Our biggest concern still remains as we try to communicate the video stream from the Nano to a computer. The original idea where we edit the kernel for the USB video protocol was too complicated and we couldn’t figure it out so we transitioned the focus to seeing if we could communicate anything to the computer and found that we could use gstreamer to pass the stream around. With the initial testing we were able to get a connection but the actual data was being corrupted somewhere and we think it has to do with the bytes not being encoded into a payload properly and plan to focus on that for the next week. With the demo happening next week we really hope we get this portion completed and integrated with the current system. At a minimum we will have our cv and motors interacting with each other and hope to possibly integrate with the audio as well. With the struggle of getting a video stream transferred over we have considered changing our design to not include the audio passthrough and use a separate mic completely from the setup. This can lead to another cost but we will still be within the budget if we need to buy a new one. We also still have the other contingency plan that we talked about with Vyas where we just use a separate camera completely but we feel that it would remove a huge part of our project and are uncertain of how to pivot from that version.

As for the audio part of iContact, the sampling rate for the microphones is significantly lower than we anticipated from what was advertised in the description of the parts we purchased. This rather large drop means that we will lack the precision to accurately perform the acoustic location calculations we had been planning to base our implementation on… However, we also discovered that we can actually use up to eight microphones, as opposed to three, which we previously thought was our limit. Anna is devising a new plan involving more microphones that can make the most of the components available to us without having to rely on precise acoustic location.