Posted by Dan.
Other on team #10, BSM, from Carnegie Mellon and Banner Engineering.
Posted on 7/1/2000 9:22 AM MST
Innovation First is working along with some BattleBots competitors to create a battle-ready version of their controller (a bit cheaper and a bit tougher.) But, there’s a little dispute in the BB forum whether the current Innovation First controller is at all appropriate (specifically regarding response time.) So, since I didn’t get my grubby mits on the control system personally, does anyone see any reason why the control system wouldn’t work for BattleBots? Speak now or forever hold your peace.
Thanks,:-Dan
Posted by Adam Krajewski.
Student on team #68, Truck Town Terror, from Walled Lake Central High School and General Motors Truck Group.
Posted on 7/2/2000 3:33 PM MST
In Reply to: Innovation FIRST Controllers & BattleBots posted by Dan on 7/1/2000 9:22 AM MST:
Innovation FIRST makes a good robot controller. Tons of PWM and relay outputs, lots of digital and analog sensor inputs, the BASIC Stamp II SX is a very easy to program unit, two-way communication, all in a nice small package. Overall, a good unit. However, for BattleBots, I have seen a couple of things that may cause problems.
- The reliability of the EEPROM. I know that our team has had problems with ‘losing’ programs. I also saw a similar problem at BOMB when 27’s (OSMTech) robot ‘lost’ a program after a hard fought match. I’m not sure if there is reliability issues associated with EEPROM, but I’ve observed some problems.
- The Innovation FIRST Radio Modems. Is it just me, or were the Motorola radio modems used in previous years less susceptible to interference? Again, nothing concrete, but something to consider.
- Price tag. It’s a bit pricey, though I’m not sure what other kind of control systems of high you could find for less.
Well, having picked apart the Innovation FIRST controller, I will say that I don’t know of any better unit. 
Posted by Nate Smith.
Other on team #66, GM Powertrain/Willow Run HS, from Eastern Michigan University and GM Powertrain.
Posted on 7/2/2000 5:08 PM MST
In Reply to: Re: Innovation FIRST Controllers & BattleBots posted by Adam Krajewski on 7/2/2000 3:33 PM MST:
: 2. The Innovation FIRST Radio Modems. Is it just me, or were the Motorola radio modems used in previous years less susceptible to interference? Again, nothing concrete, but something to consider.
You’d be suprised what I saw cause problems with the old system that didn’t even touch this year’s…in '99, my team(74 at the time) tried using one of those RF paging systems that you can get from Radio Shack to keep our team informed at Nationals. Well, as we were setting up our pit on Thursday, and went to fire up the pagers as our engineers were working on the robot. As soon as we sent a page, the drive wheels on our robot started spinning for a couple seconds, WHILE ON TETHER! While I know this doesn’t directly relate to the radios, it’s still a interference problem that I haven’t heard of at all, especially with all the teams using FRS radios to communicate with their team members this year.
Also, the team number attached to each data packet this year helps to increase the reliability. Yes, if you’ve got 40-50 teams in the pit area all on channel 40(or one of the other 4 accessable channels without an Arena controller), your RC will pick up stray packets from another machine and stop responding, but with each team assigned a unique channel once on the field, interference is all but gone. Not to mention that the RNets were WAY too powerful for what they were being used for during their time as the ‘official’ FIRST competition radio. I heard a story from FIRST about one year, they were testing RNets before competitions, and picked up a stray signal while scanning the frequencies. It ended up being a team on the other side of town running their machine!
I’m not saying that they’re perfect by any means(2.4Ghz would probably be more reliable and less used than the 900Mhz that the IF radios run at), but I still think they’re quite an improvement, after working with the RNets for two years.
Nate
Posted by Adam Krajewski.
Student on team #68, Truck Town Terror, from Walled Lake Central High School and General Motors Truck Group.
Posted on 7/2/2000 11:00 PM MST
In Reply to: Re: Innovation FIRST Controllers & BattleBots posted by Nate Smith on 7/2/2000 5:08 PM MST:
In my experiences, running TWO teams on channel 40 is a nightmare. Let alone trying to run your robot while any sort walkie-talkie type radios are around. We’ve run a handfull of demos over the beginning of the summer and found out that radios of any kind used near the 'bots have an adverse effect. The best solution we’ve found was to turn the radios to their highest channels, and the 'bots to the lowest. We’ve also found that one of the channels accessable through the competition port, I believe it’s 20, rarely works at all. :\ So I’d WELCOME the old powerful radio modems back…
Adam
Posted by Joe Johnson. [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]
Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.
Posted on 7/3/2000 12:46 PM MST
In Reply to: Re: Innovation FIRST Controllers & BattleBots posted by Adam Krajewski on 7/2/2000 11:00 PM MST:
I will never willingly go back to the RNETS.
How many replays due to radio problems were required in 2000? Not very many, if any.
Believe me, they were MUCH more common in 1999 and earlier.
In my opinion, the Innovation First control system was among the most important improvements to the kit in the entire history of FIRST.
Joe J.
Posted by Adam Krajewski.
Student on team #68, Truck Town Terror, from Walled Lake Central High School and General Motors Truck Group.
Posted on 7/3/2000 2:19 PM MST
In Reply to: Almost No Replays in 2000 – Speaks Volumes… posted by Joe Johnson on 7/3/2000 12:46 PM MST:
Very true…
But is that the fault of the RNETs or the old control system?
My problem with the new radio modems stems from trying to run multiple robots at non-FIRST events, which is a minor defect, but something Innovation FIRST should certainly be looking into, especially if their products are going to be used in robotics events beyond FIRST competitions i.e. the BattleBots.
Posted by Nate Smith.
Other on team #66, GM Powertrain/Willow Run HS, from Eastern Michigan University and GM Powertrain.
Posted on 7/4/2000 7:41 PM MST
In Reply to: Re: Almost No Replays in 2000 – Speaks Volumes… posted by Adam Krajewski on 7/3/2000 2:19 PM MST:
: My problem with the new radio modems stems from trying to run multiple robots at non-FIRST events, which is a minor defect, but something Innovation FIRST should certainly be looking into, especially if their products are going to be used in robotics events beyond FIRST competitions i.e. the BattleBots.
I discussed the control system at length with Dave ‘The Man’ from Innovation First as we were setting up the arena controllers at the Great Lakes regional. As I understand it, the main issue of running multiple machines at non-FIRST events is the limit of 5 channels without the Arena Controllers. The channel issue could be easily solved by the organizing group behind the event(BattleBots, etc.) purchasing a set of Arena Controllers from Innovation First. Innovation First was considering allowing access to all 40 channels, but in the end, decided against it to avoid the interference between robots in the pit and those on the field.
And the problem with running multiple machines on a single channel stems from the new team number identification built into the system. By no means would I call it a ‘defect.’ The team number system built into the controllers helps to prevent machines behaving erratically if a stray signal from another machine is picked up. Would you rather have a machine go crazy on you when it picked up a signal from another machine, or just stop responding?
Nate
Posted by Adam Krajewski.
Student on team #68, Truck Town Terror, from Walled Lake Central High School and General Motors Truck Group.
Posted on 7/5/2000 9:13 PM MST
In Reply to: Re: Almost No Replays in 2000 – Speaks Volumes… posted by Nate Smith on 7/4/2000 7:41 PM MST:
Hmm.
I suppose that you are correct.
It is much easier to look on the robot’s radio modem and see that the ‘receive’ light is turning off (once we figured out it was there, after looking for loose battery connections all over the machine), rather than trying to find ‘the short’ we had in last year’s machine that caused random behavior, which, I’m now guessing, was radio interference.
Adam
Posted by Nate Smith.
Other on team #66, GM Powertrain/Willow Run HS, from Eastern Michigan University and GM Powertrain.
Posted on 7/6/2000 10:54 AM MST
In Reply to: Re: Almost No Replays in 2000 – Speaks Volumes… posted by Adam Krajewski on 7/5/2000 9:13 PM MST:
: Hmm.
: I suppose that you are correct.
: It is much easier to look on the robot’s radio modem and see that the ‘receive’ light is turning off (once we figured out it was there, after looking for loose battery connections all over the machine), rather than trying to find ‘the short’ we had in last year’s machine that caused random behavior, which, I’m now guessing, was radio interference.
: Adam
Also, the rotating light can serve as an indicator as to if you have a good connection between your operator controls and the robot. The control system onboard shuts down all outputs if it does not have a signal from your controls, which means that the rotating light(if wired correctly - I saw a few in Ypsi that were just on whenever the battery was plugged in) will turn off if your robot loses the signal from your OI.
Nate
Posted by Adam Krajewski.
Student on team #68, Truck Town Terror, from Walled Lake Central High School and General Motors Truck Group.
Posted on 7/6/2000 3:08 PM MST
In Reply to: Quick Note Re. New Radio System posted by Nate Smith on 7/6/2000 10:54 AM MST:
I have found the ‘correctly’ wired light to actually hinder the realization that your problems are caused by radio interference. Because usually the interference lasts only a moment, the light turns off and so do the speed controller lights (they are actually blinking, but it seems as if they ‘turn off’), which makes you immediately think there is a problem with the battery connection…
Adam
Posted by Dan.
Other on team #10, BSM, from Carnegie Mellon and Banner Engineering.
Posted on 7/3/2000 2:18 AM MST
In Reply to: Re: Innovation FIRST Controllers & BattleBots posted by Adam Krajewski on 7/2/2000 3:33 PM MST:
:::3. Price tag. It’s a bit pricey, though I’m not sure what other kind of control systems of high you could find for less.
The Innovation First guys have plans to cut the price on the control system by about $500 to $850, from the sounds of it that should happen soon.
:-Dan
Posted by Joe Johnson. [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]
Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.
Posted on 7/3/2000 12:38 PM MST
In Reply to: Re: Innovation FIRST Controllers & BattleBots posted by Dan on 7/3/2000 2:18 AM MST:
The performance per dollar for the Innovation First controller is the highest I know of.
Have any of you who say that their system is pricey ever purchased any of the other systems out there?
My experience is that the cheaps ones don’t work well and the ones that do work well cost several times as much as the Innovation First system.
Joe J.