Hi, I’m wonder from ambiguity of rule
[R52] Robots must be controlled via one programmable National Instruments cRIO (part # cRIO-FRC or
cRIO-FRCII), with image version FRC_2012_v43. Other controllers shall not be used.
if an embedded computer/micro-controller that is only pipping raw data from sensors to the cRIO as a recognizable format count as a controller thus making it illegal.
It would seem since it’s not being used as a controller and is not controlling any aspect of the robot that one may consider it a custom circuit that feeds sensor data to the cRIO via the second Ethernet port which is open to team use as of [R53] B. Past threads people talk about this topic, but they all seem up in the air about it also, so I would like some more certain answers.
They are obviously intending to allow laptops onboard the robot (<R36> says you can use laptop batteries), so…
Specifically, I think a controller would just be anything that controls the motors. The MaxBotics rangefinder we got in the KOP has a “controller” on it, and that’s fine.
If the cRIO is performing all of its required functions, and peripherals that may only be connected to the cRIO (e.g. modules & breakouts) are so connected, then the cRIO is being used properly. For the functions that are left you may use the auxiliary controller, provided it meets all the rules (particularly custom circuits and cost accounting).
Your proposed use would be legal—you may think of the custom circuit as everything starting from the wires connected to the PDB (for power) and the Ethernet port.
Remember that if you buy the embedded computer/controller as a unit, you must account for it as a unit. If you buy individual parts and assemble those, you must account for them separately. This can be critical for compliance with the $400 limit.