Situation
During the performance test 3, team G basically focused on using the chosen AEV design and software code while testing smaller variations to optimize energy efficiency. This lab also gave opportunity for the team to solidify the strategy to complete all aspects of the MCR successfully. The energy efficiency was analysed by pulling out data from both sets of code developed during the performance test 2 phase. The team compared the two codes and their respective power usages, and identified certain commands or sequences of commands that use more power than others.
The team continued to work on the consistency and efficiency of the code to ensure the AEV finishes the run successfully. Team G made an analysis on which command is more energy efficient by comparing the celerare command and goFor command. Besides, the team also tested the braking efficiency in two conditions. Lastly, to make the code more efficient, the team decided to let the AEV coast to positions rather than running the motors until the desired position is reached. This will add time to the total run so the pros and cons of utilizing less energy and finishing the run in a timely manner will need to be weighed.
Takeaways
- Reversing the motors for a short period of time is a consistent way to brake the AEV in a desired location.
- Mark readings vary from run to run so it is more consistent to use time as an indicator of where the AEV is on the track.