1. Mobile robot controller Group 2

2. Group 2 - Robot controller project - TDT4240 Software Architecture Group 2 Leif Hamang Bru Lisa W. Eriksen Kay Are Ulvestad Gunnar René Øie

3. Group 2 - Robot controller project - TDT4240 Software Architecture Introduction Project problem  What we should do  The quality attribute in focus was availability

4. Group 2 - Robot controller project - TDT4240 Software Architecture LookoutCaptainNavigatorPilot Perception subsystem Uses Blackboard Blackboard architectural pattern

5. Group 2 - Robot controller project - TDT4240 Software Architecture Attributes realised in architecture Availability  Redundant blackboards  Voting  Possibility for redundant crewmembers

6. Group 2 - Robot controller project - TDT4240 Software Architecture We have learned We should have learned more about the robot before setting our goals, and taken a simpler approach. Got some more documentation practice. The ATAM process should be used with larger teams. Using software architecture may be hard if the system is small and highly interconnected.

7. Group 2 - Robot controller project - TDT4240 Software Architecture Findings/achievements ATAM works as a structured way to give feedback. Feedback was valuable, to improve explanation of architectural choices. Quality requirements are sacrificed to achieve functionality We were able to make all the modules needed to solve the problem, but didn’t finish putting them together. Why: Discrete movement problem.

8. Demonstration Strategy: 1. Build internal map 2. Map-matching 3. Cover map 4. Move all balls