pack these suckers into our robot... In the past, electronics have already been a squeeze. We shall see, though.
On the plus side, it seems like it will be slightly harder for us to drop shavings and chips onto the H bridge, and fry them! This is good, because high school students seem to have an impressive ability to fry any electronic system you put in front of them...
20-11-2008 22:12
Matt382Jaguars and Victos weigh approximately the same. I know from holding them and comparing; there is no noticable difference unless you put it on a very accurate scale.
20-11-2008 22:51
Deep DarkI simply cannot get over the size difference. I'm really not a complainer, but having controls aspects adding more weight, and taking up more space, on the robot is not exactly something I am looking forward to. I guess we'll just need to not put as much mechanical stuff on inorder to make weight and size.
20-11-2008 23:31
synth3tk
It depends on the limits this year. I'm sure they'll take the new system into consideration when making the rules this season.
21-11-2008 00:14
Vikesrock
|
It depends on the limits this year. I'm sure they'll take the new system into consideration when making the rules this season.
|
21-11-2008 00:28
Andrew Schreiber|
I simply cannot get over the size difference. I'm really not a complainer, but having controls aspects adding more weight, and taking up more space, on the robot is not exactly something I am looking forward to. I guess we'll just need to not put as much mechanical stuff on inorder to make weight and size.
|
21-11-2008 00:33
synth3tk
Oh, my bad. I misread the post. I thought he meant weight limits.
Well, as stated above, plan on cleaning up your electronics nicely this year, and you should be fine.
21-11-2008 00:39
Vikesrock
|
Oh, my bad. I misread the post. I thought he meant weight limits.
Well, as stated above, plan on cleaning up your electronics nicely this year, and you should be fine. |
21-11-2008 02:29
synth3tk
Wow, I guess he did. It's time for me to go to bed..... 
21-11-2008 06:27
Cory
|
Well, as stated above, plan on cleaning up your electronics nicely this year, and you should be fine.
|
21-11-2008 07:10
Triple B|
I'd like to think that 254 and 968 have nicely organized electronics boards and I can say without a doubt that we could not possibly fit jaguars into any of our past 3 robots without redesigning the actual robot itself.
The size of the jaguar is a very real concern for us, regardless of how much better it's performance may or may not be. |
21-11-2008 09:54
NickE
21-11-2008 10:46
JesseKI imagine we'll see more 3-D layouts for electronics this year. The first layout we'll probably try is an upside-down "T", with the Jaguars on the vertical part.
22-11-2008 21:46
samir13kI got our kit today, and i saw the pro and the con of the jaguar
Pro: good performance, SURPRISINGLY LIGHT WEIGHT!!!
Con: looks even bigger in person (at least i think)
22-11-2008 21:56
AdamHeard
Can someone actually weigh the two and post?
A .1lb difference may not be noticeable by holding them, but could easily be an entire pound on the robot.
22-11-2008 22:01
Andrew SchreiberIf no one gets to this I can do it Wednesday.
22-11-2008 22:09
Lowfategg
Victor: 101.1 grams (.223 lbs)
Jaguar: 166.5 grams (.367 lbs)
Ecck! 
(on the flip side the jaguar's do come with nice little stickers!)
By the way, if anyone else wants to know the weight of anything I be glad to measure it.
Edit: Updated with correct weights.
22-11-2008 23:38
samir13k|
Jaguar is 162.5 grams (0.358 lbs)
Victor is 97 grams (0.21 lbs) Ecck! ![]() (on the flip side the jaguar's do come with nice little stickers!) By the way, if anyone else wants to know the weight of anything I be glad to measure it. Like the cRio with modules, 1677.8 grams (3.699 pounds) |
22-11-2008 23:55
AdamHeard
|
Jaguar is 162.5 grams (0.358 lbs)
Victor is 97 grams (0.21 lbs) Ecck! ![]() (on the flip side the jaguar's do come with nice little stickers!) By the way, if anyone else wants to know the weight of anything I be glad to measure it. Like the cRio with modules, 1677.8 grams (3.699 pounds) |
23-11-2008 00:10
Lowfategg
|
IFI lists the Victors as .25 Lbs, even then, it's a good deal heavier.
|
23-11-2008 00:23
blaxbbwhat about the weight of the old power distribution block, maxi fuse panel, and other fuse panel combined vs the weight of the new PD board
23-11-2008 02:18
Alan Anderson
|
I got our kit today, and i saw the pro and the con of the jaguar
Pro: good performance, SURPRISINGLY LIGHT WEIGHT!!! Con: looks even bigger in person (at least i think) |
23-11-2008 10:12
Lowfategg
Well, it seems that my scale was off, so I calibrated it (the wonders of analog technology). These weights are hopefully more accurate.
Victor: 101.1 grams (.223 lbs)
Jaguar: 166.5 grams (.367 lbs)
Sorry about that!
23-11-2008 17:30
Burmeister #279150% larger,
150% heavier,
lets just hope it performs more than 150% better =)
24-11-2008 00:12
samir13k|
150% larger,
150% heavier, lets just hope it performs more than 150% better =) |

24-11-2008 08:58
Tom LineI think burmeister forgot that area is the square of length. So the length is 150% larger... but the area, well....
24-11-2008 09:45
JesseKYesterday we figured out a nifty space-saving way to mount these, and I'll post a pic tomorrow night once I put the memory card back into my camera so it will save the picture
Take a 1/16" wall angle aluminum piece that has 2.5" legs (hard to find I know, we had to cut metal meant for another purpose to get it), drill holes that are far enough up and apart so that a Jaguar can be vertically mounted to it. Then, mount the Jaguars back-to-back on the mount -- but -- rotate one of the Jaguars 180 degrees on the axis that's normal to the mount plate. This will put all of the motor outputs on one side and all of the power inputs on the other. Then, using either a 3" #8 bolt & nut, OR a #10 2" machine screw, you can screw the Jaguars to each other. For a production mount piece, you can mill out unnecessary metal from the middle and still maintain the rigidity.
WARNING: A #10 machine bolt will thread the inside of the holes. We haven't done shock testing yet with this setup, so YMMV for longevity of the mount.
Other than that, your power distribution block will need plenty of room on each side! This isn't room for wiring, no, it's room so that you can horizontally put a tiny screw driver in the slot in order to take a wire in or out. You can't do this from the top of the PDB, nor really effectively at an angle. The PDB was the single deciding factor in the majority of our preliminary electronics layout. Could someone point us to an effective tool that has a flat 90 degree tip, to alleviate that problem?
24-11-2008 09:49
IndySam
Every time this thread pops up I get Cole Porter in my head.
25-11-2008 07:21
robostangs548
When I saw pictures like this on CD I thought that they were going to be like GINOURMOUS, but they really are not that big, and they feel like there construction is of much better quality, like it is a "top of the line" type product. I actually like them, and don't really mind the size, because they pretty much are equal in weight.
25-11-2008 11:56
Cory
|
When I saw pictures like this on CD I thought that they were going to be like GINOURMOUS, but they really are not that big, and they feel like there construction is of much better quality, like it is a "top of the line" type product. I actually like them, and don't really mind the size, because they pretty much are equal in weight.
|
25-11-2008 13:12
Jonathan Norris
I'm not too excited for these until we can use the CAN features, and see how the nifty built features actually work.
30-11-2008 18:05
daltore|
I hardly think putting a pretty plastic casing around them makes them more "quality" than the victors.
|
30-11-2008 19:55
synth3tk
And, as stated somewhere in one of these threads, it's an awesome engineering challenge. Where's the fun if it were just a puzzle? 
30-11-2008 20:25
mcf747Im going to touch on a few points here.....
|
Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber
With any luck it will FORCE teams to clean up their wiring and electrical boards.
|
|
Originally Posted by Deep Dark
guess we'll just need to not put as much mechanical stuff on inorder to make weight and size.
|
|
Yesterday we figured out a nifty space-saving way to mount these, and I'll post a pic tomorrow night once I put the memory card back into my camera so it will save the picture
Take a 1/16" wall angle aluminum piece that has 2.5" legs (hard to find I know, we had to cut metal meant for another purpose to get it), drill holes that are far enough up and apart so that a Jaguar can be vertically mounted to it. Then, mount the Jaguars back-to-back on the mount -- but -- rotate one of the Jaguars 180 degrees on the axis that's normal to the mount plate. This will put all of the motor outputs on one side and all of the power inputs on the other. Then, using either a 3" #8 bolt & nut, OR a #10 2" machine screw, you can screw the Jaguars to each other. For a production mount piece, you can mill out unnecessary metal from the middle and still maintain the rigidity. |