We however, feel that although this ruling is by the rules verbatim, it is not in the spirit of the rule. The motor is an integrated part of a self contained sensor module, and does not have any mechanical effect on the surrounding components. We are not trying to get FIRST to revoke their ruling, but we are curious if any other teams are looking at using these. Any thoughts?
I will add that what they have said is that sensors using Servos need to have their servos plugged into the RoboRIO (or I’m assuming any approved MXP modules). The kinect does not utilize a servo… it is a motor, just to be clear. Here’s a picture of said motor:
I’m left with more questions after the ruling. Does it mean that the kinect can be used with its motor if the motor is powered via a PWM port on the RoboRIO? What constitutes a servo? Can any 5v motor be used as a servo? Do the Q&A folks read Chief Delphi and know about this thread? SOOO many questions!
Based on the Q & A response I would remove the motor (or the whole base) and you are good. It is too bad they didn’t whitelist the Kinect since it was a KOP device.
So based on the Q&A you will not find out until inspection. If what is in the Kinect is a “motor” not listed in the rules, you will have to replace it one listed in the rules (window motor :eek: )& control it from the RoboRIO. You are better off calling it a “servo”. Hopefully the GDC rethinks this & interprets a fully enclosed COTS sensor motor to be equivalent to a hard drive or fan.