My team is running a tank drive setup this year, and have added an encoder onto each side. We are also using the NavX for angle measurements. We will have a variety of methods that rely on angle measurements from the NavX and distance measurements using one or both encoders.
However, I am wondering if there is really any benefit to having both encoders. If for distance we just take a raw average of both measurements, we are basically getting slightly more precision in exchange for a doubled failure rate. It seems to me that unless you are using two encoders to sense angles in place of a gyro (or some sort of fusion) there is almost no benefit to having dual encoders.
How does your team integrate dual encoders into the code? Does anyone just mount/use a single encoder?
Does anyone actually do this in FRC? I had played around with the idea of constantly checking both encoders, and if one is consistently outputting zero (possibly indicative of faulty wiring), switch to the other one. Are there any other common failure modes that we could look for?
His description suggests that it accounts only for an encoder reporting too few counts. If either of the two reaches the target, the code considers the travel distance satisfied and continues to the next step. Since the typical encoder failure results in it not counting at all, this is highly likely to have the desired result.
We have encoders and potentiometers on all of our joints, both for zeroing and fault detection. Last year we correctly e-stopped our elevators when one of the encoders got unplugged. Not the drivetrain, but still a use of redundancy.